In re Judiciary

Decision Date25 October 2019
Docket NumberGrJury Action No. 19-48 (BAH)
Citation414 F.Supp.3d 129
Parties IN RE APPLICATION OF the COMMITTEE ON the JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING the RELEASE OF CERTAIN GRAND JURY MATERIALS
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Douglas N. Letter, Adam Anderson Grogg, U.S. House of Representatives Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Brianne Jenna Gorod, Washington, DC, for Amicus Constitutional Accountability Center.

Daniel Martin Johnson, U.S. House Of Representatives, Washington, DC, for Amicus Doug Collins.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING THE APPLICATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

BERYL A. HOWELL, Chief District Judge

Table of Contents
III. DISCUSSION...148
A. Rule 6(e)'s "Judicial Proceeding" Requirement is Satisfied Because an Impeachment Trial is Such a Proceeding...149
1. The Term "Judicial Proceeding" in Rule 6(e) Has a Broad Meaning...150
2. An Impeachment Trial is Judicial in Nature...152
3. Historical Practice Before Enactment of Rule 6(e) Informs Interpretation of that Rule...157
4. Binding D.C. Circuit Precedent Forecloses Any Conclusion Other Than That an Impeachment Trial is a "Judicial Proceeding"...159
B. HJC's Consideration of Articles of Impeachment is "Preliminarily To" an Impeachment Trial...163
1. Governing Legal Principles Demonstrate That House Proceedings Can be "Preliminarily To" a Senate Impeachment Trial...164 2. HJC's Primary Purpose is to Determine Whether to Recommend Articles of Impeachment...266
a. DOJ's Proposed "Preliminarily To" Test is Contrary to Baggot ...166
b. No House "Impeachment Inquiry" Resolution is Required...167
c. The Record of House and HJC Impeachment Activities Here Meets the "Preliminarily To" Test...170
3. Requiring More Than the Current Showing by HJC, as DOJ Demands, Would Improperly Intrude on Article I Powers Granted to House of Representatives...172
4. DOJ's Remaining Objections are Unpersuasive...174
IV. CONCLUSION...182

In March 2019, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III ended his 22-month investigation and issued a two-volume report summarizing his investigative findings and declining either to exonerate the President from having committed a crime or to decide that he did. See generally Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election ("Mueller Report") (Mar. 2019), ECF Nos. 20-8, 20-9. The Special Counsel explained that bringing federal criminal charges against the President would "potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct." Id. at II-1. With this statement, the Special Counsel signaled his view that Congress, as the federal branch of government tasked with presidential impeachment duty under the U.S. Constitution, was the appropriate body to resume where the Special Counsel left off.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives has announced an official impeachment inquiry, and the House Judiciary Committee ("HJC"), in exercising Congress's "sole Power of Impeachment," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 5, is reviewing the evidence set out in the Mueller Report. As part of this due diligence, HJC is gathering and assessing all relevant evidence, but one critical subset of information is currently off limits to HJC: information in and underlying the Mueller Report that was presented to a grand jury and withheld from Congress by the Attorney General.

The Department of Justice ("DOJ") claims that existing law bars disclosure to the Congress of grand jury information. See DOJ's Resp. to App. of HJC for an Order Authorizing Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials ("DOJ Resp."), ECF No. 20. DOJ is wrong. In carrying out the weighty constitutional duty of determining whether impeachment of the President is warranted, Congress need not redo the nearly two years of effort spent on the Special Counsel's investigation, nor risk being misled by witnesses, who may have provided information to the grand jury and the Special Counsel that varies from what they tell HJC. As explained in more detail below, HJC's application for an order authorizing the release to HJC of certain grand jury materials related to the Special Counsel investigation is granted. See HJC's App. for an Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials ("HJC App."), ECF No. 1.

I. BACKGROUND

What follows begins with a brief review of the initiation of the Special Counsel's investigation, the key findings in the Mueller Report and the grand jury secrecy redactions embedded therein, as well as the significant gaps in the Special Counsel's investigation that contributed to the Special Counsel assessment that "[t]he evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgement." Mueller Report at II-8.1 Next reviewed is Congress's response to the release of the public redacted version of the Mueller Report and ensuing—and ultimately unsuccessful—negotiations with DOJ to obtain the full Report and related investigative materials, leading HJC to file the instant application, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(i).

