Live Thread on Mazars and Deutsche Bank

And we’re off!

Roberts immediately jumps on Trump’s lawyer and sounds VERY skeptical.

Roberts laughs at Trump’s lawyer and passes the mic to RBG.

RBG’s first point is that all of the precedent is against Trump and that past Presidents have willingly turned over their tax returns and all prior cases and validated Congressional subpoenas.

Clarence Thomas apparently finished taking his morning shit and is asking questions. Even Thomas sounds skeptical.

Breyer did not sound happy at all. He’s clearly pissed af about this case.

Alito is up now. Even Alito sounds skeptical of Trump’s argument. Boy oh boy is this going badly for Trump!!!

Roberts is cracking the whip hard and keeping this moving.

Sotomayor is up. I think she might be a follower of mine because she’s hitting my bullseye. How the fuck can you say the Intel Committee doesn’t have a legit interest in seeing whether Trump is compromised!!!

Justice Kagan is up. Oh boy. She’s not cool with this shit AT ALL.

Strawbridge (Trump’s lawyer) cries like a little bitch that the House sought the documents from Mazars and DB rather than from Trump himself. Fuck you Strawbridge. Eat a bucket of dicks.

Uh oh!!!!

Gorsuch just asked why SCOTUS should look behind the reasons the House has given for wanting the records.

Bloody hell! Trump is getting reamed.

Gorsuch cuts Stawbridge off and calls him out for avoiding the question.

Justice Beer is up next!

Kavanaugh asked what would happen if the Court didn’t rule at all. So he’s obviously the one who asked for briefing on justiciability.

DOJ is up. They say that their only point is that the Court should apply a heightened standard to reviewing whether Congress has a legitimate purpose for its subpoenas.

DOJ then goes on to say that they think the House is lying about why they want Trump’s records.

RBG lays into DOJ for questioning the House’s motives. She says they give more deference to beat cops than they appear to be giving to Congress.

Breyer is up. He does not sound happy about DOJ’s argument for a higher standard for POTUS. He points out that DOJ’s argument is contrary to the Paula Jones case.

Oh shit! Alito hits my bullseye as well, asking how DOJ’s arguments apply to House Intelligence’s rationale for wanting the records.

This is very bad for Trump. The Justices are hip to the fact that the House Intel subpoena is CLEARLY legit!!!

Sotomayor has her foot on DOJ’s neck.

Kagan nails DOJ on a relatively obvious point: How is Trump burdened or harassed by subpoenas served on third parties that don’t even call for the President to lift a finger?

Gorsuch again sounds skeptical. He asks DOJ to explain what more the House would need to do to meet DOJ’s “heightened standard.”

DOJ’s answer is weak.

Kavanaugh again looks for a way to get out of deciding this case, this time asking whether the House should have had a full vote on whether to authorize the subpoenas.

Sounds like Kav is having a hard time finding a way to rule for Trump.

Kavanaugh appears to be the only Justice who wants to talk about procedural outs rather than the merits. Maybe that’s because Kav is compromised.

Douglas Letter is on the mic for the House. Let’s see whether the Justices are as skeptical of Letter as they were of Trump and DOJ...

Roberts is up. He wants to know whether there is any bound on how far Congress can go in claiming it has a legitimate legislative purpose.

Letter says the limit is that Congress can’t overly burden POTUS. Good answer.

I couldn’t really make heads or tails out of Thomas’s questions.

Breyer offers Letter a chance to explain whether the subpoenas were authorized by Congress.

Letter explains that the subpoenas are allowed by House rules and SCOTUS has no say over House rules.

Alito wants to know how the Court tell whether the House’s purpose is to harass the POTUS.

Letter says the test is whether Congress has a legit legislative purpose and whether the subpoena is overly burdensome on POTUS.

Alito sounds pretty skeptical of whether POTUS has any protections against Congress going after POTUS’s records. It’s not a bad question. I mean, we definitely don’t want Congress just harassing the POTUS. These are legit questions and Letter has good answers.

Gorsuch picks up the same issue as the other conservative justices: What is the limiting principle? What are the limits on when Congress can get POTUS’s documents? This is clearly the issue the conservatives are most concerned about.

“I Like Beer” also wants to know what the limiting principle is.

Kavanaugh asks Letter whether they should use a standard that requires Congress to demonstrate a “critical” need for POTUS’s records.

My reaction: Even if that is the standard, how is it not “critical” to see Trump’s financials to determine whether he’s compromised?

Thomas is focused on whether there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed when seeking information from POTUS.

Breyer is concerned about what precedent might be set for future cases if he allows the House to get all of Trump’s financials. That’s not good, for sure.

Kagan is questioning the legitimacy of the Financial Services subpoena as compared to the Intel and Oversight subpoena. I’ve said all along that the Fin Serv subpoena is sketchy. That might me the compromise. Invalidate that one only.

Kav is back on the limiting principle issue. What is the limit of Congress’s ability to go after any person’s personal records while claiming to have a legit legislative purpose?

The thing is, even if you use a limiting principle like “you can only get the records if you absolutely need them,” then the Court still has to say the House Intel subpoena is critical.

How can House Intel tell whether Trump is compromised if they can’t see his records?

That’s a wrap on the House case.

Seems pretty clear that SCOTUS wants a limiting principle on the ability to get POTUS’s records.

But that doesn’t mean Trump will win, because the House Intel subpoena can meet *ANY* standard.

I’m going to start a new thread on the Vance case.