I've just begun perusing the D.C. Circuit opinion in Mazars, but at first glance it sure appears as if Judge Rao's dissent would conclude that the Ervin Committee Watergate investigation--and, e.g., the Iran/Contra and Whitewater investigations--were unconstitutional.
Correction: Later in the opinion she tries to distinguish those investigations by virtue of the fact that they weren't *exclusively* focused on the POTUS's possible wrongdoing. So Congress can only investigate the POTUS's possible lawbreaking if others were involved, too?
Would *anyone* write a constitution that imposed such a requirement?
P.S. For those of you who've been responding that Rao's opinion is unsurprising because Trump appointed her, please stop: There's plenty to criticize on the merits; no need to emulate Trump by insinuating that judges won't call things straight w/r/t the POTUS who appointed them.
Much more likely the causation flows in the other direction: Trump appoints strong executivists/formalists to the bench because he thinks (usually rightly) they'll protect his prerogatives if/when they act in accord w/their priors.
