parties from complying with such subpoenas.[1] Even as he pursues his own interests in court, his administration simultaneously argues that Congress is barred from obtaining judicial enforcement when Executive Branch officials disregard its subpoenas.[2]
Perhaps most remarkably, President Trump claims that the House cannot investigate his misconduct outside of an impeachment inquiry[3]—but also claims that it cannot investigate his misconduct as part of an impeachment inquiry if he deems it "illegitimate."[4] And an inquiry ranks as "illegitimate," in President Trump's view, if he thinks he did nothing wrong, doubts the motives of the House, or prefers a different set of Committee procedures. It is not hyperbole to describe this reasoning as better suited to George Orwell or Franz Kafka than the Office of the President.
Viewed in their totality, President Trump's positions amount to an insistence that he is above the law; that there is no governmental entity in the United States outside his direct control that can investigate him for official misconduct and hold him accountable for any wrongdoing. Even the House, wielding one of the mightiest powers in the Constitution—a power that exists specifically to address a rogue President—has no authority at all to investigate his official acts if he decides otherwise.
That is not our law. It never has been. The President is a constitutional officer. Unlike a despot, he answers to a higher legal authority. It is disconcerting enough that the President has attacked and resisted the House's explicit oversight authority in unprecedented ways. But it is worse, much worse, that he now claims the further prerogative to ignore a House impeachment inquiry. [5] The continuing threat posed by President Trump's conduct, as set forth in the Second Article of Impeachment, is thus exacerbated by his public and legal assertions that it is illegitimate and unlawful for anyone to
- ↑ See, e.g., Mazars, 940 F.3d at 717; Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG,—F.3d —, 2019 WL 6482561 at *2 (2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2019).
- ↑ McGahn, 2019 WL 6312011, at *26 ("Here, as in Miers, DOJ attempts to shoehorn its emasculating effort to keep House committees from turning to the courts as a means of vindicating their constitutional interests into various categories of established legal arguments, some of which overlap substantially with jurisdictional contentions that the Court has already considered and rejected."). Compare Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants' and Defendant Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss at 13, Comm. on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives v. Dep't of Treasury, No. 19 Civ. 01974 (D.D.C. filed Sept. 6, 2019) (warning against "[t]he exertion of Federal judicial power to declare victors in inter-branch disputes of this nature"), with Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 2, Trump v. Deutsche Bank, No. 19-1540 (2d Cir. filed Aug. 19, 2019) (encouraging the court to "engage in a searching evaluation of subpoenas directed at the President").
- ↑ Mazars, 940 F.3d at 750 (quoting DOJ's brief, "The House's impeachment power is an express authority whose exercise does not require a connection to valid legislation. But the Committee has asserted neither jurisdiction over, nor an objective of pursuing impeachment.").
- ↑ Oct. 8 Cipollone Letter at 8 ("For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people.").
- ↑ The President has accompanied this conduct with a series of public statements advocating the view that it is illegitimate for the House to investigate him. See Ukraine Report at 28-29 ("He has publicly and repeatedly rejected the authority of Congress to conduct oversight of his actions and has directly challenged the authority of the House to conduct an impeachment inquiry into his actions regarding Ukraine . . . . [President Trump's] rhetorical attacks appeared intended not just to dispute public reports of his misconduct, but to persuade the American public that the House lacks authority to investigate the President.").
166
