DC Judge Questions Continued Secrecy of Mueller Report
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton expressed concern that secrecy around prosecutorial decisions “undermines even further” the public’s trust in the criminal justice system.
August 05, 2019 at 03:15 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Washington heard arguments for more than two hours Monday over whether a fuller version of Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation should be released, as the U.S. Justice Department pressed for continued secrecy around what the government considered to be particularly sensitive portions of the 448-page document.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton of the District of Columbia appeared skeptical at times of the Justice Department’s arguments against unveiling portions of the blacked-out sections of Mueller’s report, suggesting that additional transparency could shed light on how the special counsel’s office decided to bring or forgo prosecutions.
Walton expressed concern that secrecy around prosecutorial decisions “undermines even further” the public’s trust in the criminal justice system.
Addressing wider concerns about the fairness of the justice system, Walton invoked Jeffrey Epstein, the well-connected financier whose lenient plea deal in the face of sexual misconduct allegations has raised questions about whether he received preferential treatment from prosecutors. Walton noted that there are “questions about the judgment used in that case.”
The arguments came in merged public records lawsuits brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center and BuzzFeed News.
Justice Department attorney Courtney Enlow argued that the government had properly withheld portions of the Mueller report, which she described as being “lightly and surgically redacted.”
Enlow spoke of the “stigma” and “reputational” harm that can come with being associated with a criminal investigation. The privacy exemption, she argued, is intended to keep people from being “tried in a court of public opinion rather than a court of law.”
Matt Topic, a lawyer at Loevy & Loevy representing BuzzFeed News, said the publicly released version of the Mueller report left unanswered a number of questions, such as whether or how the special counsel’s office considered prosecuting members of President Donald Trump’s family and others in the president’s orbit.
“There are big gaps,” Topic said, naming the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., as one individual of interest. Topic said the Mueller investigation “ripped” the country apart and continues to be a source of broad public interest.
Lawyers for BuzzFeed and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have asked Walton to conduct his own review, in chambers and outside of public eyes, to independently review the government’s redactions.
Monday’s hearing came as House Democrats pursue a separate court bid try to extract more detail, including grand jury material, from the Mueller report. U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Monday that the panel could move to impeach Trump by the end of the year.
Last month, Mueller testified about his report during an appearance in front of the House judiciary and intelligence committees. He did not veer beyond the findings of the report to say anything about why or how his team arrived at their conclusions regarding which individuals to charge.
Mueller’s team concluded there was not enough evidence to prove a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia’s meddling in the election. And the special counsel, citing long-standing Justice Department policy, declined to state whether or not he thought Trump committed a crime when he took reported efforts to derail the two-year investigation.
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 AllDemocratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
6 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Avoiding Inadvertent Conflict Issues With Constituents When Representing Organizational Clients
- 2Debtor-Owner Allowed to Modify Mortgage in Bankruptcy Even if Debtor Is Not Obligor Under the Mortgage Loan
- 3Legal Chief of Retailer Beyond Exiting at Tumultuous Time
- 4Law Firm Real Estate Strategy: Attorney Offices Are Out, Conference Rooms Are In
- 5AI Governance In Practice
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