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."
\u201cDEVELOPING Trump Justice Dept. asks U.S. judge to reject House Judiciary Committee request for Mueller grand jury materials, argues courts in 1974 wrongly gave Congress the Watergate grand jury 'roadmap' that led to President Nixon's impeachment.\u201d— Spencer Hsu (@Spencer Hsu) 1570550971
\u201c"Wow, O.K.," responded U.S. Chief District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., sounding unpersuaded. "As I said, the department is taking an extraordinary position in this case."\u201d— Spencer Hsu (@Spencer Hsu) 1570550971
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:
\u201cLiterally relitigating Watergate!\u201d— Dan Froomkin/PressWatchers.org (@Dan Froomkin/PressWatchers.org) 1570551248
\u201cThe DOJ has been diminished to arguing that Nixon\u2019s impeachment inquiry was illegal in order to protect Trump.\u201d— Scott Hechinger (@Scott Hechinger) 1570553619
\u201cShorter version: Trump admin argues in court that Nixon was treated SO unfairly.\u201d— Susan Glasser (@Susan Glasser) 1570558897
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."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
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."
\u201cDEVELOPING Trump Justice Dept. asks U.S. judge to reject House Judiciary Committee request for Mueller grand jury materials, argues courts in 1974 wrongly gave Congress the Watergate grand jury 'roadmap' that led to President Nixon's impeachment.\u201d— Spencer Hsu (@Spencer Hsu) 1570550971
\u201c"Wow, O.K.," responded U.S. Chief District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., sounding unpersuaded. "As I said, the department is taking an extraordinary position in this case."\u201d— Spencer Hsu (@Spencer Hsu) 1570550971
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:
\u201cLiterally relitigating Watergate!\u201d— Dan Froomkin/PressWatchers.org (@Dan Froomkin/PressWatchers.org) 1570551248
\u201cThe DOJ has been diminished to arguing that Nixon\u2019s impeachment inquiry was illegal in order to protect Trump.\u201d— Scott Hechinger (@Scott Hechinger) 1570553619
\u201cShorter version: Trump admin argues in court that Nixon was treated SO unfairly.\u201d— Susan Glasser (@Susan Glasser) 1570558897
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."
\u201cDEVELOPING Trump Justice Dept. asks U.S. judge to reject House Judiciary Committee request for Mueller grand jury materials, argues courts in 1974 wrongly gave Congress the Watergate grand jury 'roadmap' that led to President Nixon's impeachment.\u201d— Spencer Hsu (@Spencer Hsu) 1570550971
\u201c"Wow, O.K.," responded U.S. Chief District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., sounding unpersuaded. "As I said, the department is taking an extraordinary position in this case."\u201d— Spencer Hsu (@Spencer Hsu) 1570550971
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:
\u201cLiterally relitigating Watergate!\u201d— Dan Froomkin/PressWatchers.org (@Dan Froomkin/PressWatchers.org) 1570551248
\u201cThe DOJ has been diminished to arguing that Nixon\u2019s impeachment inquiry was illegal in order to protect Trump.\u201d— Scott Hechinger (@Scott Hechinger) 1570553619
\u201cShorter version: Trump admin argues in court that Nixon was treated SO unfairly.\u201d— Susan Glasser (@Susan Glasser) 1570558897
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.