Three key Republican House members were right on target Feb. 7 in asking Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray who was involved in giving a copy of special counsel Robert Mueller’s “sealed, non-public indictment against Roger Stone to members of the media.”

On Feb. 4, Stone’s attorney released compelling evidence indicating that it was someone from Mueller’s team who probably tipped off CNN about the raid on the house of Stone, a high-profile political adviser to President Trump. A CNN camera crew set up in front of Stone’s house about an hour before 29 agents wielding riot gear and heavy weapons conducted their pre-dawn raid against the flamboyant consultant.

CNN at first claimed it had done independent leg-work to deduce that the raid might be forthcoming that morning. Stone attorney Grant J. Smith, however, claims otherwise. He said CNN reporter Sara Murray contacted him to ask about the arrest within six minutes of the first knock on Stone’s door, and that 11 minutes after that she sent him a copy of the indictment that did not include notations showing that the documents had been received by the court.

This is important. Until application has been made to the court, only the prosecutors have access to draft indictments. Indeed, Smith said, the document provided to and by CNN “indicates that the author was ‘AAW’ and that it was created and modified on 1/23/19 at 11:04 pm … a full day before it was filed with the court under seal.” (Italics in the original. It is not known who “AAW” is.)

The three Republicans, each the highest ranking member of a committee or subcommittee with jurisdiction over such matters, are Jim Jordan of Ohio, Doug Collins of Georgia, and Mark Meadows of North Carolina. Their letter to Wray and Rosenstein notes that “sealed grand jury materials are protected against disclosure. The claims by Smith raise concerns of possible unauthorized disclosure to the media within the Department [of Justice].”

Separately, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has demanded a briefing by the FBI on the means and scope of the raid on Stone, indicating he thinks the nature of the armed force may have been excessive. (At the time of this writing, the Washington Examiner has not heard back from Graham’s press office as to whether the FBI had complied by Graham’s original deadline of Feb. 5.)

When a draft indictment is shared with the media, it creates conditions that make the accused look guilty before he even has a chance to defend himself. A video image of somebody arrested by agents in riot gear can indelibly stamp into the public mind, and therefore into the mind of potential jurors, the idea of the accused as a dangerous criminal.

Whatever the technical legality of this particular leak, if the leak did indeed come from the special counsel or the FBI, it is in common terms unethical for such entities to leak it. In short, it looks like an attempt both to add to the intimidation experienced by the accused and to taint any potential jury.

Mueller, the FBI, and the Justice Department already have been subject to copious criticism, some of it unearned, for their conduct of the entire Russia-related investigation. In such circumstances, they should be extra careful not to act abusively. This evident leak adds to the sense of abuse. If the leak did indeed come from one of these sources, it was both shameful and politically inept.