You’re arguing on two different tracks, but conflating the two here, which muddies the waters rather unnecessarily.
Framing is one thing, and can be countered by appropriate framing on our side. I agree that we’re not doing that well. We’ve never been that good at it. Republicans have become masters of this, through the “work” of Frank Luntz, Lee Atwater, and so on. They have perfected framing that appeals to the lizard brain. We have a tough time with that, partly because we’re trying to appeal to other sections of the brain.
But you were also arguing that the moving parties were making a good factual and legal argument. IOW, it’s not just that the Rs can “frame” this as an abuse of Congressional power, but that these subpoenas actually do constitute such abuse. Example:
So I’m focusing now on the facts and the law, not the “framing”. Especially because the facts and the law show that the “framing” is bullshit, as Republican framing so often is.
They certainly did not “blow it off” in court filings. The legislative purposes are stated in detail in the opposition brief, and having read it now, it’s my conclusion that they carry the day. The purposes are legitimate and urgent, and amply supported by the facts of the case.
[quote]The Committee on Financial Services, pursuant to its broad oversight and legislative jurisdiction over “[b]anks and banking, including deposit insurance and Federal monetary policy,” as well as “[i]nternational finance,” Rule X.1(h)(1), (5), Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives (116th Cong.) (House Rules), is investigating serious issues regarding compliance with banking regulations, loan practices, and money laundering. As Chairwoman Maxine Waters recently explained, “[t]he movement of illicit funds throughout the global financial system raises numerous questions regarding the actors who are involved in these money laundering schemes and where the money is going.” Those concerns are “precisely why the Financial Services Committee is investigating the questionable financing provided to President Trump and the Trump Organization by banks like Deutsche Bank to finance his real estate properties.”
[/quote]
Note that footnotes and internal citations are omitted from all quotations from the brief.
And that’s only part of the rationale articulated in the briefs applicable to the Financial Services Committee. Beyond the additional reasons cited regarding that committee, the brief also covers the Intel Committee:
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has broad jurisdiction to inquire into “[i]ntelligence and intelligence-related activities.” The Committee is charged with oversight of the Intelligence Community and all intelligence-related activities and programs of the United States Government. To that end, the Committee is investigating efforts by Russia and other foreign powers to influence the U.S. political process during and since the 2016 election—including financial leverage that foreign actors may have over President Trump, his family, and his business—and the related counterintelligence, national security, and legislative implications. The Committee is also evaluating whether the structure, legal authorities, policies, and resources of the U.S. Government’s intelligence, counterintelligence, and law enforcement elements are adequate to combat such threats to national security.
More specifically, the Committee is investigating, among other things: (1) “[t]he extent of any links and/or coordination between the Russian government, or related foreign actors, and individuals associated with Donald Trump’s campaign, transition, administration, or business interests, in furtherance of the Russian government’s interests”; (2) “[w]hether any foreign actor has sought to compromise or holds leverage, financial or otherwise, over Donald Trump, his family, his business, or his associates”; and (3) “[w]hether President Trump, his family, or his associates are or were at any time at heightened risk of, or vulnerable to, foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion, or have sought to influence U.S. government policy in service of foreign interests.”
Notably, these citations cover not only Trump, but his kids. Again, this is fact-based, and based on the entanglement of said kids in TTO’s corrupt business dealings and potential national security threats and compromises.
[quote]For decades, Mr. Trump’s business interests have intersected with Russia-linked entities and individuals, including oligarchs with ties to President Vladimir Putin. Since 1998, Deutsche Bank—which also had ties to Russian state institutions—served as a lender of last resort for Mr. Trump, extending loans totaling more than $2 billion. Around 2006, Mr. Trump embarked on a multi-year spending spree, ultimately spending more than $400 million in cash on various properties. These cash outlays occurred during a period in which the Trump Organization was reportedly experiencing significant cash inflows from Russian sources. It has also been reported that wealthy Russians and individuals from former Soviet states used Trump-branded real estate to park—and in some cases launder—large sums of money for over a decade. More recently, Mr. Trump secretly pursued a lucrative licensing deal for Trump Tower Moscow—a deal that would have required Kremlin approval—through at least June 2016, including after Mr. Trump had effectively secured the Republican presidential nomination. At the same time, Mr. Trump was advocating policies favored by Russia and praising President Putin. It is unclear whether the Trump Tower Moscow deal remains latent.
The Committee is examining whether Mr. Trump’s foreign business deals and financial ties were part of the Russian government’s efforts to entangle business and political leaders in corrupt activity or otherwise obtain leverage over them. On March 28, 2019, the Committee held a hearing to “discuss how the Kremlin uses financial leverage and corruption as tools of intelligence operations and foreign policy,” including “the use of financial entanglements as a means of compromise.” Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul testified that “in parallel with Putin’s use of money, corruption, and property rights as instruments for governing inside Russia, the Russian government instructs its economic actors to make deals with foreign entities to establish increased leverage and influence within these countries.” Ultimately, the Committee’s investigation of these matters will inform its “plans to develop legislation and policy reforms to ensure the U.S. government is better positioned to counter future efforts to undermine our political process and national security.”[/quote]
This is not even a close call when it comes to any reasonable definition of “legitimate legislative (or oversight) purpose.”
Again, they didn’t fail to do so. Whether or not it was stated in the subpoena (and you’ve not clearly stated that such purposes must be stated in the text of the subpoena itself, nor provided any authority for such a claim), it’s stated now.
That doesn’t qualify as a legislative purpose – it doesn’t answer the question “what law are you considering passing or revising, or what appropriations are you considering?”
That’s a very narrow definition of legislative purpose – unacceptably so, imho. Do you have legal authority that “legislative purpose” should be so narrowly construed?
Having read both briefs, this is not a close call, either factually or legally. It’s not even close to an abuse of power. As for “framing”, that’s a messaging issue, not a legal or factual one.