It is currently 03/29/24 2:16 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 6 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 07/12/19 3:13 pm • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
The DiC's personal attorney, William Consovoy, is trying to "earn" his fee by making an ass of himself ~ :ey ~ Sooz

How Trump Doubled Down On The Crazy Claim He’s Immune From Oversight
By Tierney Sneed / July 12, 2019 2:02 pm

WASHINGTON–If anything was clear from Friday’s appeals court hearing in the accounting firm subpoena case, President Trump is going all in on the argument that Congress has almost no right to investigate or regulate his conduct.

The hearing, which lasted more than double the one hour it was allotted, featured Trump’s personal attorney doubling down on an a number of incredible claims. Attorney William Consovoy told the court that there is almost no legislation Congress could constitutionally pass to rein in any unethical behavior by the President. Because of that, Consovoy argued, there were no legitimate legislative reasons for the House Oversight Committee to subpoena Trump’s accounting firm for his finances.

The judges on the court at times appeared surprised by how extreme Consovoy’s theory was.

“Imagine, in the future, you have the most corrupt president in humankind, openly flaunting it, what law could Congress pass?” Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee asked

Consovoy said that it was “very hard to think of one.”

The case is a lawsuit Trump brought against the accounting firm Mazars to block it from complying with a subpoena for the Trump family’s and business’ financial records. The House Oversight Committee has intervened in the case to defend the subpoena, and a district judge already rejected the President’s arguments.

But on Tuesday, Consovoy did not appear humbled in the least by the monumental smackdown he received from the district court. He conceded not an inch to the idea that Congress might be able to pass a law based on what it learned of Trump’s finances. He said that even if Congress could, the House’s claims that it’s looking at potential legislation were not to be trusted.

This argument came to head toward the end the first hour he spent arguing in front of the court.

“I take it your theory is that he’s absolutely immune to any oversight? Is that right?” Judge Millet asked Consovoy, who would only offer the Presidential Records Act as an example of whether Congress could regulate the President.

“Is that it?” she asked, her voice raised, as Consovoy struggled to offer another example of where Congress could address the President’s conduct.

“I don’t want a litany! I want an example,” Millet demanded.

Throughout the hearing, Millett and the other Democratic appointee, Judge David Tatel, floated several different types of laws that could be inspired by a probe into a President’s finances. What about new financial disclosure law? Unconstitutional, Consovoy claimed. They pointed to the ethics-in-politics legislation the House has already passed, and Consovoy said that measure raised constitutional issues, too.

They even constructed a potential law in which the a President was given two options for a salary (which Congress is constitutionally authorized to set): one if he complied with a financial disclosure requirement and one if he didn’t.”

“When it comes to [presidential] conflict of interest, [is there] nothing Congress can do?” Millett asked.

When Tatel asked about the constitutionality of a law that strengthened the enforcement ability of the Office of Ethics, perhaps with more funding, Consovoy would only say that was a harder question.

Underlying this argument was another, perhaps crazier one: that in assessing the legality of the House’s subpoena, the court was required to assess the legality of any potential legislation that could arise from the lawmakers’ investigation.

Judge Tatel tried to put the burden back on Trump and pointed to the “very generous” test the Supreme Court has put on the legislature.

“It seems to me that you would have to show that no law” could come out of the information sought from this subpoena, Tatel said. Consovoy disagreed.

The judges brought up Congress’ authority to investigate the executive branch’s compliance with the law. Consovoy claimed that the office of the President is not part of the executive branch in that way.

He said that Congress could investigate corruption with regards to an agency, but not with regards to the President.

He argued that if Congress wanted to investigate broadly the effectiveness of the law, it could not target one individual person’s compliance.

“I don’t think it’s fair to equate the office of the president to Mr. or Mrs. Smith of the street,” Millett said.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/dc/trump-appeals-court-subpoena-hearing


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 07/12/19 3:23 pm • # 2 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Here's more detail ~ Sooz

5 Takeaways From Oral Arguments On House Subpoena Of Trump’s Accountant
The Washington Post
By Tierney Sneed / July 12, 2019 1:21 pm

WASHINGTON – On Friday, personal attorneys for President Trump and his family argued in front of a federal appeals court that it should block a congressional subpoena into the Trumps’ personal and business finances.

The oral argument, scheduled for an hour but lasting well over two hours, was the most high-stakes court hearing yet in the ongoing legal war between Trump and the Democratic House over Congress’ ability to conduct oversight of him.

