DOJ Offers Counter to US House's Argument That Trump Might Have Lied to Mueller
DOJ lawyers argued that the Democratic lawmakers have not cited a "particularized need" for grand jury information on three people who have pleaded guilty to lying to investigators.
December 02, 2019 at 05:35 PM
4 minute read
The Department of Justice on Monday seemingly pushed back on the U.S. House's claim that it needs grand jury materials from former special counsel Robert Mueller's report to determine if President Donald Trump lied during the probe.
In a filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, DOJ attorneys took issue with U.S. Chief District Judge Beryl Howell's opinion saying that having access to the materials could "be helpful" to the House Judiciary Committee in considering witness testimony.
"The district court placed special emphasis on the fact that certain individuals have been convicted of lying either to Congress or to the Special Counsel in connection with events described in the Report. But the salience of that fact is unclear," Monday's filing states.
The DOJ lawyers argued that the committee has not cited a "particularized need" for grand jury information on Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn or George Papadopoulos, all of whom have pleaded guilty to lying to investigators. And they repeatedly pointed to a statement from House general counsel Douglas Letter that one specific redaction from Mueller's report in relation to Flynn could be taken "off the table."
"And the fact that those individuals made false statements does not logically suggest that the Committee has a particularized need for grand-jury information related to other witnesses," the filing states.
While the Justice Department filing did not reference it specifically or call out Trump by name, that argument provides a counter to the House's claim that the president may have been untruthful in his written answers to the special counsel, provided as part of Mueller's probe.
Letter had argued to the D.C. Circuit panel last month that the House needed the grand jury information—which has been redacted from the Mueller report under grand jury secrecy rules—to determine if Trump and others had lied.
"We have at least two people that have already been convicted of lying to Congress," Letter said to Judges Neomi Rao, Thomas Griffith and Judith Rogers at the time. "And what are they lying about? They're lying about things that go directly to the Mueller report."
In another court filing in a separate case case, over whether former White House counsel Don McGahn can be compelled to testify as part of the House's impeachment inquiry, the House specifically pointed to testimony given during Roger Stone's D.C. trial that suggested Trump wasn't entirely truthful.
House attorneys have claimed that accessing the information is a crucial component of the impeachment inquiry, and that not viewing the entire Mueller report could harm the proceedings.
The impeachment inquiry has been moving at a swift pace since Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally announced its launch at the end of September. The House Intelligence Committee will vote Tuesday evening on the release of its report on its part of the investigation.
And the House Judiciary Committee will pick up its part of the inquiry, which will include potentially drafting articles of impeachment, this week. The panel will hold its first hearing Wednesday, featuring four constitutional law scholars.
The Department of Justice spent much of the rest of Monday's filing rehashing arguments it has previously made, including that impeachment does not constitute a "judicial proceeding," one of the few times that grand jury materials can be released.
And the DOJ lawyers argued that the House had not shown a "particularized need" for the grand jury information redacted from the Mueller report.
"If the Committee had a reason to believe that a particular redaction among the remaining 2% holds information indispensable to its investigation, it was incumbent on the Committee to make that showing—and the extraordinary level of detail in the Report itself should have assisted it in doing so. But the Committee did nothing of the kind," the filing reads.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDC Judge Rules Russia Not Immune in Ukrainian Arbitration Award Dispute
2 minute readTrump, ABC News Settle Defamation Lawsuit Before Depositions
Trump-Appointed Judge Presides Over NASCAR Antitrust Dispute Under Case Reassignment
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Takes Up TikTok's Challenge to Upcoming Ban or Sale
- 2State High Court Bucks Trend Favoring Insurers, Sides With Restaurants Seeking COVID-19 Coverage
- 3Remote Proceedings: A Gift for the Holidays
- 4Contested Engineer Cleared to Testify in Defective Pistol Suit, Federal Judge Rules
- 5How I Made Partner: 'Don’t Be Scared to Be Ambitious,' Says Aya Eguchi of Morrison Foerster
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250