THREAD: So, I'm still reading the D.C. Circuit's decision in Trump v. Thompson, but think the Court made a mistake....typing as I'm thinking so walk through this with me. At 3-4 of the opinion the Court states: 1/ 
2/ But here's what H.R. 503 states:
3/ The purpose stated by the Court is not one of the three shown under its purpose; rather, it was the predecessor bill, H.R. 3233 which specificed that purpose.
4/ Now H.R. 503 does include this as a corrective measure:
4/ While Section 4 includes some "mays," it doesn't appear "tasked" as H.R. 3233 did. Now does this matter? Not given opinion's focus on executive privilege, but I found it interesting b/c predecessor bill (that the Senator nixed), made proposing legislation a function.
5/ And one argument made was that there is no "legislative function." While I don't think that is a strong argument, address it, I think purpose put forth in the H.R. 503 needs to be accurately presented and the opinion seems to pull purpose from predecessor bill.
6/ Meadows' complaint forces more forcefully on the lack of a legislative function and in doing so highlighted that 503 dropped the forth purpose.
7/ Of course, bigger issue, from a constitutional perspective, is Executive Privilege, AND in my mind Meadows' point in his complaint (more on this tomorrow @FDRLST that Committee acted without authority in issuing subpoenas, but it just caught my eye in reading Opinion after
8/8 and I mean immediately after, reading this from Meadows' complaint:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
