1/ The most important & distressing point about the Cipollone letter is what I tweeted earlier, viz., that the WH Counsel, whose job is to ensure that the POTUS complies with the law and Constitution, is defending the "appropriateness" of Trump's breach of constitutional duty ...
2/ ... rather than insisting it cease immediately. But another basic, inexplicable problem with the letter is largely being overlooked, too. Regardless of one's views about the "merits" of the arguments in the letter--re: "due process"; legislative motive; ...
3/ ... whether Trump's conduct was "completely appropriate" or not; whether the House's actions are "unprecedented," etc.--the proper, standard response to such alleged defects is to challenge them pursuant to ordinary process, e.g., in court, ...
4/ ... rather than to assert an authority to simply ignore legal process (e.g., congressional subpoenas) altogether. It's noteworthy, but hardly surprising, that the letter offers *no* authority for the proposition that the POTUS has the authority ...
5/ ... to simply "refuse to participate" in the process--a euphemism for acting in contempt of Congress. All the letter says in that regard is that the House has "left the President no choice." And that's obviously nonsense:
6/ This President and his Executive branch officials have exactly the same "choices" that every other witness or recipient of subpoenas, including previous Presidents, have always had to challenge the legality of congressional or executive or judicial processes. (cont.)
7/ That a White House Counsel would assert otherwise--and do so without bothering to cite even a shred of legal authority (because there is none)--is an utter embarrassment.
@just_security
@just_security
8/ An important "footnote" point of sorts: I'm a big believer that oversight disputes between the two political branches ought to be resolved in the first instance through the traditional give & take of the "accommodation" practice, w/courts a matter of last resort.
9/ Here, however, the POTUS/WHC are asserting that the congressional process itself is *fundamentally* illegitimate and therefore that the Executive can and should refuse to cooperate (respond to ordinary process) *altogether.* That is to say: Trump is saying at the start ...
10/ ... that the accommodation process will be futile because they won't give an inch. In *that* instance, the proper resort is to do what all other witnesses/targets/defendants have always done, rather than to assert the power to ignore legal process entirely.
