HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » These Are the Judges Who ...

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 09:55 PM

These Are the Judges Who Will Decide Whether House Dems Should Get Unredacted Mueller Report

Source: Law & Crime

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments next week on an effort by House Democrats to obtain the full and unredacted report by former special counsel Robert Mueller–including still secret, closely-guarded grand jury materials.

Those discussions won’t take place in front of the entire D.C. Court of Appeals, but will instead be overseen by a three-judge panel.

The panel system operates by way of the chief judge’s discretion. Here, that means Merrick Garland chose Neomi Rao, Thomas Griffith and Judith Rogers to deliberate and decide the next stage of the lawsuit aimed at forcing the release of Mueller’s entire report.

...

Rao was appointed by President Donald Trump in order to replace now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh earlier this year. A decided member of the conservative movement, Rao enraged judicial reform and women’s rights advocates just by virtue of her nomination as Trump’s hand-picked Kavanaugh successor.

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/these-are-the-judges-who-will-decide-whether-democrats-get-the-unredacted-mueller-report/

9 replies, 2325 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply These Are the Judges Who Will Decide Whether House Dems Should Get Unredacted Mueller Report (Original post)
Calista241 Nov 7 OP
Mr.Bill Nov 7 #1
MissMillie Nov 7 #2
onenote Nov 7 #3
iluvtennis Nov 7 #4
Skittles Nov 7 #5
ancianita Nov 7 #6
mountain grammy Nov 8 #7
Igel Nov 8 #8
Skittles Nov 8 #9

Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 10:29 PM

1. I bet some of the redacted material

has the potential to send the House investigation back to square one. The only reason they would have to redact anything and not even let members of congress with the highest security clearances see it is it incriminates Trump, his family and his gang.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 10:39 PM

2. There's some irony here

Merrick Garland chose the 3 judge panel... interesting.

I'm not implying Judge Garland has made his decision based on anything other than the qualifications of the judges... but you can BET your last dollar that if the panel rules in favor of House Democrats, the other side will raise a stink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 10:42 PM

3. Judge Garland did NOT select the panel of judges.

Under the rules of practice of the DC Circuit, the judges that make up a three-judge panel to hear the merits of a case are selected by the clerk of the court, not the Chief Judge. Anyone with any experience practicing before the DC Circuit knows this.


Rule X.B. Merits Panels.

The Clerk assigns the judges in panels of three to the sitting weeks for which they are available for an entire term. The Clerk attempts to pair each active judge with each other active judge an equal number of weeks during the year, insofar as availability permits. If a judge becomes unavailable, he or she may arrange to switch sitting dates with another judge. Depending on their availability, senior judges of this Court also serve on panels.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Handbook%202006%20Rev%202007/$FILE/Handbook20181201.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 11:12 PM

4. Thomas Griffith was nominated by George W. Bush, Judith Rogers nominated by Bill Clinton. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 11:24 PM

5. the TAXPAYERS paid for this report

why is this even an issue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 11:52 PM

6. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 8, 2019, 10:39 AM

7. Exactly!

Now we pay to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 8, 2019, 06:47 PM

8. The taxpayers pay for everything the government does.

Well, that and business and those who pay various fees and expenses and then there are the tariffs ...

Still, that includes the information that they developed for producing nuclear weapons. It includes the transcripts of all the negotiations with Iran over the agreement reached. It includes all cabinet meetings at which sensitive matters were discussed. It includes every single document Hillary Clinton produced while on the clock in the Obama administration and everything Eric Holder did. It includes the names and assignments of every CIA agent and informant.

Much of that is classified. Even Eric Holder refused to consent to a House subpoena for testimony and documents, back when fighting House subpoenas was a virtue and not an evil.

Why is this even an issue?

There may be a valid argument for releasing the full, unredacted report, but this isn't it. If it is, it applies to everything else I listed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 8, 2019, 08:14 PM

9. I don't remember Holder giving a bullshit summary of info he would not release

Barr did - THAT'S why this is an issue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread