Support NeoGAF

[Angry Grimace]

The New York Times covered this.

In 1973.

WASHINGTON, March 21—The United States District Court for the District of Columbia blocked today efforts by President Nixon's campaign organszation to compel 10 reporters and news executives to turn over notes and other unpublished material in the Watergate case.

Judge Charles R. Richey, acting on First Amendment grounds, quashed subpoenas served on representatives of four news organizations by the Committee for the Re‐election of the President.

”This court cannot blind itself to the possible chilling effect the enforcement of ... these subpoenas would have on the press and the public," Judge Richey said in an oral opinion immediately after oral arguments on the issue this afternoon.

He said he did not believe that journalists had an absolute privilege against testifying but he held that the courts ”must be flexible to some extent" and that the current cases ”are all exceptional."

Judge Richey said that lawyers for the Nixon committee had made no showing that other sources of evidence ”have been exhausted or even approached." They also failed to show that the material demanded of the 10 journalists is central to the case, he said.

The subpoenas had been served on representatives of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington StarNews and Time magazine in connection with civil lawsuits dealing with the Watergate affair.

The Democratic National Committee and party leaders have demanded $3.2‐million in damages from the Nixon organization and others in connection with the break‐in and bugging of the party headquarters in the Watergate apartment ‐ office complex last June.

In response, Republican leaders filed suits charging Lawrence F. O'Brien, the former Democratic National Chairman and a plaintiff in the original case, with libel and malicious abuse of the judicial process.

Kenneth Wells Parkinson, a lawyer for the Nixon committee, had sought to force the journalists to give depositions, or pretrial testimony out of court, and to bring all material dealing with the Watergate case with them.

Mr. Parkinson argued today that the public had ”a right to every man's evidence," and that the subpoenas were ”not as broad and deep and all‐encompassing as it might appear on the surface."

While lawyers for the journalists cited the constitutional bar to unreasonable searches and seizures and the Federal rules of procedure, they relied principally on the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press.

They argued that much of the material sought had been obtained from confidential sources, and that such confidentiality was essential in reporting the news, especially on sensitive developments such as the Watergate case.

Both the journalists' lawyers and Judge Richey noted that the current case, unlike most of those in which courts have ordered testimony to be given, was a civil action with fewer competing needs than a criminal case would have.

The judge refused to declare that the subpoenas were too broad under Federal rules, but he said that the First Amendment question involved was of the ”first magnitude."

Question May Recur

He said he was ”well aware" that other courts, including the Supreme Court, ”have been reluctant in the absence of a statute to recognize even a qualified newsman's‐privilege [not to disclose information]."

But Judge Richey then noted circumstances in the present case, such as its civil rather than criminal nature, and in effect ruled that a qualified privilege did exist.

Some journalists have sought nothing more from the courts, and lawyers for some of those subpoenaed in the Watergate case were therefore encouraged by the finding that the First Amendment could dominate in some instances.

The judge remarked that at ”some future date" in the suit, if it was established that the information sought was unavailable elsewhere and that it would. be of ”compelling and overriding interest," the issue might Le raised again.

Mr. Parkinson said an appeal of the decision would be considered.

The journalists subpoenaed were John M. Crewdson of The Times; Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of The Post; The Post's publisher, Mrs, Katharine Graham, and its managing editor, Howard Simons; Jeremiah O'Leary, Patrick Collins and James Polk of The Star‐News; Joseph Volz, formerly with The Star‐News, and Dean Fisher of Tim

 

[Trojita]

"I don't recall who it was".

 

[BoboBrazil]

True. You'd think he'd tell Trump to fuck off now though seeing as how he keeps bad mouthing him.

If Trump goes down Sessions probably would also. He's protecting his own ass.

 

[IrishNinja]

Sessions thinks he can treat the press like the way he treats black people.

exactly, he's come this far, why stop being a tremendous piece of shit now

this is all for show but just adds to the plentiful reasons this white supremicist shitheel needs to be gone already

 

[Stumpokapow]

Thanks, Obama?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/...ld-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

Yes, this was something the Obama administration was particularly bad at.

 

[Brandon F]

Fear and intimidation always works out well in the end!

 

[Wag]

Supreme Court here we come!

 

[Shauni]

The US is slowly but surely turning into Russia.

I mean, not really. I see the temptation to make that hot take and everything, and this kind of stuff is obviously being taken out of the authoritarian handbook, but the US has a long way to actually go before it becomes anything like what Russia looks now. It's also going to be much harder for any administration to take out/takeover our free press than it was in Russia. People don't realize just how deeply rooted the free press of America has become in society and politics. Not to say it's an impossible feat, but a much harder one than Putin did taken over the free press in Russia, which itself was relatively new.

 

[How About No]

The New York Times covered this.

In 1973.

So this is a tool-assisted Watergate speedrun?

The tool of course being Sessions

 

[The Hamburglar]

His surname is shit.

 

[Netherscourge]

It's amazing how much this all mirrors the Watergate scandal and how Trump is recreating, almost move for move, the same cover-up, for the same result - to throw a Presidential election in his favor.

Only this is much worse, because Trump was conspiring with a sanctioned enemy of the United States, rather than just a political party. And Trump stood to gain considerable financial gain for himself and his family's business interests, as we see he's already doing as President.

 

[gcubed]

Yes, this was something the Obama administration was particularly bad at.

Whole I agree he was less than ideal on the topic, they didn't threaten or prosecute people for leaking embarrassing things that aren't classified.

 

[Steel]

True. You'd think he'd tell Trump to fuck off now though seeing as how he keeps bad mouthing him.

Sessions wants his job.

 

[Host Samurai]

Time for some Sessions oppo that lands him in jail this time.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Is he conducting some kind of official investigation or?

 

[Mr. X]

So this is a tool-assisted Watergate speedrun?

The tool of course being Sessions

They're all tools honestly.

 

[JABEE]

Dangerous road to go down for the executive office or the DoJ re: the first amendment.

I still can't think of anything that has leaked thus far that was actually claimed to be classified by national security. Certainly not any of the Trump team convos under investigation last year.

And it would be interesting to see how much stuff is classified in order to avoid potential embarrassment or public outcry. You can make arguments to hid a lot of malfeasance in the name of national security/public stability.

Leaks are good for democracy when the system is as corrupt as it is now. Vietnam War draft files and the Pentagon Papers relied on leaks. If there were no Leaks, Nixon would have never been forced to resign from office.

 

[watershed]

Yet another sign of an authoritarian state.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

And it would be interesting to see how much stuff is classified in order to avoid potential embarrassment or public outcry. You can make arguments to hid a lot of malfeasance in the name of national security/public stability.

Leaks are good for democracy when the system is as corrupt as it is now. Vietnam War draft files and the Pentagon Papers relied on leaks. If there were no Leaks, Nixon would have never been forced to resign from office.

Based on the precedent set by Nixon, courts would almost certainly rule that the public's right to know would supersede security concerns, when the president himself is the subject of an ongoing investigation.