Weve explained in our motion the District Court committed at least two serious errors of law in granting the request. Start with the it is the case, however, that we agreed with the District Court on the irreparable harm is not that important. Our contention in this case we thought that we would like to [inaudible] i agree with you that we have to show that dont agree we dont have that that the disclosure of grand jury information from a massive criminal investigation that concluded only eight months ago, there are only 25 pending criminal matters that come out of that proceedings. There are 2800 criminal grand jury subpoenas in connection directly to the material thats exactly the yes, and thats the point on our second argument that thats the committees burden to demonstrate that. Well, i suggest that the courts findings plus special counsel supports volume two, plus, what the said in the supplemental statements during oral arguments seems to specify why it thinks certain material is necessary for the committee to proceed and its not enough repeatedly, but when counsel was asked by the District Court what test are you relying on and what Authority Counsel provided. Well, i think the test for the department of justice. Yes, your honor. The test that were relying on as we explained very clearly to the District Court is the test in douglas oil what does douglas oil say . You have to show a need to show in another judicial proceeding that you have to show that the interests are outweighed by the interests in disclosure and that it can be tailored to that particular and this court found that that test hadnt been met, now why why was the District Court with the finding. The District Court found that the decision in 1987 and the Supreme Court found in douglas oil theres no doubt the District Court a reason for fact specific findings. And what specifically is the error . The error is granting release of grand jury information on the premise that advocate needs all relevant information. Thats not what the District Court found. The District Court found in terms of the committees request as tailored, that it had met its burden. Your honor, the tailoring here is only that they have all grand jury redactions in the entire Mueller Report you keep saying that, but thats not what they asked for specifically. They were quite clear as to what they were seeking to the extent they could surmise what might have been said and by whom to the grand jury. What they said it was we think that this grand jury information in the Mueller Report that might bear on the theories that we would put forth for impeachment. Actually they were much more specific than that. Counsel, youre more familiar with the records than i am. Your honor, yes, and that is what they said. They said the first submission was and went down the list of witnesses who they thought could provide this necessary information. Yes, your honor, the first witness they identified was don mcgahn and turns out he did not testify in front of the grand jury at all. Hes not the only one. And counsel, i mean im reading the papers, youre reading the papers, and its not the only thing. In the douglas oil case, the District Court made these findings. Im unclear what standards the department is saying douglas oil or other required when indeed i thought maybe [inaudible] with respect who would testify and the testimony and therefore be able to relate specifically why that witnesss testimony was necessary. So i dont think so, your honor. The departments submission all along. I see what youre saying id like to address the just tell me practically its secret and they dont know it how can they say more than they did . Thats exactly the proposition rejected in abbott and associates for the attorney general of california made exactly that point. Look the way this works in judicial proceedings, right in that case, it was different, counsel, and now that. Im just trying to understand as a conceptual matter where grand jury testimony is secret. Yes. A person or entity seeking the information doesnt know who testified or specifically what they said, yet, they know from the special counsels report that there were certain elements that were unavailable and its deferred on making any specific finding involving criminal activity. And thats no different than how it works in any normal proceeding. To answer the question directly, how is the party to know theres relevant grand jury testimony. First, grand jury does not bind witnesses. What often happens in a criminal case, a civil case, the parties come in and they say well, i know that this person tells me they testified on the grand jury and now theres testimony to the judicial proceeding and i want to use that specific testimony to counter act that a redaction, by redaction review . Yes, i think they have to, your honor, the first time in a long time that they pressed counsel on that, and the District Court gave that information anyway. Thats not how its supposed to work. Youve used the word normal proceeding. This isnt a normal proceeding. The premise of the Mueller Report for allegations of president ial misconduct, those were not to be taken up by the department of justice. They were taken up by the house of representatives. Now why doesnt that change the nature of our inquiry here . It does seem to be in the inquiry, were not dealing with a judicial proceeding. But well get to that separately. Lets imagine we disagree with you, and imagine we have minds here and well get to that, but on that premise, given this difference in determines of t the necessary because the Mueller Report says never identify the allegations of president ial misconvict. I dont think thats right at all, your honor. The