Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

um ... hate to bring this up -It is ILLEGAL to leak grand jury testimony

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:14 AM
Original message
um ... hate to bring this up -It is ILLEGAL to leak grand jury testimony
At least from what I am reading here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule6.htm

(e) Recording and Disclosing the Proceedings.

(1) Recording the Proceedings.

Except while the grand jury is deliberating or voting, all proceedings must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device. But the validity of a prosecution is not affected by the unintentional failure to make a recording. Unless the court orders otherwise, an attorney for the government will retain control of the recording, the reporter's notes, and any transcript prepared from those notes.

(2) Secrecy.

(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).

(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:

(i) a grand juror;

(ii) an interpreter;

(iii) a court reporter;

(iv) an operator of a recording device;

(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;

(vi) an attorney for the government; or

(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).

(3) Exceptions.

(A) Disclosure of a grand-jury matter -- other than the grand jury's deliberations or any grand juror's vote -- may be made to:

(i) an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's duty;

(ii) any government personnel -- including those of a state or state subdivision or of an Indian tribe -- that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law; or

(iii) a person authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3322.

(B) A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law. An attorney for the government must promptly provide the court that impaneled the grand jury with the names of all persons to whom a disclosure has been made, and must certify that the attorney has advised those persons of their obligation of secrecy under this rule.

(C) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to another federal grand jury.

(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. § 401a), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties.

(i) Any federal official who receives information under Rule 6(e)(3)(D) may use the information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.

(ii) Within a reasonable time after disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(D), an attorney for the government must file, under seal, a notice with the court in the district where the grand jury convened stating that such information was disclosed and the departments, agencies, or entities to which the disclosure was made.

(iii) As used in Rule 6(e)(3)(D), the term ÍÍforeign intelligence information'' means:

(a) information, whether or not it concerns a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against --

actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent;
sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or its agent; or
clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent; or
(b) information, whether or not it concerns a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to --

the national defense or the security of the United States; or
the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.
(E) The court may authorize disclosure -- at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs -- of a grand-jury matter:

(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;

(ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;

(iii) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of state or Indian tribal criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, or Indian tribal official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or

(iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.

(F) A petition to disclose a grand-jury matter under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) must be filed in the district where the grand jury convened. Unless the hearing is ex parte -- as it may be when the government is the petitioner -- the petitioner must serve the petition on, and the court must afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard to:

(i) an attorney for the government;

(ii) the parties to the judicial proceeding; and

(iii) any other person whom the court may designate.

(G) If the petition to disclose arises out of a judicial proceeding in another district, the petitioned court must transfer the petition to the other court unless the petitioned court can reasonably determine whether disclosure is proper. If the petitioned court decides to transfer, it must send to the transferee court the material sought to be disclosed, if feasible, and a written evaluation of the need for continued grand-jury secrecy. The transferee court must afford those persons identified in Rule 6(e)(3)(F) a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MajorFlaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. Short version: Yes, it is illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. I'll bet you need to go to law school to learn the long version
I just read over Rule 6(e) so maybe there are certain circumstances where it is permissible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. Leaks are O.K. now..
It's in the Patriot act page 7805.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petepillow Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. haha nice.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
21. only if republicans do it
in fact, the constitution doesn't even apply to republicans in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clydefrand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
3. So who leaked all the info to the NYT, WPo, and AP for today's
columns? Brian Lamb suggested that it might be Rove's lawyer! It would appear to me if it were from the GJ then it's someone who is sympathetic to Bush and that he was either asked to do this leaking or he/she took it upon him/herself to do this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doublethink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Maybe Roves lawyer will do the frog march today. ........
:rofl: before Rove does soon .......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. It's pefectly fine for Rove to talk
He's not one of the excluded individuals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doublethink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. ................
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 makes it illegal for a government official to reveal the identity of an undercover intelligence official of the United States of America. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. I was being specific
Though I am still not 100 percent convinced that they can indict Rove under that statute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doublethink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Specific on what?
obviously not on what I posted. I stated that 'maybe' Roves lawyer would do the frog march before Rove does soon? Not being very specific if your still not convinced Rove broke the law in outing Valarie Plame in this case. Maybe you were being 'specific' to the original poster, and not to my post. Yea that must be it. You specificly didn't read my post and just made a generalization answer. Forgiven. Peace. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. I have a headache now
I woke up at 5AM. I am babysitting cats and they decided to begin Wrestlemania at that time.

This post didn't help clear my head. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Rove's lawyer has been babbling this nonsense for the last few days....
...but he wasn't physically present during Rove's Grand Jury appearance...only the prosecutor(s) can be present.

So, that tells us that Rove's lawyer is either lying about what Rove said to the Grand Jury so that he can avoid being charged with leaking actual testimony, or he's hoping nobody brings him up on contempt of court charges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
27. Witnesses can talk
Re-read the statute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evermind Donating Member (833 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
28. "someone who has been officially briefed on the matter" according to
the NYT story in the LBN post at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1629018&mesg_id=1629018

Which would rule out witnesses, unless they're people who also get "officially briefed" on their own testimony...

Assuming the NYT reporter isn't lying, of course.. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaoar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
8. yes, but grand jury leaks happen a lot
Edited on Fri Jul-15-05 08:21 AM by quaoar
Plus, it is not illegal for someone who testifies before a grand jury to then discuss his testimony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. I don't think that's true. I think the Grand Jury rules about not....
...leaking info apply to everyone, including those that have already testified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. Oh oops-well that would make since given the timeline of the BS
The talking point yesterday about Rove being told about Plame's identity made it to the news today. Rove issued the talking points and today they magically appear to be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
9. The person testifying
can say "leak" his own testimony, though.

Tells you who is responsible for this information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. I don't think that's correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
30. It is correct. In fact
Cooper plans on writing up the content of his testimony for a story. Said so two days ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
11. PREDICTION: Another NYTimes reporter is about to receive a subpoena
Guaranteed!

Fitzgerald DOES NOT LIKE LEAKS, and he WILL prosecute.

If they refuse to testify, he will slap them with CRIMINAL contempt, not the namby pamby contempt Miller is currently in jail over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
32. Please clarify that you are speculating.
Those are the new rules. We don't want people to think we are a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists here now do we.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Um, when the first word in a subject line is "PREDICTION"
it is a de facto suggestion that I am speculating.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
12. Anyone who testifies can leak
So...there you go. If I testify, I can tell anyone I want. The judge, prosecutor, and jury cannot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. See post #14
Rove set the spin and then made it news
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clydefrand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #12
20. I think you're right and that is why I think that Rove's
lawyer is the one who is leaking the info based upon what Rove told him to say to the newspaper.

After Cooper testified after being released by Rove, he told reporters that he would not discuss the info he gave and "scoop" himself. Said he would write his own account latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
17. Where does it say that a witness can't discuss his own testimony?
I didn't see that in the statute.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. It doesn't I screwed up
but that kinda narrows down where this information came from huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Oh, ok. I didn't read the whole thread
Yeah, it does narrow it down a bit.

:-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevsand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. It doesn't.
Witnesses are notably absent from the list of people who are prohibited from discussing grand jury proceedings. That's why Cooper's source specifically restricted his release to testimony before the grand jury; otherwise, Cooper could tell us right now what he told them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
22. But Republican's aren't subject to the same laws you and I are ...
or haven't you figured that out by now.:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toddaa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
25. Getting around the law - Rove Style
This guy in a robe, who sits in building somewhere over there said...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC