,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1. Is there any reason for hope? I suggest there is. I want to return to Tuesday’s court hearing. Trump’s lawyer argued that Congress cannot issue subpoenas to investigate presidential violations of the law. Judge Mehta plainly and inarguably disagreed with that position. . .
2. Without recounting every observation by Judge Mehta, he made it crystal clear that it’s proper, indeed necessary, for Congress to investigate presidential violations of statutes, presidential violations of the Constitution (the judge specifically mentioned . . .
3. the emoluments clause) and presidential conflicts of interest (the judge referenced a president having a financial interest in the legislation he supports or other actions he takes while in office). Indeed, it was so obvious that Judge Mehta would rule . . .
4. against Trump’s position & in favor of the House Oversight Committe’s position that, at the end of the hearing, Trump’s lawyer said as much (asking the judge to stay/delay his order from taking effect until Trump’s lawyer could appeal the ruling he expected to go against him).
5. Just yesterday, the White House Counsel issued a letter essentially taking the same (losing) position that Trump’s lawyers took in court on Tuesday. Why do I interpret this as a hopeful sign? Because, IMO, the state of our judiciary remains strong. Notwithstanding . . .
6. the administration’s obvious stonewalling, these matters will move into and be resolved by the courts. After 30 years, appearing before more than 100 judges, I firmly believe that our judiciary remains dedicated to the rule of law. Even more importantly . . .
7. the judiciary will not endure or endorse a criminal president or a corrupt administration. Now, we’re rightly concerned about the packing of the courts with conservative judges. But every conservative administration appoints conservative judges, so this is nothing new . . .
8. With the black robe and life tenure comes great independence. Yes, these conservative judges likely will remain ideologically conservative. But that does not mean they will side with a criminal president or a corrupt administration. I don’t want to sound cynical, but . . .
9. The judiciary likes to assert its authority over the executive branch. When both Nixon and Clinton made arguments that suggested a president is above (or beyond the reach of) the law/the judicial system, the Supreme Court shot them down. Put another way . . .
10. The judiciary understand (and jealously guards) its authority and responsibility to remain a vitally important check on lawless behavior by the president and the executive branch. These stonewalling tactics ultimately will fail, with the courts ruling against Trump. . .
11. and in favor of Congressional oversight and investigative authority. When given the opportunity, the courts WILL hold this criminal president accountable. It won’t happen quickly, though I believe the courts will move these matters through the system on an expedited basis...
12. Indeed, Judge Mehta articulated that these matters need to be given ‘most expeditious treatment when one branch of government is holding up the work of another’ (paraphrasing). Judge Mehta exemplified the fidelity to the law that inspires confidence in our judiciary . . .
13. Let’s be real, this battle between a lawless administration and a rule-of-law judiciary will continue for some time. Unfortunately, many of our elected officials in Congress have chosen to side with a lawless president. History will will not treat those politicians kindly...
14. So all of this is to say that it won’t come quickly, it won’t come easily, it won’t come painlessly, but Tuesday’s court hearing is an encouraging sign that #JusticeIsComing
