5 Takeaways From Oral Arguments On House Subpoena Of Trump’s Accountant | Talking Points Memo

WASHINGTON – On Friday, personal attorneys for President Trump and his family argued in front of a federal appeals court that it should block a congressional subpoena into the Trumps’ personal and business finances.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1235105
1 Like

I think I’ll await the 2-1 vote before saying anything else!

14 Likes

A GOP House response

  1. After some hassling from the court, the House put NO limits on what would be an appropriate subpoena.
1 Like

Every-time someone says “I am voting green, voting for who you really want is the most important thing” remember that the “democrats are as bad as republican” meme was pushed by the Russians in 2016, and it has now elected both Trump in 2016 and Bush in 2010. What the far left in the US has done is give us judges like Rao.

31 Likes

Rao was particularly fixated on the absence of a House floor vote to explicitly approve the Oversight Committee’s subpoena. Rao said it was “unprecedented” that the committee would go forward with the subpoena without getting explicit approval of the full House to target the President.

This is weak–but it does put me in mind of a potentially very important power that the House has, what with it being a co-equal branch of government and all, which for some reason Pelosi has not not used. House floor votes can be used to state, by resolution, the official position of the House on factual-political matters. For example, the House could resolve that we have a climate emergency. Or it could resolve that we have a constitutional crisis. Or it could resolve that we have a national security emergency in terms of the vulnerability of the USA to foreign attacks related to the 2020 election. These resolutions would be founded on actual facts, would have to be accepted by the courts in the same way that the courts are basically bound to facially accept the executive’s findings, and could form the basis for all kinds action. At the very least, they could form the basis for legitimately launching forceful measures of various kinds and insisting on full compliance with subpoenas, requests for documents, etc. It’s, shall we say, curious that this kind of aggressive, creative approach has not been attempted.

28 Likes

2. The two Democratic-appointed judges were the most skeptical of Trump’s arguments.

3. The Trump-appointed judge on the court was more hostile towards the House.

For shame, @tierney . No less an authority than Chief Justice Roberts has assured us “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

25 Likes

Millett and Tatel seemed taken aback when Consovoy stated that he bets Kim Jong Un doesn’t have to put up with any of this s**t.

31 Likes

This attitude of entitlement is a non-starter. I wish people would learn that.

8 Likes

The only question is whether Rao joins the majority or dissents. Even then, it seems she focusing on a procedural issue (full House approval as a prerequisite to the subpoena) rather than on the House oversight authority.

15 Likes

You wish in vain.

Blaming the left is not only an honorable pastime; for many it is all they know to do.

21 Likes

In 2020 when a Dem defeats Spanky, Republicans will suddenly discover the need for severe limits on presidential authority, and for congressional investigations into things like wearing the wrong color suit and asking for foreign mustard.

Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.

39 Likes

Rao said it was “unprecedented” that the committee would go forward with the subpoena without getting explicit approval of the full House to target the President.

Rao should know that the Courts have no jurisdiction when it comes to questions of how the Congress conducts its business. If that was the case in the impeachment of Judge Walter Nixon, it’s certainly the case in the relatively minor issue of issuing a subpoena.

26 Likes

“Imagine, in the future, you have the most corrupt president in humankind, openly flaunting it, what law could Congress pass?” Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee asked.

The “future” is now.

40 Likes

“Letter even tried to think of a hypothetical for when it would be appropriate for the House to subpoena from a third party the diary a 70-year-old president wrote when he was 7 years old.”

“May 7, 1953: Dear Diary, today the school cafeteria finally settled with me on my past-due lunch-money balance. Having tied them up with litigation since the first semester, and funded the suit with cash drops from the Russian consulate through Mr. Cohn, I got the school to sign an NDA, wipe out the debt, and pay ME! (When Kew-Forest sends its people, they’re not sending their best.) Also, I pinched Mary Jo Krebs. Again. Note To Self: Make plans with Farkus (and Grover) to harass Negroes over summer vacation.”

51 Likes

Just as the media will celebrate brave Republicans who, behind closed doors, whispered criticisms of Trump.

24 Likes

An outstanding debt to a foreign power acquired at any time is relevant to the functioning of the Presidency.

Such a debt could lead the candidate push policies to curry favor with the holder of the debt both when in office and on the campaign trail.

40 Likes

“Imagine, in the future, you have the most corrupt president in humankind, openly flaunting it, what law could Congress pass?” Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee asked.

The future? Would that be this afternoon?

I see what she did there…

33 Likes

No mention by Letters that the dotard set himself up for this subpoena by refusing to release financial/tax records for the past ten years as all other candidates since Nixon have done. Doesn’t that count for something in the uncovering of his possibly being compromised?

12 Likes

I’d say it is equally the fault of the flawed candidate giving the Left the finger by picking a milquetoast centrist tool like Kaine instead of any nod toward the 30% that did not support her candidacy.

Of course we could also blame the ourselves for thinking that after HRC got outgamed in the 2008 primary that she wouldn’t get outgained again.

Or we can keep shitting on the more left minded folks in our party and keep the dischord going.

14 Likes

28 Likes