I’m writing this in a rush, and hope to update this later when I have more time.
The news that a grand jury has issued subpoenas is big news, but not huge news. I’ll try to break down the basics. Please keep in mind that I’m rushing through this, and I’ve worked in federal criminal law from the defense side and not the prosecution.
The grand jury is a constitutional institution — straight from the Fifth Amendment. It predates the US, and stems from English law. Under federal law (mainly developed through the courts), the grand jury is an independent investigatory body, that is to be separate from the executive branch and the judiciary. It is also highly secret; even defendants cannot get unlimited access to grand jury minutes but have to have a good reason to get them. The secrecy is in part to protect witnesses who testify against an individual.
The grand jury is technically an investigatory body and is the body that issues indictments, which is the charging document in some criminal cases. To issue an indictment, the grand jury has to have evidence of a crime and connect the crime to an individual. While the prosecutor presents evidence to the grand jury and asks for an indictment, the grand jury is technically independent from the prosecution. The prosecutor has to ask for subpoenas to be issued — the grand jury has to do that. A subpoena is just a request for evidence from a person or a request to produce certain documents; the evidence it requests has to be either evidence of a crime or could lead to evidence of a crime. When a grand jury issues an indictment, it states that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, and that the individuals specified in the indictment have committed the crimes. The indictment then allows for an arrest warrant to be issued, and a trial to commence.
Once a grand jury is impaneled and starts to investigate, it cannot be stopped from its process. It can only return an indictment or not.
Prosecutors are the ones that call for a grand jury to investigate a crime, but technically it is independent from the prosecution. Federal prosecutors tend to not call one until there is a solid case against an individual, and can usually easily obtain an indictment from the grand jury.
News that the grand jury is issuing subpoenas shows a couple of things. First, this is going to continue to some degree whether or not Mueller is removed from office. Mueller is no longer the one investigating it — the grand jury is and it is independent from the actual prosecutor. This is not to say that Mueller and the FBI will stop investigating this; it’s just that the grand jury is, in theory, separate from that investigation. The prosecutor would have to present new evidence to the grand jury as it comes in. Another prosecutor could, in theory, step into Mueller’s shoes and continue the process. The grand jurors can ask questions and request other evidence, which really depends on how involved the grand jurors want to be. By the way, I highly doubt that Mueller personally is the prosecutor presenting evidence to the grand jury. Second, the information that the grand jury is requesting gives some clues as to what it is investigating — the meeting that occurred. The prosecutor’s think something criminal happened there or that it could lead to evidence of a crime.
Given the secrecy in a grand jury, I have to wonder who is leaking that there was a subpoena. I doubt it’s Mueller’s team — that’s unethical for them to do so. Grand jury witnesses are allowed to divulge information, but the prosecutor’s can’t and neither can the grand jury.
Trump’s hands are essentially tied. The only real option he has is to pardon any potential targets, but that’s a double edged sword because anyone he pardons can then be compelled to testify against him in future proceedings. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination only exists if the testimony could trigger prosecution. If there’s been a pardon, there’s no privilege and refusing to divulge information would be contempt. He can’t interfere with the grand jury process because he likely doesn’t which prosecutor is presenting the evidence.
By the way, there is no clear legal answer on whether or not Trump can be charged for federal crimes while he is president. The constitution is clear that he can’t be removed from office absent impeachment, but there’s nothing about a president facing criminal charges. Nor are there many precedents to go by — Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury, but not for anything more significant.
Hope this is helpful and I hope to polish this up later tonight.
And here's an update about impeachment — constitutionally that's a separate issue from a criminal indictment. Legal scholars are divided on whether a sitting president can be indicted or otherwise criminally charged, because the Constitution details how to remove a president from office. The issue has never gone to the Supreme Court so there's no clear answer from the courts on the ability to criminally prosecute the president for any federal crime. This would have to be tested theough the judiciary. The only way to remove a president is through impeachment.
And also to add — Trump can't even get a witness list of who has been called to the grand jury. Witnesses can disclose that information if they wish, but the prosecutor and the grand jurors in the room (no judges allowed and typically only one prosecutor) can't divulge this information. He has no access to any of the information unless a witness discloses it.
Read More
