and the DoJ's arguments, while the lone dissenter (recent Trump appointee Rao) seems to have missed the points of the majority position - which are (1) that the committee identified a legitimate legislative purpose for the subpoena, that of reforming ethics in government laws, and therefore it was not improperly engaging in law enforcement; and (2) the subpoena was directed to a third party, meaning that the burden on the president would be minimal. Rao's dissent complained that the subpoena was motivated by a desire to impeach the president (which isn't "law enforcement" anyhow; it's a stated constitutional function of the House), and that presidents' financial records shouldn't be subpoenaed anyhow because it's too much of a burden on their time. Apart from the fact that Trump seems to have plenty of free time (maybe he could give up an afternoon on the golf course), in this case there's no burden at all because the subpoena was directed to his accountant. Maybe Rao is angling for a spot on the Supreme Court (she got Kavanaugh's old job).
= new reply since forum marked as read