A district court has already upheld the subpoena of Mazars, Trump’s accounting firm. But Trump appears ready to fight the case to the bitter end. While the appeals court appeared extremely skeptical of Trump’s arguments, they also had tough questions for the House Oversight Committee, which issued the subpoena. The case will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Here are some key takeaways.

1. Trump is still making the incredible claim that, as President, he is almost entirely immune from any congressional oversight or regulation.

William Consovoy, the lawyer who is representing Trump and his family, doubled down on arguments made at the lower court that Congress has essentially no oversight authority over the President. He also suggested that almost any law that seeks to address ethical issues with the presidency would be considered unconstitutional.

The breadth of Consovoy’s arguments at times took the judges aback.

“Imagine, in the future, you have the most corrupt president in humankind, openly flaunting it, what law could Congress pass?” Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee asked.

“I think it’s very hard to think of one,” Consovoy responded.

2. The two Democratic-appointed judges were the most skeptical of Trump’s arguments.

Millett and Judge David Tatel, a Clinton-appointee, didn’t seem to be buying many of Consovoy’s arguments. Right off the bat, Tatel said the case law Consovoy was citing seemed “very different” than the case that was in front of them. Tatel and Millett also zeroed in on the fact that, because the subpoena was of a third party, it wasn’t imposing a significant burden on Trump’s constitutional obligations as President. They were perhaps most aghast at Consovoy’s arguments that Congress could almost never seek to regulate the ethical behavior of the President.

Millet’s voice raised when Consovoy couldn’t provide examples of types of laws Congress constitutionally could pass as part of its oversight authority over the President.

“I don’t want a litany, I want an example!’ she said, shocked he couldn’t provide one.

3. The Trump-appointed judge on the court was more hostile towards the House.

Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump-appointee who replaced Brett Kavanaugh on the appeals court, was relatively quiet when it was Consovoy’s turn in front of the judges. Many of the questions Rao asked Consovoy were softballs, though occasionally she sounded troubled by how extreme Consovoy’s arguments were. Rao grilled Consovoy on the lack of Justice Department’s attorneys representing Trump in the case, given that Consovoy was making arguments specific to the office of the presidency.

Rao had many more questions for Doug Letter, the lawyer representing the House. Rao was particularly fixated on the absence of a House floor vote to explicitly approve the Oversight Committee’s subpoena. Rao said it was “unprecedented” that the committee would go forward with the subpoena without getting explicit approval of the full House to target the President.

4. Consovoy suggested the House was lying when it said there was potential legislation related to its probe into Trump.

Trump’s lawyer insisted that the court should not take the House at its word when it explained that the subpoenas would assist lawmakers in legislating. The argument didn’t get very far with Tatel and Millett, who pointed out that there were several pieces of legislation — some already passed in the House, some still pending — that appeared related to ethical issues around Trump.

Consovoy insisted that the “primary” purpose of the subpoena was a law enforcement one — i.e. to uncover criminal conduct — and for that and other reasons it was illegal.

5. After some hassling from the court, the House put some limits on what would be an appropriate subpoena.

Millett seemed to struggle with the time period the subpoena covers, as it extends well before Trump was running for president and even before he entered into a lease with the federal government to turn the old U.S. Postal Building in Washington, D.C., into a hotel.

Letter at first was reluctant to say that there were any limits on what Congress could find to be an appropriate time period for a subpoena of a president’s records. Letter even tried to think of a hypothetical for when it would be appropriate for the House to subpoena from a third party the diary a 70-year-old president wrote when he was 7 years old. But, after more prodding from the judge, Letter promised the House would not subpoena such a diary.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mazars-appeals-court-hearing-trump-takeaways


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 07/12/19 3:26 pm • # 3 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
The judges brought up Congress’ authority to investigate the executive branch’s compliance with the law. Consovoy claimed that the office of the President is not part of the executive branch in that way.

Say what?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 07/12/19 10:04 pm • # 4 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/20/09
Posts: 8188
"Trump is still making the incredible claim that, as President, he is almost entirely immune from any congressional oversight or regulation."

Not such an incredible claim, given the lengths to which the GOP goes to make sure he gets away with everything.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 07/14/19 12:38 pm • # 5 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
“Imagine, in the future, you have the most corrupt president in humankind, openly flaunting it, what law could Congress pass?” Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee asked

What "Imagine in the future"? Has she been living under a rock the past two years?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 07/14/19 12:38 pm • # 6 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
“Imagine, in the future, you have the most corrupt president in humankind, openly flaunting it, what law could Congress pass?” Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee asked

What "Imagine in the future"? Has she been living under a rock the past two years?


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 6 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.