General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's resistance to congressional oversight had a very bad day in court
Turns out, there are still some federal judges who care what the law says.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-congressional-oversight-subpoena-court-ruling-judge-amit-mehta-567ce7ce78fd/
Judge Amit Mehta is the anti-Scalia. Calm and unfailingly polite. Honest about his concerns and seemingly quite open to the arguments of legal counsel. --snip--
But the substance of the hearing was a disaster for Trumps efforts to resist congressional subpoenas digging into his finances. At one point, Mehta warned that, under Trump lawyer William Consovoys sweeping legal theory, congressional investigations into Watergate would have been unconstitutional. At another, the judge suggests materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit. At another, Mehta asked whether he should follow lower court decisions indicating that a congressional subpoena is valid unless it is plainly incompetent to a legislative inquiry. --snip--
The smart money suggests that Mehta will rule against Trump.
The most important part of the hearing, however, likely came at the very end, when Mehta informed counsel he would keep the record in this case open until Friday, and then would consider the case fully submitted and ready for a ruling. He said he suggested that Congress might have the inherent power to investigate the president in order to inform the public of potential misconduct. --snip--
Thats bad news for Trump, who needs a court order quashing the subpoena to prevent Mazars from complying with it (Mehta issued a temporary order blocking the subpoena while he considers the case, but the judge appears eager to resolve the case and dissolve that temporary order).
Thus, the real action in this litigation is likely to involve requests for stays. Will Mehta stay a decision against Trump while appeals are pending? If Mehta does not, will a higher court do so? Will appeals courts proceed with the same urgency that Mehta has shown? And will a highly partisan Supreme Court reach down to protect Trump, even if the law says it should not?
The earliest stage of this litigation looks unlikely to go well for Trump. Thats good news for anyone who believes presidents should not be immune from scrutiny.
See also https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212086244
magicarpet
(14,143 posts)malaise
(268,845 posts)''...a staggeringly preposterous claim...''
Law professors said this was a good exam question but they needed to warn students that it was not a trick question
hlthe2b
(102,190 posts)like Dillenger. Barr does not deserve to leave any kind of honorable legacy.
hlthe2b
(102,190 posts)malaise
(268,845 posts)The truth is you would expect the Bar Associations and Law Schools publicly condemn this bullshit nonsense argument.
hlthe2b
(102,190 posts)bitterross
(4,066 posts)We need to start a loud message that when Trump's cases get to SCOTUS Gorsuch and Kavanaugh must recuse. They have a rather large conflict of interest.
SayItLoud
(1,702 posts)hlthe2b
(102,190 posts)and I doubt the appeals courts will take much time with such bullshit arguments either. SCOTUS does not HAVE to hear many or any of these cases and my guess is that they won't. They might throw Trump a bone on one or more of the several Emoluments cases if they make it that far. It is to their benefit to be "choosy"...
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)Thanks for the summation. I needed a smile.
hlthe2b
(102,190 posts)hlthe2b
(102,190 posts)In 1787, the framers gave us a president, not a king. On Tuesday, lawyers for President Trump gave a dissenting opinion.
In the first of many courtroom showdowns between Trumps executive branch and the legislative branch, Trumps lawyer William Consovoy argued to U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta that Congress has no authority to pry into Trumps finances. That was expected. Unexpected was Consovoys broader argument: that Congress has essentially no authority to investigate any president for anything. Sorry, Sam Ervin: Even the Watergate investigation would have been illegal under the theory offered by Trumps team. --snip--
Consovoy, a beefy former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, offered two related points:
(A) Congress cant issue a subpoena or otherwise probe a president unless it is doing so for a legitimate legislative purpose.
(B) Any legitimate legislative purpose Congress could conceivably devise would be unconstitutional.
As a result, Consovoy argued, Congress cant investigate to see if a law is being broken, cant inform the public of wrongdoing by the executive and cant look for presidential conflicts of interest or corruption, because that would be law enforcement.
Forget about the Unitary Executive Theory. This one is closer to the Divine Right of Kings.
Mehta, an Obama appointee, probed for the limits of this breathtaking theory but found none:
Trumps finances are not subject to investigation?
Correct, Consovoy informed the judge.
Congress cant verify the accuracy of the presidents financial statements?
Correct.
If a president was involved in some corrupt enterprise, you mean to tell me because he is the president of the United States, Congress would not have power to investigate?
No, Consovoy said, because thats not pursuant to its legislative agenda. --snip--
But surely Congress could investigate a presidents compliance with the Constitutions emoluments clause?
I respectfully disagree in part, Consovoy persisted, saying Congress cant engage in anything that looks like a law enforcement investigation.
Even the Whitewater and Watergate investigations exceeded congressional authority?
Here, Consovoy demurred (Id have to look, he said), rather than admit his theory would have indeed banned both.
The Supreme Court has said judges shouldnt look at Congresss motives (even if they appear to be political) for investigating the executive, deferring to the legislature on what is a legitimate legislative function. But Consovoy told Mehta that I dont think the court can ignore the Democrats motives, as expressed in public statements, and he called their legislative reasons retroactive rationalizations. Consovoys own argument sounded more political than legal at times. His brief began: The Democrat Party .?.?. has declared all-out political war against President Donald J. Trump. Subpoenas are their weapon of choice.
Consovoys argument was so aggressive, it seemed Trumps lawyers expected defeat in the lower court and were looking for a higher court to reinterpret the law in Trumps favor or, more likely, for the appeals to stretch until after the 2020 election. Consovoy sought delays for discovery and more arguments, saying it would be a disservice if I did not go into depth. But Mehta brushed off these attempts, saying he would close the record this week. And the judge flatly rejected Consovoys exotic argument that Mehta should preemptively declare unconstitutional any hypothetical legislation Congress might come up with related to its probe of Trumps finances.
malaise
(268,845 posts)for ignorance of the law
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Good to know.