Mueller Report made that clear. Were. And the Mueller Report that any allegations of president ial misconduct would be handled by the political branches and not by by congress and not by the department of justice. Any legal ramifications, any legal consequences, but the point of the Mueller Report and thats the sort of history here, right, the independent counsel, the special counsel, they create fact finding, they engage in fact finding and they pass it along to the house of representatives. And the point is that what the Mueller Report did. On the obstruction of justice questions detailed only five redactions in that entire section, the one of which [inaudible] are you suggesting that the Mueller Report didnt have the russian interference . Hundreds and hundreds of pages and redactions as you would expect. But because they have the information in front of them its incumbent upon any litigants to come forward if thats the hypothesis, ive read the 186 pages including 181 pages with no redactions whatsoever and im unable to establish this one particular point and that point is relevant to my cause of action and i need that information for that reason and nothing like that was shown in this case. People may have misstated information which the Committee Identified and that in terms of president ial motivation the information that the Committee Identified was quite specific, as to what it needed, although as ive said and discussed didnt know who testified or specifically what they said to the grand jury. On that point, ill just thats no different than the position of any litigant of mine respect to the order. Thats the point of and thats the conundrum always face under rule 15, but your point so again, if the results of that analysis that the District Court abused its discretion is ruling that it could under the ru rule, with exception to the judicial proceedings, arguing on that issue and let me explain why. In a regular criminal trial and lets assume a big criminal trial, historic proportions, someone comes to this court and says im the defendant. My liberty is at stake, i think a witness who is testifying here, i dont know, but i want to make sure they didnt testify inconsistentlily in front of the grand jury and no i want to make sure this is really important. That motion is denied under rule 15. If they say we have evidence fr from blocked by the department that people have misstated things. As to those people, then have the particular right, but. But they have made the showing, havent they, that other people may have. Sure, i mean, there was Michael Cohen of lying to congress and they didnt come in and say we believe we have testimony in front of us, thats undermined pie another witness. What hes said other people have lied to congress so we think you should get together and make sure no one else is. You would never accept that from a witness, from a litigant in a criminal case or civil case, thats not how it works and thats exactly the error that the Supreme Court found inform douglas oil. Criminal antitrust investigation, grand jury proceeding and a party came in and said wed like the same information in order to a civil cause action. Id like to take a step back and ask about our jurisdiction in this case. Yes. So, raised, and we have an obligation to make sure that we have jurisdiction. And in nixon they could not look at impeachment of the senate and suggest it would be inappropriate for the court to assess or interfere with impeachment proceedings. So, is our involvement in this, is interpreting 6e, judicial proceeding wrong with that to include impeachment . Would that imper mmissibleimper involve this court . We have not made that argument inaudible make sure we have jurisdiction. But this court would always have jurisdiction to decide and District Court jurisdiction. Were not advancing at that argument. The District Court issued an injunction to the department of justice to issue to reveal grand jury information from the house of representatives for five days and we have standing and jurisdiction and we think that its wrong because we dont think i think your honors question, that an impeachment proceedings in the Legislation Branch is a judicial proceedings, rule i think its an interesting question, could you address it whether theres a jurisdictional bar to us looking at impeachment proceedings . So the issue is not addressed, but i think that the answer to that question is there isnt a jurisdictional b bar. 57. 6 local rules of the District Court which provides any person, newspaper, anybody can come in and ask in any case and by supposition, the District Court by the order of the grand jury and once they used that order of course the department of justice, the grand jury has direct review of that order [inaudible] it doesnt go to review, it goes to the District Court in the first place. I agree and its not challenged the New York Times come in and ask for grand jury information, they reviewed that and we have not challenged thats a miscellaneous action heard by a District Court. The suggestion that this is impeachment inquiry and that is the way we should look at it. Our involvement. I think that the conclusion that the federal judiciary, put it this way, we do as the court is well aware, have with the standing of the house of representatives to file civil actions against the executive branch to raise arguments to certain error in the exercise of executive power. We think that those are not article 3 cases for controversy and the kind of courts historically adjudicated. And thats pending in the District Court and court of appeals. If we do things with the house of representatives trying to create cases or controversies in the federal