The U.S. Supreme Court Thursday agreed to hear a case on whether or not the House Judiciary Committee can gain access to secret grand jury documents produced by Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of his investigation into Russia’s attack on the 2016 presidential election and President Donald Trump.
By agreeing to hear the case the nation’s top court effectively blocks lawmakers from gaining access to those documents until after the November 2020 presidential election. Justices will not hear the case until the fall, after the Court’s summer break. A decision would not be announced before November 3.
The decision to grant President Donald Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr their request to hear the case is a major win for candidate Trump and his re-election campaign. The court effectively is choosing to block critical information about the President’s dealings with Russia, and Russia’s efforts to intervene in a U.S. election, until after voters decide whether or not to re-elect him.
Noting that a “lower court ruled this spring that the committee was entitled to see the previously withheld material from Mueller’s probe, which also investigated whether President Trump obstructed the special counsel’s work,” The Washington Post calls the court’s move “a significant blow to House Democrats’ efforts.”
This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
DOJ Frees Federal Prosecutors to Take Steps That Could Interfere With Elections, Weakening Long-Standing Policy
This story was originally published by ProPublica.
The Department of Justice has weakened its long-standing prohibition against interfering in elections, according to two department officials.
Avoiding election interference is the overarching principle of DOJ policy on voting-related crimes. In place since at least 1980, the policy generally bars prosecutors not only from making any announcement about ongoing investigations close to an election but also from taking public steps — such as an arrest or a raid — before a vote is finalized because the publicity could tip the balance of a race.
But according to an email sent Friday by an official in the Public Integrity Section in Washington, now if a U.S. attorney’s office suspects election fraud that involves postal workers or military employees, federal investigators will be allowed to take public investigative steps before the polls close, even if those actions risk affecting the outcome of the election.
The email announced “an exception to the general non-interference with elections policy.” The new exemption, the email stated, applied to instances in which “the integrity of any component of the federal government is implicated by election offenses within the scope of the policy including but not limited to misconduct by federal officials or employees administering an aspect of the voting process through the United States Postal Service, the Department of Defense or any other federal department or agency.”
Specifically citing postal workers and military employees is noteworthy, former DOJ officials said. But the exception is written so broadly that it could cover other types of investigations as well, they said.
Both groups have been falsely singled out, in different ways, by President Donald Trump and his campaign for being involved in voter fraud. Trump has repeatedly attempted to delegitimize ballots sent through the postal service, just as the country experiences increased voting by mail spurred by the coronavirus pandemic. He has also raised the specter that the ballots of military members, among whom he enjoys broad support, might be suppressed.
The DOJ and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Experts who reviewed the revision said they were concerned it could be exploited to help the DOJ bolster Trump’s campaign.
“It’s unusual that they’re carving out this exception,” said Vanita Gupta, the former head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division under President Barack Obama. “It may be creating a predicate for the Justice Department to make inflated announcements about mail-in vote fraud and the like in the run-up to the election.”
In a break from long-standing practice last month, a U.S. attorney in Pennsylvania publicly announced that the DOJ was investigating whether local elections officials illegally discarded nine mail-in military ballots. Attorney General William Barr personally briefed Trump on the case before it was publicly announced, The Washington Post reported. Trump later cited it as an example to support his claims of widespread mail-in voter fraud, a false assertion Barr has has helped amplify. It’s not clear where the federal probe stands, but Pennsylvania’s top elections official said early indications point to an error, not fraud.
The new policy carveout, Gupta said, could be designed to both justify the widely criticized Pennsylvania announcement and open the door for more such moves in the coming weeks.
Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s civil rights division, also expressed concern that the department could be encouraging prosecutors to make more public announcements about incomplete investigations, as they did in the Pennsylvania case.
“It alarms me that the DOJ would want to authorize more of the same in and around the election,” he said. “It’s incredibly painful for me to say, but given what we’ve seen recently, Americans shouldn’t trust DOJ announcements right now.”
The Friday email was sent to a group of dozens of prosecutors around the country known as district election officers. They monitor election procedures and take complaints on Election Day from the public about alleged crimes and serve as the federal points of contact for local election officials.
For decades, the work of federal prosecutors has been guided by a strict policy of non-interference in elections.
A 281-page document titled “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses” is the handbook for district election officers. The latest edition, from 2017, warns againstlaunching public investigations, without approval granted for extraordinary cases, into alleged fraud before an election is over.
Such a step, the handbook says, “runs the obvious risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities. It also runs the significant risk of interjecting the investigation itself as an issue, both in the campaign and in the adjudication of any ensuing election contest.”
One current DOJ official told ProPublica that prosecutors have historically been warned not to allow themselves to be dragged into candidate disputes. “That’s what they drill into us: the policy of non-interference and never, ever, ever announce an investigation,” the official said.
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM1 day ago
‘Arsonist’ Trump Criticized for Ratcheting Up Anger in Fox News Interview as He Claims He ‘Will Do Whatever’ to Help
- News2 days ago
Trump Could Face 20 Years Behind Bars for ‘Serious Felonies’ at Mar-a-Lago: Legal Analyst
- News23 hours ago
Rumors Swirl as ‘Flight Risk’ Trump Claims FBI Took His ‘Three Passports’ – He Can Still ‘Ask for Asylum’
- News1 day ago
‘This One Is Different’: Trump Allies Increasingly Concerned About ‘Deeply Serious’ Scandal
- CRIME22 hours ago
Man Taken Into Custody and Charged After Allegedly Making Death Threats Against FBI Following Mar-a-Lago Raid
- BREAKING NEWS1 day ago
‘Direct Personal Knowledge’: Federal Judge Denies Lindsey Graham’s Request to Quash Subpoena Ordering Him to Testify
- CRIME1 day ago
‘Should Expect to Be Indicted’: Giuliani Now Target of Georgia DA Investigation Into Efforts to Overturn Election – Report
- News20 hours ago
Former Trump CFO Nearing ‘Unexpectedly Favorable’ Plea Deal With Manhattan DA: NYT