HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » An impeachment inquiry IS... » Reply #24

Response to FBaggins (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 12:31 PM

24. The resolution doesn't need to explicitly "establish that the hearings going forward are preliminary

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

to a judicial proceeding." That's not the point of the resolution.

The resolution authorizes the chair to "petition for disclosure of information regarding any matters identified in or relating to the subpoenas referred to in paragraph (1) or any accompanying report, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), including Rule 6(e)(3)(E) (providing that the court may authorize disclosure of a grand-jury matter “preliminarily to... a judicial proceeding”)" - meaning the chair can now go to court to seek grand jury material under the Rule 6(e) exception that permits disclosure of such material "preliminarily to... a judicial proceeding."

Nadler has already stated that the hearings are not just for oversight but also to explore "constitutional remedies." And courts are very deferential to Congress' determination of the purpose for which it is seeking material (see, e.g., Trump v. Committee on Oversight and Reform ), so the hearings fall squarely within the exception to the grand jury secrecy laws. And the fact that it gives the chair the authority to seek materials under the Rule 6(e) language in connection with the Barr and McGahn subpoenas and other related matters "preliminarily to ... judicial proceedings" makes clear that the House views these hearings as falling within this definition.

Neither I nor the OP claimed the resolution "changed the rules on which that process rests." We correctly explained that the resolution authorizes the chair to go to court under the rules that some people keep incorrectly claiming apply only to impeachment inquiries.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
EffieBlack Jun 11 OP
wryter2000 Jun 11 #1
Me. Jun 11 #2
EffieBlack Jun 11 #3
StarfishSaver Jun 11 #4
stopdiggin Jun 11 #5
Trumpocalypse Jun 11 #6
watoos Jun 11 #7
StarfishSaver Jun 11 #8
watoos Jun 11 #10
StarfishSaver Jun 11 #13
watoos Jun 11 #14
StarfishSaver Jun 11 #16
EffieBlack Jun 11 #17
StarfishSaver Jun 11 #20
Nuggets Jun 12 #27
StarfishSaver Jun 12 #31
EffieBlack Jun 11 #9
watoos Jun 11 #12
EffieBlack Jun 11 #15
brer cat Jun 11 #11
mcar Jun 11 #18
StarfishSaver Jun 11 #19
FBaggins Jun 12 #21
StarfishSaver Jun 12 #22
FBaggins Jun 12 #23
LineLineLineLineNew Reply The resolution doesn't need to explicitly "establish that the hearings going forward are preliminary
StarfishSaver Jun 12 #24
EffieBlack Jun 12 #25
emmaverybo Jun 12 #30
StarfishSaver Jun 12 #32
BeyondGeography Jun 12 #26
StarfishSaver Jun 12 #29
emmaverybo Jun 12 #28
EffieBlack Jun 13 #33
Please login to view edit histories.