A. The Special Counsel's Investigation

On May 17, 2017, then-Deputy Attorney General ("DAG") Rod J. Rosenstein appointed Robert S. Mueller III to serve as Special Counsel for DOJ "to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election and related matters." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Order No. 3915-2017, Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters ("Appointment Order") (May 17, 2017) (capitalization altered).2 Prior to the Special Counsel's appointment, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") had already initiated "an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign [had] coordinat[ed] with the Russian government" to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Mueller Report at I-1. The order authorizing the Special Counsel's appointment thus had the effect of transferring the ongoing FBI investigation to his office. See Appointment Order ¶ b (authorizing the Special Counsel "to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before [Congress] on March 20, 2017"). The Special Counsel was also granted "jurisdiction to investigate matters that arose directly from the FBI's Russia investigation, including whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations" and "potentially obstructive acts related to the Special Counsel's investigation itself." Mueller Report at II-1. Pursuant to this grant of authority—and upon receiving evidence "relating to potential issues of obstruction of justice involving the President"—the Special Counsel "determined that there was a sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate ... the President." Id. at II-12.

In compliance with the DOJ regulations authorizing his appointment, upon completion of his investigation the Special Counsel issued a confidential report to the Attorney General "explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [he] reached." Id. at I-1 (quoting 28 C.F.R § 600.8(c) ). That Report laid out the Special Counsel's findings in two volumes, totaling 448 pages. Both HJC and DOJ point to the contents of the Report as highly relevant to resolving the current legal dispute. Indeed, DOJ submitted the public redacted version of the Mueller Report as exhibits to support its arguments. See DOJ's Resp., Exs. 8 (Volume I), 9 (Volume II), ECF Nos. 20-8, 20-9. Therefore, a recounting of some of the key events chronicled in and conclusions (or lack thereof) reached by the Special Counsel in the Mueller Report is in order.

Volume I of the Mueller Report "describe[s] the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election." Mueller Report at I-2. The Special Counsel concluded that "[t]he Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion," "principally through two operations." Id. at I-1. "First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents." Id. Russia hacked and stole "hundreds of thousands of documents," id. at I-4, from the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Campaign Committee, and the Clinton Campaign, and then disseminated those documents through fictitious online personas and through the website WikiLeaks in order to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Id. at I-4, 38, 41, 48, 58.

Volume I of the Mueller Report also details evidence of "links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump [2016 Presidential] Campaign." Id. at I-2–3. According to the Special Counsel, "the [Trump] Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts," and the links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign were "numerous." Id. at I-1–2. For instance, a meeting occurred on June 9, 2016 at Trump Tower in New York City, between a Russian lawyer and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Schiff, Civil Action No. 19-cv-3790 (BAH)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • July 27, 2020
    ...of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials ("In re Committee on the Judiciary "), 414 F. Supp. 3d 129 (D.D.C. 2019), aff'd , 951 F.3d 589 (D.C. Cir. 2020), cert. granted sub nom. Dep't of Justice v. House Comm. on Judiciary , No. 19-1328, ––– U.S. –......
  • Committee on Judiciary , United States House of Representatives v. McGahn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • November 25, 2019
    ...of Comm. on Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials , No. 19-gj-48, 414 F.Supp.3d 129, 138–45, 2019 WL 5485221, at *2–7 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2019). In any event, this Court need not detail them here. It suffices to note that inv......
  • Comm. on the Judiciary v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (In re Comm. on the Judiciary)
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 10, 2020
    ...In re App. of Comm. on Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials ("App. for Mueller Report Grand Jury Materials "), 414 F.Supp.3d 129, 176 (D.D.C. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Department of Justic......
  • In re N.Y. Times Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • February 23, 2023
    ...... In re Grand. Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 438 F.3d 1141, 1150 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Sealed Case, 199 F.3d 522,. 526 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). . .          A grand. jury's investigation is guided by prosecutors, not the. judiciary. As an "institution separate from the. courts," the grand jury is kept "at arm's. length" from courts. United States v. Williams, . 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992). The comparative roles of the. prosecutors and the judiciary in the grand jury process makes. determinations of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT