An appeals court on Monday ordered the Justice Department to state its position in a case that President Trump filed to shut down a House investigation of his finances.
So now the DOJ can show up and explain that the founders actually envisioned a monarchy.
“According to a recent memorandum from the OLC ….”
be right back
Jeff Sessions is about to make a new friend at the retirement home.
Consovoy has argued that its unique position rendered it immune from any Congressional oversight or regulation, repeatedly telling the appeals court that, in his view, Congress could neither subpoena information relating to the President nor enact laws mandating financial disclosures on the commander-in-chief.
Judge Patricia Millett pointed out during the exchange that the Justice Department sent an attorney during arguments in Clinton v. Jones, a case that examined whether presidential immunity rendered civil damages claims impossible to pursue.
If this ruling ends up affecting Trump adversely I suppose he will just have to sue the DOJ.
I was looking for that time when DOJ compared Trump’s wealth to George Washington’s.
though I couldn’t find that article, I did find the above.
I do not understand that if Trumps private attorneys can not argue for Trump, why the judge just doesnt rule against him.
A little help from the legally-enlightened brethren (& sisters) hereabouts??
Your Honor,
The DOJ, by its actions, has demonstrated its position on this matter.
No brief is required.
If the office is so special that it gets a perpetual Do Not Disturb sign for all reasons under any conditions because the president can’t be distracted, it’s untenable to define the office as only existing when Donald puts on his president hat.
If Cosovoy is only representing the individual, then the Executive Office has no overarching privilege of any kind. It’s one thing to claim the President is always above the law, it’s another thing to empower him with the right to pick his own standing however it suits his case.
Note the subtle use of “its” and “it” when referring to Trump rather than “his” or “him”…
What I find interesting about the “Washington did it too” argument is that a court didn’t decide what Washington was doing violated the clause it was that people didn’t take him to court so therefore it’s not wrong for trump either. It’s more likely that they didn’t think Washington was an evil stinking traitor.
Makes sense but I don’t think buttboy Barr will be able to represent him. Or Trump could issue an exec order, where “just this one time” (promise) Barr could represent both sides, set new precedents… and all that other legal stuff.
Maybe the Democratic strategy of hiding and leaving this to the courts isn’t a good idea in the long run?
And we all know how much Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh value precedent. I have confidence in their ability to find that Clinton v Jones did not give the separation of powers the full measure of respect originally intended by the fabled founding fathers.
“During oral arguments on Friday, judges at the D.C. appeals court repeatedly questioned the President’s personal attorney…”
Bill Barr?
Barr will happily make the argument that the founders envisioned a government by older white men and therefore, because polls show Trump has the support of older white men, he should be allowed to do whatever he wants without interference with those pesky women and people of color who really ought not to be voting in the first place.
I am not sure if it isnt what the judge is saying in this case. That DOJ must represent Trump.
We’ll see just how much of a Trump whore Barr is with this. Barr will desperately want to support Donnie and the super-unitary executive, but the DOJ officially asserting that the President is above the law in all circumstances no matter how openly corrupt may be a step too far even for Barr.
@pike_bishop:
The court appears not to believe that Trump’s private lawyers have the authority to take a position on behalf of the office of the President and wants to get the executive branch (through the DOJ) officially on the record on this.