Brazil: In partnership, Folha and Intercept reveal new crimes of Moro and Dallagnol

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL 247 NEWS)

 

In partnership, Folha and Intercept reveal new crimes of Moro and Dallagnol

Message packet notes that Sergio Moro and Deltan Dallagnol acted in tune in the episode of the illegal clamp of former president Dilma Rousseff and former president Lula, which was leaked to the National Journal and was decisive for the coup of 2016, which opened space for the rise of the far right in Brazil

247 – “Prosecutors on the front lines of Operation Lava Jato worked together to protect Sergio Moro and prevent tensions between him and the Federal Supreme Court from paralyzing investigations at a critical time for the task force in 2016,” says the first report from the partnership between Folha de S. Paulo and The Intercept. “The objective was to prevent the disclosure of papers found by the Federal Police in the home of an Odebrecht executive to escalate the confrontation with the STF by unduly exposing dozens of politicians who were entitled to a special forum – and which could only be investigated with the authorization of the court.”

Moro and Dallagnol feared that Minister Teori Zavascki would dismantle the investigations that were under Moro’s control in Curitiba, since they reached politicians with a privileged forum. “Tremendous ball in the back of the Pf,” said Moro. “And it’s going to look like an affront.” Moro also referred to the word ‘lambança’, when referring to the error of the PF. 

“Know not only that the immense majority of society is with you, but that we will do all that is necessary to defend you from unjust accusations,” Dallagnol replied, about Moro having in his possession data on persons with a privileged forum.

In this first partnership, Folha and Intercept show that the judge must stay equidistant between prosecution and defense – and not act as one of the parties. What the messages reveal is that Moro was head of the prosecution throughout Operation Lava Jato.

Supreme Court upholds ‘double jeopardy’ standard that could blunt impact of potential Trump pardons

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE USA TODAY NEWS PAPER)

 

Supreme Court upholds ‘double jeopardy’ standard that could blunt impact of potential Trump pardons

A federal judge has sentenced former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to more than 3 1/2 additional years in prison. (March 13) AP

LINKEDIN COMMENT MORE

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court upheld Monday the ability of federal and state governments to prosecute defendants twice for the same crime – a form of double jeopardy that could come into play if President Donald Trump pardons former associates caught up in the Russian election-meddling scandal.

The case, which was heard in early December, had appeared to be an opportunity for challengers to block second prosecutions. But during oral argument, it became clear that a majority of justices were wary of letting criminals go free, possibly including some of those previously sentenced.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote the 7-2 opinion, joined by three conservative and three liberal colleagues. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The case had gained attention largely because of the possibility that Trump could pardon one or more of his former associates convicted in federal court by special counsel Robert Mueller as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

More: Mueller report: Why so many of President Donald Trump’s aides lied to protect him in Russia investigations

If former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was pardoned, he still could face state prosecutions for the same crimes under the court’s precedents. That rule applies because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns.

Alito defended the court’s ruling on the basis of the Fifth Amendment, historical evidence and “170 years of precedent.”

He noted that federal and state governments often have overlapping powers that allow for two layers of regulation. Examples include taxation and rules regarding gambling, alcohol and marijuana, he said.

Ginsburg disagreed. “Different parts of the ‘WHOLE’ United States should not be positioned to prosecute a defendant a second time for the same offense,” she said.

Gorsuch, who has taken up the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s penchant for protecting the rights of criminal defendants, said, “A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it’s happy with the result.”

The Justice Department and a coalition of 36 states had vehemently defended the status quo, which has led to successful second prosecutions after acquittals or hung juries.

It enabled Mississippi to convict Edgar Ray Killen of murdering three civil rights workers in 1964 after federal charges didn’t stick. It helped the federal government convict two Los Angeles police officers for the notorious 1991 beating of Rodney King after a county jury acquitted four officers of nearly all charges. And it helped federal officials win a guilty plea from a South Carolina police officer for the 2015 shooting death of Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, after a state jury deadlocked.

If the court were to revert to a strict rule against double jeopardy, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said when the case was debated: “Look at the door we’re opening up.”