court, would not advance that argument. I agree that the court would decide if they want today i think theres a serious question there. And thats another reason for appeal and other questions in this case. Now im not aware of any case, any case in which the court had felt that the need for all relevant to invest fully, so raises from the Judicial Court had been inadequate under 16 e 31. And the argument its not fair to them. How are they supposed to know in the impeachment hearing what are they supposed to look for. The premise that theyre under the right gate under the rule at all. And the rule 16 is federal court, local court. I think that help me here. In your view then for the committee to at least make a better argument, the departments position is it must be able to tell the District Court, assuming the District Court has jurisdiction, that we want the grand jury testimony of witness a because witness a testified as to events 1, 2 and 3, which the committee is investigating in terms of determining whether or not to file charges. Is that the kind of showing . Thats and they would have to say we are unable in our own authority to obtain the information about event 1, 2 and 3. So, well, im not going to add that, all right . Because there are several ways to, you know, skin a cat here. But what im trying to understand is then the departments position is that where a witness testifies before the grand jury, unless that witness reveals voluntarily the nature of his testimony, either in interviews with the media or otherwise, other litigation, then a party has no basis under rule of exception for judicial proceedings to obtain an order from the District Court. That seems to be clear. Thats not the only, thats not the only way, but give me another way. You have to be that particularized. Give me another way if the witness doesnt voluntarily disclose. The community put something in the Mueller Report, saying that the grand jury had in front of it a particular document which the committee is unable to obtain through its own investigative procedure so if that were taken pr this courts decision in 1986 in the decision, that case there was an enforcement action in the Southern District of new york and filed an affidavit saying we want the grand jury material because we need to get this information and that this court said, it was not good enough so what might have been good enough there were a couple of documents that the grand jury had that were illegible or couldnt otherwise obtain. Thats how this works. Well, normally. I did understand the court to be saying it had to go so far to identify witness a as to one, two, and three. And you would add to my hypothetical the committee was unable to obtain that information but other normal discovery. I think were in agreement, your argument is to ought to be Something Different under the impeachment proceedings. But i but i didnt see anythn the history of rule 16 or anything you side to me that goes quite as deep as you are requiring in an impeachment setting. Right. In the impeachment setting its the premise i i want to try tot to. It was pointed out something in particular about that. In douglas oil the court also said, the District Court granted the release of grand jury information but said they can be used, no copies can be made, you have to return the information to the department of justice when it is done and it could only be done for recollection of witness during trial deposition. Thats an exercise under rule 16 to impose conditions on time, man or any other condition the District Court may impose under the release of granger information. The committee volunteered that is going to discuss this, initially reveal only to counsel, do it in a safe manner. The department suggested that was an accepted way of presenting. If i may, just on this point, i dont think my friends will agree that a a District Court n oppose that Credit Conditions on the house of representatives or the senate in an impeachment proceeding. Thats a pretty fundamental yes, it is. Thats your irreparable harm argument. Yes. Just generally the fact information is being disclosed. Once information crosses the Event Horizon to congress and federal court has no authority to control. That is to why we get us to in this case a fundamental question of whether rule 16 is meant to do with congressional proceedings at all. Im not following the argument about how that relates. Are you saying that increases the burden of proof . No. It is like the factors the particulates meeting was pursued as a mismatch for what carcasses need in an impeachment proceeding. I think the reason why it feels it did match is we shouldnt be in his pocket at all. Lets stay in the bucket though. But the reason i i was makig this point about constitutional limitations on speeders i see your point. Thats an argument for why its not in this bucket. Thats a fundamental aspect, is if it is a court allows granger information to be released i thought your argument wouldve been if youre in that bucket that its an increased burden on the house to show particular eyes need, because once it is out you are not going to get it back. If you accept all of the thresholds, i dont come but if you did, then yes, i , yes, i wd think that because it is irreparable. But i think again, the fact that the city court basing error in this case was approaching the question as though it was sufficient to find it exercise a form of judicial power, i had questions about that. We are interpreting 16 in the statute and questioned whether this is a judicial proceeding within rule. Very many statutes and rules the regular trials and judicial proceedings and enforce judgments and convictions but no one would say you