Judges suggest court shouldn't solve dispute over Mueller's evidence

[swag]

Source: Politico

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN and JOSH GERSTEIN

Two Republican-appointed judges raised the possibility Monday that the courts should simply butt out of a dispute between Congress and the Justice Department over Robert Mueller’s underlying evidence.

Democratic lawmakers working on a possible impeachment of President Donald Trump have been seeking access to the secret grand jury information the special counsel’s team relied on during its 22-month probe into Russian election interference and whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin.

But DOJ, acting at the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, has refused to hand over the grand-jury materials and underlying testimony. Grand jury information is typically kept private, but courts can authorize disclosures for a variety of reasons.
Story Continued Below

As a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrestled with the issue Monday morning, Trump-appointed Judge Neomi Rao pointed out that in a 1993 case involving impeachment of a federal judge, the Supreme Court declined to wade into the mechanics of the impeachment process. She suggested that the courts have no business resolving the House’s request for the blacked-out portions of the Mueller report.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/18/court-mueller-russia-probe-071351

[Grasswire2]

1. then WH must comply, right?

[stopdiggin]

4. I think they're implying exactly the opposite

and further claiming (implying) that they might not have any jurisdiction.

(Hmmm. Well this really shoots a hole in the idea that "impeachment" was going to give "added weight and gravitas" to congressional subpoenas and requests before the courts. One HAS to hope that this "evasive action" by the courts doesn't stand up.

[Grasswire2]

5. if they don't have any jurisdiction (and I agree about that)...

...then who will enforce the subpoena. That's the catch.

[stopdiggin]

10. they won't be enforced

and I don't see how you can have checks and balances if there is not SOME arbiter in disputes. In essence you are saying there IS no check on the executive.

[cstanleytech]

13. I think it's actually their constitutional duty to order Trump to turn it over.

Why? Because they are one of the checks on the balance of power and Congress is doing its job under the Constitution which Trump is trying to block.

[Igel]

15. The question is whether or not this is Congress' job.

The courts have been leery of getting involved in separation of power cases. The bigger the case, the more likely it is that it'll reach SCOTUS, whose response will be, "Work it out yourselves."

The court case against Eric Holder over his orders to deny a House subpoena sat there as the courts told the House and Holder to sort it out. In numerous cases the subpoenas were "honored," but only after negotiations and modifications to the wording or clarifications as to the wording's intent were worked out. The administration didn't hardly budge on that subpoena, so it was cancelled last winter after the House flipped (D).

The news feed during those years often went something like, "Once again (after initially defying the subpoenas and then 8 months of intensive negotiations as to who will and will not be subject to the subpoenas and what would and would not be submitted, as well as to restrictions on its use and distributions,) we have fully complied with the House's subpoenas. Many don't remember the kind of stuff in ( ), and very often it wasn't much reported on because instead of defiance it was the weaker moral point of compliance, but at the time outright defiance of the House subpoenas was a great and glorious thing.

[DeminPennswoods]

2. So, maybe a steel cage match to decide?

The winner gets the evidence?

[Dennis Donovan]

3. I'm reading this as they won't force DoJ to turn over the GJ info...

...which means Barr's DoJ gets to stonewall indefinitely.

[ewagner]

6. Agree...n/t

[DENVERPOPS]

7. I have scored a major victory

It seems that many of my friends are now understanding a major issue........McConnel stacking the courts with Republican, incompetent, biased judges.............

It started years ago under W, and no one tuned in. Finally under Trump, the practice of stacking the courts suddenly gained traction.
And most of these are lifetime appointments?

Truly, stacking the Supreme Court as has been done, is by far the most meaningful.......

[StevieM]

8. So does this mean that the Supreme Court made a mistake in 1974 when they ordered Nixon

to hand over the tapes?

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

9. "The government is made up of three co-equal branches, any two which serve as a check

against abuse of power by the others." - My high school civics book, 1966.

My how things have changed.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. Courts should stop with the bothsiderism neutrality and just enforce the law

Balls and strikes, CJ Roberts. "balls and strikes" to use your own analogy.

[TryLogic]

12. I'm not a lawyer, but that Trump judge sounds crazy as hell.

"Judge Neomi Rao... suggested that the courts have no business resolving the House’s request for the blacked-out portions of the Mueller report."

[iluvtennis]

14. I call BS on the judges' suggestion they shouldn't be involved - that's the judiciary's job. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

16. The only recent ruling from the federal courts involving resolving Exec/Legis Branch conflicts

that sortof made sense, seems to have been the one regarding Recess Appointments and whether the Pro-Forma sessions held by the Senate meant they were "really in session" (vs assuming that their only gavelling in every 3 days makes it appear that those other days the chamber was empty, they really weren't "in session" ). Basically the Judicial told the Executive that if the Legislative says that those were "their rules" then those are "their rules", and the Judicial is not going to interpret that any further.

Other than that, they need to note the Constitutional right of the Legislative Branch to carry out Oversight of the Executive (which would include info associated with a Special Prosecutor's investigation).

I would hope that a request for en banc review be made (if possible).