Two years ago, the court ruled 6-2 that Puerto Rico could not prosecute a suspect after his federal conviction because the territory, unlike states, derived its power from the United States. At the time, Ginsburg and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the court consider a similar approach for all levels of government.

The case was brought on behalf of Terance Gamble, who received a one-year prison sentence in Alabama but nearly four years in federal court for the same firearms offense in 2015. Two lower courts upheld the sentences, citing Supreme Court precedent.

Although the terms are running concurrently, Gamble won’t be released until next year. Had the federal government been barred from a second prosecution, he would be free.

Groups on Gamble’s side argued that the double jeopardy clause prevents abuse by prosecutors. They said it helps in obtaining plea bargains, because defendants cannot hope for a second trial.

Nearly half the states already have bars against double jeopardy. That means state prosecutors would need to cite different charges to try Manafort or other former Trump associates already convicted in federal court.

Supreme Court leaves intact block on Indiana abortion restriction, but allows fetal burial to go into effect

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF CNN)

 

Supreme Court leaves intact block on Indiana abortion restriction, but allows fetal burial to go into effect

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a provision of an Indiana law which said the state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by race, sex or disability should remain blocked.

The court, however, did say it would allow part of the law that requires clinics to bury or cremate fetal remains to take effect.
The fact that the court decided not to take up the more controversial provision of the Indiana law suggests that there is not a current appetite on the court to move aggressively to question the court’s core abortion precedents of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Still, supporters of abortion rights will be disappointed and worried that the justices allowed the fetal tissue provision to go into effect.
The law was signed in March 2016 by then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. It was blocked last yearfrom going into effect by the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
In his decision last year, Judge William Bauer wrote that provisions in the law that bar women from seeking abortions in certain cases “clearly violate” what he described as “well-established Supreme Court precedent, and are therefore, unconstitutional.”
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed that the court was right not to take up the provision at this time, but said justices “soon need to confront” the issue.
“Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever,” Thomas wrote. “Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is duty bound to address its scope. In that regard, it is easy to understand why the District Court and the Seventh Circuit looked to Casey to resolve a question it did not address. Where else could they turn? The Constitution itself is silent on abortion.”
But Thomas’s writing doesn’t mean the court will immediately take up the large issue, said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
“Although Justice Thomas argues that the court will soon have to take up the issue it ducked today, I think it’s telling that none of the other conservative justices — John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — joined his separate opinion,” Vladeck said.
“It’s quite possible that Thomas’s opinion is therefore less a prediction of where the court is likely to go than an aspiration,” Vladeck added. “At least for now, the rest of the conservatives don’t seem eager to jump into this sensitive political thicket.”

Fetal remains

Thomas also wrote to express his support for the provision of the law that requires fetal remains be buried or cremated.
“I would have thought it could go without saying that nothing in the Constitution or any decision of this Court prevents a State from requiring abortion facilities to provide for the respectful treatment of human remains,” he wrote.
Indiana’s law requires that fetal remains be disposed of the same way as other human remains (i.e. burial and cremation). A separate provision says that the state can prohibit abortion that is solely motivated by the race, sex, or disability of the fetus.
The law has been blocked from going into effect by lower courts.
In court papers, Curtis Hill Jr., Indiana’s attorney general, said the language “expands on long-established legal and cultural traditions of recognizing the dignity and humanity of the fetus.”
This story is breaking and will be updated.

No One Has THE RIGHT TO COMMIT MURDER

(No One Has The RIGHT TO COMMIT MURDER)

 

Because of some southern states and because of Republicans abortion is once again in the national news. I am going to put two thoughts out to you on this issue. One view will be from a ‘religion’ viewpoint and the other from a person who is chastising the Supreme Court. As a person of faith I believe that once a heartbeat starts, it is murder to stop it. No one has the ‘right’ to kill little babies, no one! If a person gets into an auto accident and kills a pregnant lady they get charged with killing two people. This is an issue that must only be one way, if a fetus has no rights then you are considering the baby to be nothing, if it does have rights then it is a living child.

