Trump's lawyers tell judge Congress investigating him is an "invalid attempt at law enforcement."

[Miles Archer]

Brad Heath
@bradheath

President Trump's lawyers told a judge today that Congress didn't have the power to investigate him for corruption, and suggested that both the Whitewater and Watergate investigations were invalid attempts at "law enforcement." (link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/14/president-trump-fight-congressional-subpoena-financial-records-mazars-court-hearing/1187746001/) usatoday.com/story/news/pol…

Link to tweet

[Zoonart]

1. It's simple....

If the client MF45 is not guilty of a crime, why is he afraid of law enforcement?

[Maeve]

2. They are trying the "if the pResident does it, it's legal" argument

Ain't gonna fly and they should know better.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. "Consovoy's position is ridiculous."

Consovoy's position is ridiculous. Adopting his view of "legislative purpose" would simply gut the constitution's checks and balances.

Link to tweet

MEHTA: "Say for example if a president had a financial interest in a particular piece of legislation that was being considered … in your view Congress could not investigate whether a president has a conflict of interest?

CONSOVOY: "It would lack legitimate legislative purpose."

Link to tweet

Trump lawyer CONSOVOY says he wants "a week or two" to ask whether Rep. @Jim_Jordan might voluntarily turn over Oversight Committee documents to the Trump legal team that might support the argument that the investigation of Trump's finances lacks a legislative purpose.

Link to tweet

[spanone]

4. Contrary to the constitution. Oversight belongs to congress. this is bullshit.

[malaise]

8. Bullshit on steroids

These fuckers are brazen - he really is an autocrat.
ITTMF

[gohuskies]

5. Have they (the Trump admin) no decency??

Obstruct, obfuscate and attack. That is the real Art of the Deal..

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. Decency, tRUMP?

[spanone]

6. If that's true, our democracy is over. Without oversight a president is a king.

[duforsure]

7. Wonder how long

The judge chuckled under his breath at that one from them.

[sprinkleeninow]

10. So IOW, it was/wasn't okay then so it's not okay now? But it was okay then. 🤔

They have expertise in TWIST YOU UP.

[sinkingfeeling]

11. So, laws no longer matter if they can't be enforced. I predict we

will see an increase in lawlessness from the RW.

[Honeycombe8]

12. Grrrrrr.

This gets me so spittin' mad...I'm beyond words.

[MFGsunny]

13. The stench from these bereft apologists ........ bleach! bleech! barf! n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. So ridiculous that I hadn't realised they were saying this to a judge

I started speed-reading an article on this, and had just settled into the idea that they were on TV, having a press conference or something. Then it kept saying 'judge'. What? This is their argument in court???

Legislators need to know how well existing laws are enforced to be able to legislate.

In 1927, the Court found that, in investigating the administration of the Department of Justice, Congress was considering a subject “on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight#U.S._Constitution

[onenote]

15. Consovoy is a former Clarence Thomas law clerk

Need I say more?

[OilemFirchen]

18. Yes, you do.

He received his JD from the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

[2naSalit]

16. I can hardly wait

to hear Rachel Maddow read this aloud... she was giving a headzup about it last night relating that they had asked to cancel the hearing! They really are trying to redefine words such that they show how the president is king and Congress is insignificant, really.

They sure don't like that pesky coequal government thing at all.

[MiniMe]

17. Says someone who has no idea of what oversight is

[Mike Niendorff]

19. Rule 11.

If I were the judge in this case, these attorneys would immediately be facing sanction under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Not even slightly kidding on this.


MDN