A leading Democratic congressman renewed his demand on Friday that Attorney General Bill Barr hand Congress an unredacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's final report – even portions dealing with secret grand jury testimony. He continued his insistence that Congress should see raw evidence from the Russia probe, citing 800,000 pages of 'sensitive investigative materials' related to the Hillary Clinton email investigation that the Trump administration shared with a Republican-led House during 2017 and 2018. And he threatened Barr with a contempt of Congress citation if he refuses. In his latest written salvo lobbed at the administration, House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler told Barr he wants the Justice Department to 'seek a court order permitting disclosure of materials covered by Rule 6(e).' That clause in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure covers grand jury secrecy, a concept considered untouchable because it prevents the escape of people who might be indicted, discourages perjury and protects the reputations of people who are investigated but not charged with crimes. Nadler argued Friday against Barr's determination that the rule 'contains no exception' that would allow him to show Nadler what he has subpoenaed. 'Courts have provided Rule 6(e) materials to Congress under the rule's "judicial proceeding" exception in the past,' he wrote. That's a reference to one of very few exceptions to grand jury secrecy: disclosing information 'preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.' The most famous example of invoking it came in the Watergate investigation, when federal courts allowed the special prosecutor's office to see grand jury information because Congress had authorized the Judiciary Committee to open a formal impeachment probe. A federal court last month agreed with that standard, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has so far refused to entertain the idea of moving to impeach President Donald Trump. The D.C. federal appeals court decision on April 5, however, also upheld the broader idea that not even Congress can intrude on grand jury proceedings without a constitutionally more important reason. The case, McKeever v. Barr, was an unrelated victory for the attorney general that will likely help him defend Trump. The appeals court ruled that a historian couldn't get access to grand jury records from 1957, even though none of the people involved with it were still alive. Nadler also wrote on Friday that he wants Barr to allow a broader group of lawmakers to look at a version of the Mueller report that is less redacted than the one he released to the public. The Justice Department prepared a copy last month that unmasked all of the redactions except the grand jury material. But to date only a handful of leaders from both parties have been authorized to see it – and they are under strict orders not to discuss with lower-ranking members the things what they read. Although half of those authorized readers are Democrats, only two Republicans have checked into the secure room in the U.S. Capitol where it is held. One Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. The other is Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking GOP member on Nadler's panel. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters on Friday at the White House: 'Not a single Democrat has yet to go read the less-redacted version of the report.' Nadler, however, continued to press for broader access. '[T]he Department has never explained why it is willing to allow only a small number of Members to view a less-redacted version of the report, subject to the condition that they cannot discuss what they have seen with anyone else,' Nadler wrote on Friday. He asked Barr to allow every member of Congress to see it. 'Congress has ample means of providing for safe storage of these materials,' Nadler argued, 'and it is routinely entrusted with the responsibility to protect classified and other sensitive information.' And 'the Department has offered no reason whatsoever,' he added, 'for failing to produce the evidence underlying the report, except for a complaint that there is too much of it and a vague assertion about the sensitivity of law enforcement files.' Nadler's subpoena, which included a deadline that passed this week, demanded access to all the 'investigative and evidentiary materials' that Mueller cited by name in his report. Nadler wrote that the category would include FBI reports from witness interviews and notes taken by witnesses, and he contrasted the standoff with the administration's willingness to share similar information with a GOP-led Congress about Hillary Clinton's private emails. Clinton was the subject of a Justice Department probe into allegations that she mishandled classified materials on a private server she used exclusively for government emails while she was secretary of state. As with the claims that the Trump campaign conspired with Russian agents and that the president obstructed justice, the DOJ declined to file criminal charges against Clinton. But Congress conducted its own investigations, aided by massive document disclosures from the executive branch. 'As recently as last Congress, the Department produced more than 880,000 pages of sensitive investigative materials pertaining to its investigation of Hillary Clinton, as well as much other material relating to the then-ongoing Russia investigation,' Nadler wrote on Friday. 'That production included highly classified material, notes from FBI interviews, internal text messages, and law enforcement memoranda. The volume of documents cited in the Special Counsel's report is surely smaller.' He also noted that during Independent Counsel Ken Starr's investigation of President Bill Clinton, his office 'produced a 445-page report to Congress along with 18 boxes of accompanying evidence.' Starr was required to submit a report to Congress, under the terms of different law from the one that gave Mueller his power. That law expired in 1999. Despite federal courts' limits on his power, Nadler threatened Barr on Friday with a contempt of Congress citation on Friday. 'The Committee is prepared to make every realistic effort to reach an accommodation with the Department. But if the Department persists in its baseless refusal to comply with the validly issued subpoena, the Committee will move to contempt proceedings and seek further legal recourse,' he wrote. Barr skipped a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, refusing to testify because Nadler planned to give his staff attorneys a half-hour to grill him courtroom-style. Congressional hearings typically limit questions to elected lawmakers. Barr testified in a similar Senate hearing on Wednesday. All rights reserved for this news site dailymail and under his responsibility