 

The Supreme Court of the United States has only one main job and that is to honor the Nation’s Constitution. When a case comes before that Court the only thing their job is is to decide if the law before them is Constitutional, or not. I personally disagree with several decisions handed down by the Supreme Court yet when a decision is made by the Court as to if something is Constitutional or not it should never be overturned by a later Court. When you are having to count how many Republicans or how many Democrats are sitting on that Bench then our whole Constitution and our Democracy are at a grave risk. If a Supreme Court has done their Constitutional duty to the people of our country then the laws they say yes or no too should be final and never be overturned by a later set of Justices. Political viewpoints have no place among any of the Chief Justices. Do I personally agree with or like the Roe versus Wade decision in 1973, no, I don’t but if it was Constitutional in 1973, it is still Constitutional today and tomorrow.

STJ PUBLISHES RULING OF THE CASE LULA, WHO CAN ALREADY ASK TO GO HOME

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL 24/7 NEWS)

 

Just My Chatter For The Day About Court Judges

Just My Chatter For The Day About Court Judges

 

My first thought is, damn what a job, no thank you! I noticed in the news a few moments ago about Our Newest United States Supreme Court Justice Mr. Kavanaugh. The article was from ‘The Hill’ about Mr. Kavanaugh having issued his first Decision while on The Bench.

First I would like to say Howdy Judge to this Very Honorable Position you find yourself in. Now this note is to all of you folks who find yourself sitting on a position where you are required to sit in Judgement.  I am thankful that I sit on no judgement seats. I pray that I will never be forced to toward another.

 

Well, what do you think about a person who is a Judge or aspires to become a Judge? I think that this is a Hugely difficult job to be put in charge of, or even a job anyone would want. I would not want to be anyones judge. What I honestly care less about is if a Judge carries an (R) or a (D) with their name as it seems it is a necessary evil at this moment. What I want from a Sitting Judge is for them to be honest to their Constitutional Beliefs. I just want Judge Kavanaugh to be Pro U.S. Constitution.

Again, I am so glad that I do not have to be a Judge.

New York State Supreme Court Judge Rules That Trump And Family Can Be Sued

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF CNBC NEWS)

 

  • A New York Supreme Court judge on Friday denied a request from President Donald Trump and his family members to dismiss a lawsuit against them and the Trump Foundation.
  • In her ruling, Justice Saliann Scarpulla shot down an argument from the Trump family’s attorneys that the case should be dismissed because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution suggests “a sitting president may not be sued.”
  • The suit from New York state Attorney General Barbara Underwood alleges that the charitable foundation violated state and federal laws for “more than a decade.”
AP: Trump SoHo New York ribbon cutting 170409
In this April, 2010 file photo, Donald Trump, left, chairman and CEO of the Trump Organization, cuts the ribbon with his children Eric, Ivanka, and Donald Trump, Jr. right, at the opening of the Trump SoHo New York.
Mark Lennihan | AP

A New York judge on Friday denied a request from President Donald Trump and his family members to dismiss a lawsuit against them and the Trump Foundation alleging that the charitable foundation violated state and federal laws for “more than a decade.”

In her ruling, Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the New York state Supreme Court shot down an argument from the Trump family’s attorneys that the case should be dismissed because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution suggests “a sitting president may not be sued.”

Scarpulla also rejected Trump’s argument that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the president in this case. While the Constitution prohibits state courts from exercising “direct control” in a way that interferes with federal officers’ duties, Scaruplla wrote: “Here, the allegations raised in the Petition do not involve any action taken by Mr. Trump as president and any potential remedy would not affect Mr. Trump’s official federal duties.”

Scarpulla noted that the defendants “have failed to cite a single case in which any court has dismissed a civil action against a sitting president on Supremacy Clause grounds, where, as here, the action is based on the president’s unofficial acts.”

“I find that I have jurisdiction over Mr. Trump and deny Respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition against him on jurisdictional grounds,” she wrote.

New York state Attorney General Barbara Underwood praised Scarpulla’s decision.

“As we detailed in our petition earlier this year, the Trump Foundation functioned as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests. There are rules that govern private foundations — and we intend to enforce them, no matter who runs the foundation. We welcome Justice Scarpulla’s decision, which allows our suit to move forward,” Underwood said in a statement.

