A coalition of whistleblower groups is challenging the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to seal documents that reveal why it subpoenaed phone records of congressional staff in 2017.
In 2017, a significant legal inquiry led the U.S. Department of Justice to issue subpoenas to access the phone records of various congressional investigators. This action, taken during an investigation into leaks, has sparked controversy and litigation nearly seven years later.
Just The News reported that Empower Oversight, a watchdog organization, spearheaded the legal challenge by filing a motion aiming to unseal the DOJ documents that authorized these subpoenas.
The DOJ has persisted in keeping these documents concealed from the public eye, advocating for permanent secrecy.
According to Empower Oversight, this move prevents both Congress and the public from accessing crucial details about the governmental actions taken during that period. They argue that this undermines the typical trust accorded to the DOJ.
Empower Oversight claims that the DOJ’s refusal to disclose the records, with or without redactions, is aimed solely at obscuring information.
Their filing states: "Rather than cooperate with Empower Oversight to find a way that these records may be released with appropriate redactions, DOJ’s response...was to insist on continued (and permanent) secrecy." This position ostensibly aims to protect the DOJ from scrutiny and possible criticism related to its actions during the 2017 investigation.
Notably, subpoenas were issued against both Democratic and Republican investigators, including figures like Kash Patel and Jason Foster.
They were actively involved in examining alleged misconduct by the DOJ and the FBI during the Russia collusion probe. This bipartisan aspect of those affected underscores the broad impact and potential overreach of the subpoenas.
The subpoenas have incited vehement reactions from several political figures. Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Jim Jordan were among the prominent voices expressing their consternation. They highlighted constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the separation of powers. The ability of Congress to perform its duty as a check on executive power has been called into question by these actions.
Joining the fray, other whistleblower organizations such as the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and Whistleblowers of America have filed an amicus brief supporting Empower Oversight’s motion.
They, along with other advocates for whistleblower protection, have raised alarms about the implications for confidential communications.
Tom Devine, the legal director for GAP, emphasized the importance of confidentiality for whistleblowers.
Devine stated, “For many whistleblowers, whether they can communicate confidentially is the key whether to challenge abuses of power.” He further warned that the subpoenas jeopardize this confidentiality, potentially dissuading whistleblowers from coming forward.
Another voice in the mix is FBI whistleblower Michael German, who now supports whistleblowers through advisory roles. By joining the amicus brief, German aligns himself with the push against the DOJ’s secretive practices, highlighting the broader concerns within the whistleblower community.
Echoing concerns about the impact on whistleblower safety, Devine remarked, “If this decision stands, no congressional office can honestly reassure confidential whistleblowers that they have not become part of a Justice Department dossier.” His comments reflect the gravity of the situation, wherein governmental overreach could potentially compromise the integrity of congressional oversight.
This ongoing legal battle represents a critical juncture for governmental accountability, transparency, and the protection of whistleblower rights within the United States.
The outcome could set a precedent affecting the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of government.
In conclusion, the legal action initiated by Empower Oversight, supported by multiple whistleblower groups, aims to uphold the principles of transparency and accountability.
Their joint efforts are crucial in ensuring that vital information about governmental operations, affecting the democratic checks and balances, remains accessible to the public and protected individuals.