At the same time, House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff and Senate Intelligence Vice-Chair Mark Warner should demand the unredacted report for their own committees. By statute they are entitled to it, and Rule 6(e) is no bar to sharing information provided to intelligence officials. Another regulation, 50 USC § 3092, provides that the intelligence committees must be given reports, in writing if desired, of significant intelligence and counterintelligence activities or failures. Mueller’s findings certainly qualify. Where matters are too delicate to share with all the members of the intelligence committees, statute and established practice provide that disclosure may be made to a smaller circle known as the “Gang of Eight”: the chair and ranking member of each intelligence committee, and the Democratic and Republican leaders of each chamber.
And by explicit language, Rule 6(e) specifically exempts intelligence shared with government officials from the restrictions on grand jury disclosure, thanks to language added after the 9/11 attacks. Before then, investigators were unwisely barred from sharing evidence gathered by grand jury with their intelligence counterparts. The 2002 amendments made it clear that Rule 6(e) would no longer be a bar. See Rule 6(e)(3)(D).
So just as a startingly on-point D.C. Circuit en banc precedent indicates the full report and underlying evidence may be shared with the Judiciary Committee, clear statutory language gives the same right to the intelligence committees.