A lawyer for the Trump Foundation, in a statement to CNBC, said: “The decision means only that the case goes forward. As we have maintained throughout, all of the money raised by the Foundation went to charitable causes to assist those most in need. As a result, we remain confident in the ultimate outcome of these proceedings”

The White House did not  immediately responded to CNBC’s requests for comment on Scarpulla’s decision.

The judge’s ruling could bolster other legal actions against Trump in New York and other states. Those include a complaint by former ″Apprentice″⁣ contestant Summer Zervos, who is one of a dozen or so women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct. Zervos, who has been pursuing a defamation case against the president, claimed that Trump forced himself on her in 2007. Trump has denied the claims.

The Trump Foundation suit, filed by Underwood in Manhattan state Supreme Court, alleged that Trump had misused the Trump Foundation “for his own personal benefit.”

The “pattern” of illegality, Underwood’s office wrote, included “improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law.”

After Underwood first filed the suit in June, Trump had vented rage on Twitter against “the sleazy New York Democrats.”

Trump Once Again Has Ass In Mouth Disease Concerning U.S. Supreme Court?

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE HUFFINGTON POST)

 

President Donald Trump lashed out at Chief Justice John Roberts Wednesday after the Supreme Court leader rebuked the president for suggesting a U.S. judge was biased.

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country,” Trump said over Twitter.

He added: “We need protection and security ― these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!”

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have “Obama judges,” and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an “independent judiciary,” but if it is why……

26.4K people are talking about this

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

…..are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security – these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!

19.1K people are talking about this

Trump dismissed a ruling against his administration on Tuesday because it came from an “Obama judge.”

In his first public criticism of the president, Roberts said in a statement, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”

Roberts added, one day before Thanksgiving, that an “independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

The president’s “Obama judge” comment came after U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, put a stop on Monday to the Trump administration’s ban on refugees seeking asylum outside official points of entry along the U.S. border.

“You cannot win, when you’re us, in the 9th Circuit,” Trump said outside the White House when asked about the ruling.

The president complained that “they” file suits in the left-leaning 9th Circuit purposefully so that “we get beaten, and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court.” In the case of the asylum ban, “they” refers to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

“This was an Obama judge. And I tell you what, it’s not going to happen like this anymore,” the president threatened Tuesday.

The 9th Circuit also ruled against the Trump administration’s third attempt to enact a travel ban for people from several Muslim-majority countries last year.

Over Twitter on Wednesday, the president once again suggested the 9th Circuit was not an “independent judiciary” by claiming “so many opposing view” cases are filed there.

Prior to that, Trump sneered at a “so-called judge” who cracked down on a related travel ban.

The squabble between the heads of the executive and judicial branches comes more than a month after a nasty partisan battle to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh left some justices concerned about the Supreme Court’s reputation as an impartial arbiter of justice.

Following Kavanaugh’s confirmation last month, Roberts stressed the importance of maintaining the judicial system’s independence from what he called the “political branches” of government. The Supreme Court, he said, “would be very different without that sort of independence.”

‘Open fire if you want’, BJP leader detained at Sabarimala

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF INDIA’S NEWS AGENCY THE HINDUSTAN TIMES)

(SO, MR. SURENDRAN SAYS HE CAN WORSHIP BECAUSE HE HAS ‘RIGHTS’ BUT HE IS SAYING THAT NO WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP AT THE SAME PLACE HE SAYS HE DOES?)

‘Open fire if you want’, BJP leader detained at Sabarimala; party workers protest in state capital

The development comes after the 12-hour shut down called by the Sabarimala Karma Samiti and BJP to protest the arrest of Hindu Aikya Vedi leader K P Sasikala in the early hours of Saturday crippled normal life in Kerala, the second bandh in a month.

INDIA Updated: Nov 17, 2018 23:24 IST

Ramesh Babu
Ramesh Babu
Hindustan Times, Sabarimala
Sabarimala,Sabarimala bandh,BJP
Sabarimala: BJP’s Kerala state general secretary K Surendran being taken into preventive detention near Sabarimala by the state police when he came to visit Sabarimala, Saturday. Nov 17, 2018. (PTI Photo) (PTI11_17_2018_000179B)(PTI)

BJP’s Kerala general secretary K Surendran was detained in Nilakkal base camp when he tried to make his way to the Sabarimala temple today. The government termed the action a “precautionary measure” as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been backing the protests against the Supreme Court verdict allowing entry of women of all ages to the hilltop shrine.

