jfc…
5 Likes
So, is insulting the intelligence of the judge a good way to go? I suspect they believe the fix is in at SCOTUS, so they’re not even bothering to lawyer this.
28 Likes
HouSe wants to do LaW enforcemEnt oveRsight. Unconstitutional!
29 Likes
These affairs are not overwhelming everything Trump and the Republicans will try to do for the rest of this term. Because Trump and the Republicans aren’t doing any legislating at all, on purpose.
These affairs are a distraction from that.
12 Likes
Meh, it’s hard to lawyer something when there aren’t any convincing legal arguments.
Is most certainly helpful to have five dudes in black robes who don’t give a shit about the law.
25 Likes
The last paragraph says volumes. The Judge wants to fast track the litigation. The Congressional committee wants to fast track it. Trump wants to slow walk it. It seems to me Trump wants to run out the clock.
33 Likes
Where did these lawyers go to law school – Liberty?
12 Likes
Ya think?
7 Likes
Yes. If Congress, in the midst of crafting a specific piece of legislation, wants to craft it in such a way as to avoid the possibility of corruption, then its seeking information about potential conflicts of interest certainly serves a “legitimate legislative purpose.”
A difficulty arises if the request for information – or the underlying exercise – appears to target individuals.
9 Likes
Instead of individuals, what about targeting specific offices/officers like the POTUS (whoever holds the office)? Does that attenuate the difficulty?
6 Likes
And wow,
NB letter must be autocorrect error for Committee Attorney Little.
26 Likes
Sort of ironic, considering bankers and farmers likely cast the majority of their votes for Trump. I have occasion to talk to farmers here and there. To a person most are politically conservative, registered Republicans, voted for Trump. You reap what you sow. Unfortunately everyone is stuck eating the harvest.
21 Likes
This exchange is breathtaking if you think about it:
"At one point, Mehta asked Consovoy if it was his view that Congress’ investigations into Whitewater and Watergate were beyond the scope of their authority.
Consovoy stammered a bit, before telling the judge he would need to look more closely at the bases of those investigations."
An attorney, arguing why an investigation is overstepping its authority, is totally ill-prepared to state how this case is distinguished from the two key prior investigations of a President. As an attorney, I would think this is the first question you would need to address. Everything Trump touches gets ruined or tainted by his incompetence.
45 Likes
Trump’s lawyer’s argument seems to come down to this: The American people have every right to elect a corrupt criminal to the office of the presidency and, while he is in office, Congress has no constitutional authority to investigate whether the president is a corrupt criminal. If this argument works, and if a president cannot be indicted for a crime committed while in office, then we are electing kings for four-year terms.
44 Likes
Trump U?
8 Likes
Yet the very fate of the legislation’s passage lays in the hands of that one individual. And that one individual refused to put his business interests or assets in a blind trust. And that one individual has bragged publicly he can juggle personal business pursuits and being President simultaneously.
If the shoe fits…
24 Likes
Oversight is oversight. The authority to conduct oversight is expressly granted to the Congress. The Congress does not have to spell out the details, although an explanation as to its reasoning would have been in order to undergird the authority.
15 Likes
Agreed.
In 1974 the request for the WH tapes ultimately targeted one individual. And that individual lost.
22 Likes
So Congress had to get their hands on every e-mail Hillary ever sent or received.
But have no right to request a copy of a Federal form that Trump filled out under penalty of perjury.
Got it.
44 Likes
The Kilbourn decision, mentioned above, listed a number of criteria against which the legitimacy of a Congressional demand for information could be measured. Here are key elements:
-
In fashioning its purpose and its demand, Congress must not “invade areas constitutionally reserved to the courts or the executive.” In a nutshell: Congress is not a law-enforcement agency.
-
In fashioning its purpose and its demand, Congress can only seek information on “subjects on which [it] could validly legislate.” In a nutshell: subjects that are (constitutionally) within the scope of its (legislative) powers.
-
In fashioning its demand, Congress must specify “[an] interest in legislating” on the specified subject. In a nutshell: just say something about what you’re up to (and notice that Judge Mehta voiced some reluctance to go behind what Congress says in this regard).
-
If in fashioning its demand, Congress can specify “no valid legislation” in prospect, then the “Private affairs of individuals” cannot be part of its demand.
Bear in mind that much has changed in the Universe since Justice Miller handed down these criteria in 1880. Applying them consistently to what’s happening today is … not an enviable task.
16 Likes