Trump lawyer argues that Congress can't investigate the President
8 replies, posted
WASHINGTON – Lawyers for President Donald Trump and the House clashed Tuesday in federal court over the extent of Congress' power to investigate him in the first legal test of
Trump's effort to block sprawling probes of his finances and private business.
Trump and his namesake businesses filed a lawsuit last month asking U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta to revoke a subpoena issued by the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
Trump’s personal lawyer, William Consovoy, argued repeatedly that Congress was seeking the president's financial information for what is essentially a law-enforcement purpose – which
was outside its authority – rather than to work on legislation. “That is law enforcement,” Consovoy said. “Are you complying with federal law?”
At one point, Mehta asked whether Congress could investigate if the president was engaged in corrupt behavior in office. “I don’t think that’s the proper subject of investigation as to the
president,” Consovoy said, although executive agencies could be investigated.
Mehta sounded incredulous, asking whether Congress could have investigated Watergate, which led to President Richard Nixon's resignation, and Whitewater, which led to President Bill
Clinton's impeachment. Consovoy initially said he’d have to look at the basis for those investigations. “They were inquiring as to violations of criminal law,” Mehta said. “It’s pretty
straightforward – among other things.”
Consovoy said the question is whether the legislation the committee cited was a valid reason for the subpoena. “That is still law enforcement," Consovoy said.
What fucking timeline is this?
Hire new lawyers.
the one where legal schools emphasised winning above all else instead of ethics.
All the smarter ones aren't willing to destroy their career regardless of how he'll pay them to do it
You can bet your shit they wouldn't have argued like that shit if Hillary won, they would still be chanting "lock her up".
Oh wait, they still are chanting that, nevermind.
Party of shit-weaselling hypocrisy that makes blood boil.
Cue Giuliani accusing this "muslim soundin' terrorist" of being a deep state traitor in 3... 2...
I mean they are literally required to do the best they can to defend their client without breaking the law, and I'd still agree that that's the way that it should be.
If anything it's telling that they're having to resort to such stupid arguments to defend such a stupid criminal.
ya but we've seen that there's plenty of lawyers in trump's circle willing to break the law.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.