Stopped by police and told that he cannot go towards the Pamba base camp and to the temple at night, an angry Surendran, who was accompanied by some party workers, said, “You cannot prevent me from going to the Sabarimala temple, as I have already registered for pujas. You can stop me only if you open fire and you are free to do so”, reported IANS.

As Surendran, who told the police he had come as a “Ayyappa Bhaktha” (devotee) and should be allowed to pray at the temple, tried to go forward, he was taken into custody. According to the new police rules that came into effect from Friday, no pilgrim is allowed to proceed to the temple after 7 p.m. as the temple closes for the day at 10 p.m.

Superintendent of police Yatish Chandra said Surendran was taken to police station in Ranni in Pathnamthitta district.

Following the arrest, BJP workers protested outside the state secretariat in Thiruvananthapuram , blocking traffic, and water canons were used to disperse them. The party has announced it would hold protests tomorrow too.

BJP state president P S Sreedharan Pillai said the police action against Surendran has created an “extremely dangerous” situation, according to PTI.

He said he has informed Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh about the “seriousness” of the situation.

BJP workers will observe a “protest day” in the state tomorrow and block traffic on the highways, he said.

The latest protests come after the 12-hour shut down called by the Sabarimala Karma Samiti and BJP to protest the arrest of Hindu Aikya Vedi leader K P Sasikala early Saturday crippled normal life in Kerala, the second bandh in a month.

Sasikala, 62, had come for darshan at the hill top, but was stopped by police on her way to the temple. She was taken into preventive custody at around 2 am for defying prohibitory orders. Police had decided not to allow devotees enter temple premises when it was closed for the night and they said she was arrested after she went ahead flouting their warning.

Tension gripped many areas as after many right-wing outfits started a campaign saying Sasikala was arrested while carrying ‘Irumudi Kettu’, a sacrosanct offering taken by devotees to the Sabarimala shrine. Later a local court granted her bail and she said she will go back to the temple again. “I was detained for more than 12 hours on way to the temple. It seems the government is out to destroy the temple,” she said after her release.

Meanwhile, Mary Sweety (45), from Thiruvananthapuram, who was making her second attempt to visit the hilltop shrine, was asked to return after protesters stopped her at the Chenganur railway station itself. Sweety was one of the woman who had attempted to climb to the temple in October when it opened for the first time after the Supreme Court’s September 28 verdict but was foiled by protesters.

On the other hand, Ayyappa devotees complained that the heavy police restrictions are making their pilgrimage difficult as the shrine gates opened at 5 am. No one was allowed to stay at the hilltop temple top following a heavy rush.

On the large presence of police personnel,Pathnamthitta collector P B Nooh said, “there are many khaki clad policemen around. That is for the safety and security of devotees.” Police also used drones to monitor devotees at the Nillakal base camp.

The temple opened on Friday for 62-day long Mandala Pooja-Magaravilaku annual pilgrimage season.

First Published: Nov 17, 2018 20:28 IST

If Mueller Is Fired What Can/Could/Should He Do

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE HILL NEWS)

 

Let’s assume a worst-case scenario: Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker straight-up fires special counsel Robert Mueller — no half-measures of refusing to allow Mueller to take certain investigative steps, or drastically cutting Mueller’s budget to starve his Russia investigation of resources, but a flat out “You’re fired!”

If that were to happen before Democrats take control of the House in 2019, no congressional committee is likely to subpoena Mueller to testify to his findings or the evidence he has obtained. Until January, the Republican majority will continue to stand behind President Trump. So what could Mueller do to disclose his investigation in the absence of receiving a congressional subpoena to testify or hand over his findings? And what would he choose to do — assuming he believed the president has committed wrongdoing the public should know about?

