Trump's resistance to congressional oversight had a very bad day in court

[hlthe2b]

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 Trump’s efforts to resist congressional subpoenas digging into his finances. At one point, Mehta warned that, under Trump lawyer William Consovoy’s 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--

That’s 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. That’s good news for anyone who believes presidents should not be immune from scrutiny.

See also https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212086244

[magicarpet]

1. Send the Emperor to the dungeons.

[malaise]

2. On Chris Hayes Walter Dillenger

''...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]

3. We need to see Barr and Trump's other attorneys humilated every night by actual legal experts

like Dillenger. Barr does not deserve to leave any kind of honorable legacy.

[hlthe2b]

6. Chris was apparently enjoying this on twitter today too

Link to tweet

[malaise]

7. It's hysterically funny

The truth is you would expect the Bar Associations and Law Schools publicly condemn this bullshit nonsense argument.

[hlthe2b]

4. Laurence Tribe comments on the lunacy...

Link to tweet

[bitterross]

5. We need to start the message Gorsuch and Kavanaugh must recuse.

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]

8. It's going to be tied up in the courts for a l o n g time, just what tRUMP wants...nt

[hlthe2b]

9. Not necessarily, especially with arguments like this. More lower courts will likely speed it along

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]

10. A Very Bad Day, Indeed!

Thanks for the summation. I needed a smile.

[hlthe2b]

11. Rachel (TRMS) covering now...LOL

[hlthe2b]

12. Trump's not claiming executive power. He's going for divine right. (Dana Milbank, WAPO)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-not-claiming-executive-power-hes-going-for-divine-right/2019/05/14/c439cff8-7687-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html?utm_term=.3c57f29cbe10

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 Trump’s executive branch and the legislative branch, Trump’s lawyer William Consovoy argued to U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta that Congress has no authority to pry into Trump’s finances. That was expected. Unexpected was Consovoy’s 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 Trump’s team. --snip--

Consovoy, a beefy former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, offered two related points:

(A) Congress can’t 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 can’t investigate to see if a law is being broken, can’t inform the public of wrongdoing by the executive and can’t 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:

Trump’s finances are not subject to investigation?

“Correct,” Consovoy informed the judge.

Congress can’t verify the accuracy of the president’s 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 that’s “not pursuant to its legislative agenda.” --snip--

But surely Congress could investigate a president’s compliance with the Constitution’s emoluments clause?

“I respectfully disagree in part,” Consovoy persisted, saying Congress can’t engage in “anything that looks like a law enforcement investigation.”

Even the Whitewater and Watergate investigations exceeded congressional authority?

Here, Consovoy demurred (“I’d have to look,” he said), rather than admit his theory would have indeed banned both.

The Supreme Court has said judges shouldn’t look at Congress’s 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 don’t think the court can ignore” the Democrats’ motives, as expressed in public statements, and he called their legislative reasons “retroactive rationalizations.” Consovoy’s 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.”

Consovoy’s argument was so aggressive, it seemed Trump’s lawyers expected defeat in the lower court and were looking for a higher court to reinterpret the law in Trump’s 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 Consovoy’s exotic argument that Mehta should preemptively declare unconstitutional any hypothetical legislation Congress might come up with related to its probe of Trump’s finances.

MORE AT THE LINK

[malaise]

14. Those lawyers should be disbarred

for ignorance of the law

[StarfishSaver]

13. So impeachment ISN'T the only way for this to happen?

Good to know.