information from a massive federal criminal investigation that concluded only eight months ago there are almost twenty five pending criminal matters that are coming out of that proceeding there are two thousand eight hundred criminal grand jury subpoenas you can it says you have to show i don't mean to avoid the specific possible injustice in another judicial proceeding if you have to show that the interest to secrecy are outweighed by the interest in disclosure and that the disclosure can be tailored record insiders tell you is that for allegations of presidential misconduct those were not to be taken up by the department of justice to be taken up by the house of representatives that now now why doesn't that change the nature of our the district court issued an injunction to the department of justice to issue to reveal grand jury information the house of representatives and five days we certainly have both standing and jurisdiction for us to seek a remedy from that and we think that concerns with the standing of house of representatives to file civil actions against the executive branch to raise or humans in a certain inconsistent to a certain area in the in the exercise an executive power we think those are and for the reasons i just as an earlier you just look at the text of the rule you look at how the uses the language you ask yourself whether it would be constitutional for the wall itself to operate in the manner of the house of justice because these are the text of the wall that  dimension congress is directly going to do it many times congress could amended to provide for us and i think actually if we back up and you ask yourself just in the abstract how would congress go to hell providing for access to the beach and even put it under the without going through that the i think that the reasons why one might ask both of the that about the constitutional scope of grand jury information on the will succeed for the same reasons that we were just discussing about whether impeachment proceedings that actually about how the senate is to carry out its functions if you said that any application of impeachment is a political question we would have a medial constitutional problem here because we have a rule that says that a court order is needed but apparently under the argument that is a political question would be that congress congress passed a statute less as mr freeman is suggesting because then it would be a political question if congress ever tried to go to court to get the material so that these cannot possibly be that need to make a strong showing but i think the best way to prove your are is that it has to be influenced by the fact that it is a new piece from proceeding and that goes into the  g to congress and lying about this and what are they lying about their lying about things that go directly to the mall or more did the pres something that should happen as soon as possible because it means that it is undermining the interests in the national security of the united states so this is something unbelievably serious and it's happening right now very possible bad acts and that's what you know the heart to of the molar or goes to that very thing and in fact as we know this roller indicated there's plenty of evidence that he did obstruc redactions and i see have to be very careful to not disclose anything to stop public or one of the redactions refers to man of work and matter for the testimony and so another issue here is what is possibly the president's response is inconsistent with things that will be in the grand jury transcripts involving matter whether whether it's a judge or a counteroffer the president should remain in office that a key aspect of it is it is is the evidence we're looking at and maybe this is part of determining relevance t community could look at the material and decide to use so important and so special the people of the united states need to have access to this as part of impeachment proceedings that that is true i cannot she had an understanding of what is in there she had clearly had understanding of that there already had been proven why's that related in part to the lot and i'm very likely brought this up your honor because remember each separate reason why general paul are redacted the intelligence committee the speaker of the house and need to look at those so we have already seen that he has already said go ahead look at that and we did that in my memory is there is only one instance where there's an overlap between a claim who says he and other investigator harm to other investigations so this is a bogus  point the general or was not saying we need to have absolute action for all these other overseas he dealt with that separately and he has already breach in a way that is what we're asking paul has ordered to disclose at this point she said if after that you want to come back for more i would consider that so for now it's actually a very limited amount that she has to do go to a bigger decision we are willing to have that there would be the court would maintain control of the documents and they would be made available in camera bases to staff and we're again we're trying to we're trying very hard to carry out an extremely important role of the house while they're living in utah and selling it would be available to staff i thought this would be part of an argument for the ask for it we ask that for it says the speaker of the house we asked that i could see and we asked the committee members to see it and we were told no and i'm not surprised given their position their new position  inconsistent with many decades of practice i think there is ition is they can't show it and as you know i believe we will see if he is punishable by contempt and so i assume they will so there is no to the house saying you're in between we're not cooperating any more i believe we have received absolutely nothing so if i may i just want to consult for one meeting with my colleagues if this  if there is evidence that very sad that the president might have provided an untruthful answers and is therefore since obviously a key part of a possible  it like douglas well the case talks about what is unusual what is a typical particularize mean it's to impeach testimony trial and to refresh the recollection of witnesses at trial because knox to use theory and then there's another which is part of what the grand jury does is investigating and sometimes conclude that people should not be indicted and that one of the points of the grand jury secrecy is to protect the