#watergate
2 entries with this tag
The Trump Justice Department Is Relitigating Watergate — Opening a Review of Whether the Prosecutors Who Brought Down Richard Nixon Committed "Misconduct," and Recasting the Most Thoroughly Proven Presidential Crime in American History as a "Deep State" Plot Against an Innocent Man — in a Transparent Bid to Delegitimize Accountability Itself and Lay Groundwork to Excuse Trump; a Member of the Committee That Voted to Impeach Nixon Called It "Beyond Stupid"
In early October 2026, it was reported that the Trump Justice Department has opened a preliminary review of whether the Watergate special prosecutors — the ones who held Richard Nixon accountable in the 1970s — committed misconduct. The review follows a presentation by Geoff Shepard, a former Nixon aide and longtime Watergate revisionist who argues the prosecutors violated defendants' rights and that Nixon was treated unfairly. The purpose is not subtle. It is the latest move to recast Nixon as a victim of the "deep state," and to yoke his case to Trump's: Vice President JD Vance has said that "how the deep state took down Richard Nixon, it's not all that different from what the same groups of people, the same institutions tried to do to Donald Trump." In other words, if Watergate can be reframed as a frame-up, then so, by extension, can every investigation of Trump. Elizabeth Holtzman — who as a member of the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach Nixon — called the effort "just beyond stupid and beyond absurd," because to believe Nixon was railroaded, "you'd have to say that everybody was duped — that the Republicans were duped, that the Supreme Court was duped, that everybody was duped except this guy and Trump." Watergate is not a contested historical question. It is the best-documented presidential crime in American history, ended by Nixon's own tape-recorded voice. Using the Justice Department to pretend otherwise is not scholarship. It is the weaponization of law enforcement against the historical record, in the service of the current president.
Asked on Live Television Whether He Would Pledge That the Justice Department Would Be Independent of the White House, the Newly Confirmed Attorney General — Trump's Former Personal Lawyer — Said "No, I'm Not Going to Pledge That," Confirming Out Loud, Days After His 50-49 Confirmation, Exactly What His Critics Warned
Just over a week after the Senate confirmed him 50-49, Attorney General Todd Blanche — Trump's former personal criminal-defense lawyer — went on NBC's "Meet the Press" and was asked the simplest question about his new job: would he pledge that the Justice Department would be independent of the White House? His answer: "No, I'm not going to pledge that." He said he would take President Trump's views into account in directing federal law enforcement, while insisting he would act with integrity and "prosecute without fear or any sort of favor," and that Trump would never cross a "legal line." He also publicly backed U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro after Trump criticized her for dropping a prosecution, and defended the DOJ opinion extending executive privilege to Trump's private advisers. The post-Watergate norm — that the Justice Department does not take direction from the president on who to investigate and charge — is the single most important guardrail against a law-enforcement apparatus turned into a political weapon. Two Republican senators, Collins and Murkowski, voted against Blanche precisely because they feared he would erase it. Days later, on national television, he confirmed they were right: he would not even pledge the independence the office is supposed to embody. He is not hiding the answer. He is stating it.