Thread by @kyledcheney

MEHTA says he will *not* be ruling from the bench today on the Trump / Mazars lawsuit.

MEHTA: "Say for example if a president had a financial interest in a particular piece of legislation that was being considered … in your view Congress could not investigate whether a president has a conflict of interest?

CONSOVOY: "It would lack legitimate legislative purpose."

Trump lawyer CONSOVOY says he wants "a week or two" to ask whether Rep. @Jim_Jordan might voluntarily turn over Oversight Committee documents to the Trump legal team that might support the argument that the investigation of Trump's finances lacks a legislative purpose.

@Jim_Jordan The main argument of Trump's team is that the Oversight Committee subpoena of Trump's financial records is meant as a "law enforcement" effort, rather than a legislative one. Mehta doesn't seem to be buying it.

@Jim_Jordan House legal counsel Doug Letter starts by saying Trump views Congress as a "nuisance."

"The problem with that is this is a total and basic and fundamental misunderstanding of the system that was set up by the Constitution."

@Jim_Jordan House counsel said there are conceivable limits on demanding personal docs from a president -- but this case isn't close.

"I want to see the president’s diary from when he was 7 years old or she was 12 years old. That would probably stretch my arguments to the breaking point."

@Jim_Jordan House Counsel LETTER urged Mehta to make a quick ruling:

“This Congress is limited in time. There’s obviously going to be appeals here. We just do not want there to be any lag in time … Any delay here undermines the House’s ability to do what the Constitution allows it to do.”

@Jim_Jordan JUDGE MEHTA raised doubts Tuesday about the arguments that Trump's legal team offered to try to invalidate a subpoena for seven years of Trump's financial records. House Dems are seeking a quick ruling.

The latest, w/ @desiderioDC

politico.com/story/2019/05/…