Epstein Secrets

the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions or propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation . ." Blair v. United States , 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919). A grand jury may "inquire into all information that might possibly bear on its investigation until it h

the entrails of a goat, we are left to scour the record for indications of what these documents might be and what they might contain. Id. at 569. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the litigants' motion to quash because of their failure "to present sufficient information with respect to t

ry subpoena is necessary and relevant." In re Impounded , 241 F.3d 308, 314 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting R. Enter , supra , 498 U.S. at 298-99). See also Blair I United States , 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919) (a grand jury witness cannot refuse to respond to a subpoena on the grounds that the information sought

the entrails of a goat, we are left to scour the record for indications of what these documents might be and what they might contain. Id. at 569. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the litigants' motion to quash because of their failure "to present sufficient information with respect to t

vity under investigation permit." United States Blair, 214 F.3d 690, 697 (6th Cir.2000) (citing tilte

its position clear that no reduction was warranted, adding that it could not present "a more vigorous argument" because of the plea agreement. Id. The First Circuit held that although the Government did not formally oppose the reduc- tion, it effectively opposed it in the memorandum. Id. Clark has no bearing on

the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions or propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation . ." Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919). A grand jury may "inquire into all information that might possibly bear on its investigation until it ha

g the entrails of a goat, we are left to scour the record for indications of what these documents might be and what they might contain. Id. at 569. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the litigants' motion to quash because of their failure "to present sufficient information with respect to t