And you would have doubtless have made a similar sarcastic remark about campaign/Russian cooperation about six months ago.
Time to stop assuming all these great conspiracies are going on that just no one seems to catch.
Not sure if it’s been posted or not, but here is a link to the opinion. While Fat Donald’s Boot-licking Brigade won’t read it, others might like to.
Here for instance, the judge tells Fat Donald to go ■■■■ himself:
Courts have grappled for more than a century with the question of the scope of Congress’s
investigative power. The binding principle that emerges from these judicial decisions is that courts
must presume Congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate and
must defer to congressional judgments about what Congress needs to carry out that purpose. To be
sure, there are limits on Congress’s investigative authority. But those limits do not substantially
constrain Congress. So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which “legislation
could be had,” Congress acts as contemplated by Article I of the Constitution.
Boom! Go ■■■■ yourself, Fat Donald!
Applying those principles here compels the conclusion that President Trump cannot block the subpoena to Mazars. According to the Oversight Committee, it believes that the requested
records will aid its consideration of strengthening ethics and disclosure laws, as well as amending
the penalties for violating such laws. The Committee also says that the records will assist in
monitoring the President’s compliance with the Foreign Emoluments Clauses. These are facially valid legislative purposes, and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations. Accordingly, the court will enter judgment in favor
of the Oversight Committee.
He was likely informed of the decision. However, he has a history of not exactly being the brightest bulb in the room when it comes to inferring what decisions like this mean.
He has a history of brilliant decisions that have made our economy the envy of the world. Remember when Obama said that the 2 million manufacturing jobs were gone and never coming back? Guess who brought them back and added another 3 million in the process. And no, Joe Biden. It wasn’t you.
However, the judge denied Fat Donald’s premise that the House is not involved in legitimate oversight. He wrote:
Applying those principles here compels the conclusion that President Trump cannot block the subpoena to Mazars. According to the Oversight Committee, it believes that the requested
records will aid its consideration of strengthening ethics and disclosure laws, as well as amending the penalties for violating such laws. The Committee also says that the records will assist in
monitoring the President’s compliance with the Foreign Emoluments Clauses. These are facially valid legislative purposes, and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations. Accordingly, the court will enter judgment in favor
of the Oversight Committee.
An Obama appointed judge all but conceded the records would be immediately leaked for political purposes and ruled in their favor regardless. Go figure.
Barack Obama-appointed judge Amit P. Mehta’s 41-page opinion began by comparing President Trump’s concerns about congressional overreach to those of President James Buchanan, asserting that Trump “has taken up the fight of his predecessor.”
And Mehta acknowledged a high likelihood that any documents obtained by House Democrats would quickly leak, and become partisan political fodder.
“[T]he court is not naïve to reality,” Mehta wrote, admitting there “is a chance that some records obtained from Mazars will become public soon after they are produced.”
the D.C. Circuit has held that “courts must presume that the committees of Congress will exercise their powers responsibly and with due regard for the rights of affected parties"
Which then led to the correct decision:
And, the balance of equities and the public interest weigh heavily in favor of denying
relief. The risk of irreparable harm does not outweigh these other factors. The court, therefore,
will not stay the return date of the subpoena beyond the seven days agreed upon by the parties.
It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present.