\n\n“In case there is any doubt, the Justice Department has very good reasons to keep its lips shut about ongoing criminal investigations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One reason is fairly obvious. If prosecutors and law enforcement speak openly about a criminal investigation, they could reveal information to a suspect that could undercut the investigation. Trump could conceivably destroy evidence if he knows the DOJ is looking for it, or he might attempt to intimidate a witness if he knows that witness is one of the DOJ\u2019s sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Indeed, while the Supreme Court has said that \u201cthe courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents<\/a>,\u201d lower courts have held that this right can be overcome by the government\u2019s need to keep sensitive information about ongoing investigations secret. As the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which oversees federal cases in Florida, said in one case, documents may be kept secret when there is a \u201csubstantial probability that the government\u2019s ongoing investigation would be severely compromised if the sealed documents were released<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n (That doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that the entire warrant affidavit in Trump\u2019s case must be kept secret, but it does mean that it will likely remain under seal if it could compromise the DOJ\u2019s investigation of Trump.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n There\u2019s also another reason the Justice Department rarely speaks about ongoing investigations: Doing so is unfair to criminal suspects<\/a> \u2014 including Trump.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If Trump is eventually indicted for an alleged violation of a federal criminal law, he has a right to stand trial and will have an opportunity to present evidence that he is, in fact, innocent. Assuming that he does not accept a plea deal, a jury will weigh the evidence and return a verdict of \u201cguilty\u201d or \u201cnot guilty.\u201d Technically, a \u201cnot guilty\u201d verdict would not be a declaration that Trump is actually innocent \u2014 it merely means that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt \u2014 but it would go a long way toward clearing the cloud of suspicion that hangs over anyone charged with a crime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But if the Justice Department speaks openly about a criminal investigation before anyone is actually arrested, they place that cloud over a criminal suspect\u2019s head without giving that suspect a forum to vindicate their reputation. As former deputy attorneys general Jamie Gorelick and Larry Thompson explained in a 2016 Washington Post op-ed, the Justice Department\u2019s \u201clong-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations\u201d that might influence elections prevent prosecutors from \u201ccreating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n So we should expect the Justice Department to be very quiet from here on out about its investigation of Donald Trump, unless that investigation leads to arrests. This silence is not an attempt to stonewall. It is consistent with longstanding DOJ policies that protect both the department and anyone accused of a federal crime.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n