the draft indictments are not sufficient to warrant their withholding. There, however, the defendant’s declaration asserted that “the documents contained] information that ‘could be used as evidence before a Federal Grand Jury’ or ‘may be subpoenaed by a Federal Grand Jury[,]’ ” Citizens for Responsibility, 746 F.3d at 1100 (emphasis in original), whereas here, the defendant contends that information that “would reveal some secret aspect of the grand jury investigation,” including “the identities of witnesses, the substance of testimony, [and] the strategy or direction of the investigation,” Senate of P.R., 823 F.2d at 582, is a directly resulting from a grand jury investigation, the material is not coincidental, and Rule 6(e) applies. See Fund for Constitutional Gov’t, 656 F.2d at 870 (<HOLDING>). The draft indictments are not merely
holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings holding that usual rule 6e secrecy protecting identity of witnesses did not apply to the president because it was already widely known that he had testified in front of the grand jury holding that the first amendment protects the right to criticize a grand jury investigation holding rule applicable to witness holding rule 6e applicable because material was not coincidental to grand jury investigation but rather a direct result of it