Is there any provision for Non-Disclosure for temporary documents of an ongoing investigation?

[bytebuster]

Продовжуємо ганяти неонацистську вату:

Is there any provision for Non-Disclosure for Congressmen demanding temporary documents of an ongoing investigation?

Context (highlight mine):

But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), one of Trump’s leading allies on the Hill, privately urged Republican colleagues Tuesday to consider holding Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray in contempt of Congress if the Justice Department does not provide him with documents he has sought about the Russia probe in coming days.

[…] Nunes has also spoken in the past week with members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, which has been supportive of Trump, about how a potential contempt effort could unfold. He has not yet spoken with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) about possibly moving forward, the two people said. — The Washington Post

In my naive understanding, the close allies of a subject¹ of a criminal probe are trying to get access to temporary documents that contain facts that the investigation has already established (and — most importantly — what has not been established yet).

These allies submit an official Congress inquiry to the DOJ, or else they threaten to accuse the DOJ of contempt of Congress.

Most obviously, since these Congressmen are "leading allies" and "been supportive" of the subject, they can be tempted to disclose the materials to the subject of the investigation. Which, in turn, would let him hide evidence, build up the defense strategy, threaten the witnesses, and so on.

Question: Is there any provision that regulates some kind of Non-Disclosure agreement to be signed by those who submit such demands? If so, how is the possible violation being prosecuted?

I am aware of the recent move of Rosenstein who refers to a similar case when in 1941, when Attorney General Robert Jackson investigated a corruption scandal in the US Navy. He refused Congressman Carl Vinson's demand to disclose the documents of the investigation, arguing, among other things, the possibility of disclosure to the enemies:

Second, disclosing certain investigative reports would give aid to our enemies and jeopardize our national security.

This makes me thinking that in 1941, there was no regulation of non-disclosure. So, have any been adopted since then?

---

¹) subject, not a target;

Comments

[juan_gandhi]

Неонацистскую?

[bytebuster]

А то ви уперше почули. :(

[juan_gandhi]

А с какого это бодуна их наци называют? Расисты - наверно; но почему наци?

[bytebuster]

Я не великий фахівець, але у моєму розумінні, расизм — це лише racial supremacy.
А нацизм = націонал-соціалізм, by def, також включає в себе відповідне ставлення до інших явищ, за не-національною ознакою:

* ЛГБТ — мріють керувати, хто з ким і в яку дірку їбеться;
* економіка — глобалізація, економічні звʼязки versus стіна на кордоні з Мексикою, NAFTA breakup тощо;
* religious obscurantism — само собою;
* MAGA — волога мрія про втрачене колишнє вялічіє, яке «папірєднікі просрали», і яке треба терміново відновлювати;
* і інші ультра-реакційні погляди.

Взагалі, почитайте George Lakoff's "Understanding Trump". Дуже прочищає мозок. У тому сенсі, що автор нічого нового не каже, чого б ви або я допіру не знали, але «розкладає по поличках», і всі розрізнені факти постають єдиним ланцюгом. Саме тому майже усі сучасні авторитарні режими тяжіють до неонацизму. Їм просто нема куди дітися, шлях — лише один.

Further reading:
https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/12070/2984
https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/13553/2984