SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"You know you're on the wrong side of history--and the law--when you're arguing that Nixon turned over too many documents," tweeted Chris Yu, fellow at the Miller Center. (Photo: CQ Roll Call via Getty Images)
'Literally Relitigating Watergate': Trump DOJ Argues Court Was Wrong to Hand Over Grand Jury Material in Nixon Impeachment Inquiry
"Wow," said the federal judge hearing the case. "The department is taking an extraordinary position."
Oct 08, 2019
Lawyers for the Trump Justice Department stunned a federal judge Tuesday by arguing courts in 1974 were wrong to approve the release of Watergate documents to Congress during the impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon.
According to Politico's Darren Samuelsohn, Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Shapiro said during a hearing that if the Watergate case came before the court today, there would be a "different result."
"Wow, okay," responded U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell. "The department is taking an extraordinary position in this case."
The exchange came during arguments on the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena for the grand jury evidence behind former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia.
Observers on social media echoed Judge Howell's stunned reaction to the Justice Department's argument.
"You know you're on the wrong side of history--and the law--when you're arguing that Nixon turned over too many documents," tweeted Chris Yu, fellow at the Miller Center.
Others piled on:
Politico reported that attorneys for the Justice Department said House Democrats "should be denied access to the Mueller grand jury materials, arguing that a congressional impeachment proceeding doesn't meet the criteria to release them."
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement following Tuesday's hearing that he is "confident" in Democrats' case.
"We are gratified at the seriousness with which the court addressed our petition for grand jury information relating to the House impeachment inquiry," said Nadler. "We remain confident in our case and look forward to the resolution of this matter."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Lawyers for the Trump Justice Department stunned a federal judge Tuesday by arguing courts in 1974 were wrong to approve the release of Watergate documents to Congress during the impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon.
According to Politico's Darren Samuelsohn, Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Shapiro said during a hearing that if the Watergate case came before the court today, there would be a "different result."
"Wow, okay," responded U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell. "The department is taking an extraordinary position in this case."
The exchange came during arguments on the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena for the grand jury evidence behind former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia.
Observers on social media echoed Judge Howell's stunned reaction to the Justice Department's argument.
"You know you're on the wrong side of history--and the law--when you're arguing that Nixon turned over too many documents," tweeted Chris Yu, fellow at the Miller Center.
Others piled on:
Politico reported that attorneys for the Justice Department said House Democrats "should be denied access to the Mueller grand jury materials, arguing that a congressional impeachment proceeding doesn't meet the criteria to release them."
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement following Tuesday's hearing that he is "confident" in Democrats' case.
"We are gratified at the seriousness with which the court addressed our petition for grand jury information relating to the House impeachment inquiry," said Nadler. "We remain confident in our case and look forward to the resolution of this matter."
Lawyers for the Trump Justice Department stunned a federal judge Tuesday by arguing courts in 1974 were wrong to approve the release of Watergate documents to Congress during the impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon.
According to Politico's Darren Samuelsohn, Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Shapiro said during a hearing that if the Watergate case came before the court today, there would be a "different result."
"Wow, okay," responded U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell. "The department is taking an extraordinary position in this case."
The exchange came during arguments on the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena for the grand jury evidence behind former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia.
Observers on social media echoed Judge Howell's stunned reaction to the Justice Department's argument.
"You know you're on the wrong side of history--and the law--when you're arguing that Nixon turned over too many documents," tweeted Chris Yu, fellow at the Miller Center.
Others piled on:
Politico reported that attorneys for the Justice Department said House Democrats "should be denied access to the Mueller grand jury materials, arguing that a congressional impeachment proceeding doesn't meet the criteria to release them."
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement following Tuesday's hearing that he is "confident" in Democrats' case.
"We are gratified at the seriousness with which the court addressed our petition for grand jury information relating to the House impeachment inquiry," said Nadler. "We remain confident in our case and look forward to the resolution of this matter."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.