Taking the second question first, Mueller may choose to do absolutely nothing. We know that Mueller is a military man; he follows orders. And his marching orders as special counsel, pursuant to the governing regulations, are to conduct relevant investigations, bring appropriate charges, and write a confidential report for the Department of Justice (DOJ). So, once the job is done, by firing or otherwise, it wouldn’t be out of character for Mueller to simply go quietly off into the sunset. To date, he has kept an extremely low profile. He doesn’t even show up in court when his cases are brought, and the leak-proof nature of the ship he captains is the stuff of legend.

But let’s assume for a moment that Mueller instead goes the way of former FBI Director James Comey and is more than willing, upon an unceremonious firing, to present his side of the story to the public in any way he’s asked to do so. Or that (perhaps more likely) Mueller reluctantly concludes, upon his firing, that we have reached a point of constitutional crisis requiring the immediate publicizing of the president’s misdeeds because the DOJ under Whitaker is not acting in the best interests of the country. What would Mueller’s options be for disclosing currently non-public evidence and conclusions of his investigation without a subpoena from Congress?

The special counsel regulation, 28 CFR 600 et seq., requires the special counsel to write a report at the conclusion of his work, explaining his prosecution and declination decisions. It also states that the attorney general can publicly release the report, if that is in the public interest, to the extent that release complies with applicable legal restrictions. And there’s the rub — Whitaker would be hard-pressed to explain how Mueller’s report being released is not a matter of massive public interest, but he could fall back on secrecy rules of the grand jury to argue that grand jury materials disclosed in the report should not be released, resulting in the continued secrecy of most or all of the report.

Federal grand jury rules, which apply to Mueller as special counsel, are strict. Generally speaking, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), a government lawyer cannot disclose proceedings before, or evidence gathered by, the authority of the grand jury, even after the lawyer leaves government service. Exceptions are limited. One exception states that a government lawyer can disclose material or testimony gained under a grand jury subpoena  to local or state lawyers, for the purpose of assisting in the prosecution of a federal criminal law violation.

Prosecutors use this provision to share information when conducting an investigation in conjunction with a district attorney’s office, or a state attorney general’s office, for example.  Without question, Mueller has been in communications with the New York State Attorney General’s Office, and could share information with them under this exception of Rule 6(e), although this would not be a public disclosure on Mueller’s part. It is also possible that additional pieces of the Mueller investigation could make their way to the Southern District of New York or another U.S. attorney’s office and, ultimately, could come to light through charges that way.

Of course, much evidence is not subject to Rule 6(e). Witness statements, for example, given to agents or prosecutors do not fall under the rule’s protections. Documents provided voluntarily to the special counsel’s office, instead of being provided pursuant to subpoena, likewise can be discussed publicly. And, of course, anything disclosed publicly through the criminal processes that have played out in cases the special counsel has charged, is fair game.

Finally, Mueller’s conclusions about crimes committed, as opposed to descriptions of the underlying evidence itself, aren’t prohibited from disclosure under Rule 6(e), although he would have to be careful about violating DOJ guidelines for discussing criminal subjects and proceedings, even with a subpoena.

In short, if Mueller were fired tomorrow, he would be very limited in what he could say about his investigation — and that indeed may be the impetus for the president’s action in firing Jeff Sessions and replacing him with a man who appears, by most accounts, to be a Trump loyalist.  We would all have to wait for what certainly would be the world’s most anticipated congressional subpoena.

Joel Cohen, a former state and federal prosecutor, practices criminal defense law at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP in New York. Cohen is an adjunct professor at Fordham Law School. He regularly lectures and writes on law, ethics and social policy for the New York Law Journal and other publications, and is the author of “Broken Scales: Reflections on Injustice.”

Jennifer Rodgers is a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School. Until mid-2018, she was executive director of the Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity at Columbia Law School and now serves on its advisory board.

LOAD COMMENTS (198)
13th International Conference on Rheumatology & Trauma Care

Theme: Unravel the new Evidence in Rheumatology and Trauma Care

MYMonkey MIND

Your Brain is a Radio that Does What its Told

THE WORLD BEYOND YOU (TWBY)

ALWAYS CURIOUS AND AHEAD

Inspire Art

“The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our souls” - Pablo Picasso

Scuba Hank NYC

Scuba Diving Around The World

Everything about underwater and sky

underwater, diving, flying, drone, photo, umi, sora, 海, 空

%d bloggers like this: