Trump's lawyers are kept busy

President Trump sued his own accounting firm and the Democratic chairman of the House Oversight Committee at the same time Monday — trying an unusual tactic to stop the firm from giving the committee details about Trump’s past financial dealings.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, seeks a court order to quash a subpoena issued last week by the committee to Mazars USA.

[...]

The move amounts to Trump — the leader of the executive branch of government — asking the judicial branch to stop the legislative branch from investigating his past.

Former House counsels from both sides of the aisle called the challenge a long shot and an apparent delay tactic.

[...]

Over the years, Congress has had broad leeway to use its subpoena power to probe possible corruption in other branches of government. For instance, during the 1990s the GOP-led House spent years investigating President Bill Clinton’s involvement in the “Whitewater” scandal, which began long before he was elected.

Trump’s lawsuit seeks to upend decades of legal precedent that have upheld Congress’s right to investigate, arguing that his past personal dealings are irrelevant to the legislative branch’s fundamental job: writing bills.

“There is no possible legislation at the end of this tunnel,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in their brief, talking about the Oversight Committee’s inquiry into whether Trump misled his lenders by inflating his net worth. “The Oversight Committee is instead assuming the powers of the Department of Justice, investigating (dubious and partisan) allegations of illegal conduct by private individuals.”

  WaPo

What do they think the Oversight Committee is for?

The Oversight Committee on March 20 asked the company for copies of “statements of financial condition” and audits prepared for Trump and several of his companies, including the one that owns the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington. The panel also requested supporting documents used to produce the reports and communications between the firm and Trump.

In a statement, Cummings called Trump’s suit “baseless.”

“There is simply no valid legal basis to interfere with this duly authorized subpoena from Congress,” Cummings said. “This complaint reads more like political talking points than a reasoned legal brief.”

Probably because that's what it is.

Trump’s lawsuit argues that Mazars should follow the code of professional conduct issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. It quotes one section that counsels CPAs against “disclos[ing] any confidential client information without the specific consent of the client.”

The next paragraph of that code, however, says that CPAs can release client information “to comply with a validly issued and enforceable subpoena.”

So, strike one.

Trump’s private attorney, Jay Sekulow, issued a brief statement saying, “We will not allow Congressional Presidential harassment to go unanswered.”

We'll jam up the works with bullshit as often and as long as we can. Jay Sekulow means to earn his pay (that he may never get).

On Monday, some legal experts were skeptical that the president’s tactic would succeed. They said courts generally have granted Congress fairly wide powers to investigate, even in cases where the investigation wasn’t connected to a pending bill.

“You can never say never because courts change and there are new judges, but this is way over the top,” said Kerry W. Kircher, who served as House counsel for the Republican majority from 2011 to 2016, referring to the suit. “I’m as confident as I can be that there’s no chance of success here on the merits.”

Kircher said that the courts would be “altering the whole arrangement of checks and balances” should they rule in favor of Trump.

And isn't that why Kavanaugh is now on the Supreme bench?

In Trump’s lawsuit, his attorneys cited a Supreme Court decision called Kilbourn v. Thompson, which found “no express power” in the Constitution for Congress to investigate individuals without pending legislation.

The problem with that argument, said University of Baltimore law professor Charles Tiefer, is that Kilbourn v. Thompson is a case from 1880.

And it was overruled by a decision in 1927, Tiefer said.

“It has not been followed for the last 90 years,” Tiefer said of the 1880 decision. Instead, the 1927 ruling found Congress has much wider powers to investigate — and courts since then have let that interpretation stand and even reinforced it.

Tiefer, a Democrat and former acting House counsel, said the main goal of Trump’s team may be not to block the subpoena forever but simply to delay it so any damaging information comes out after the 2020 election.

I would say that's a good bet.

Monday’s lawsuit comes amid a broader effort by Trump’s attorneys and the White House to resist congressional requests for information.

This month, the Treasury Department missed a deadline to hand over Trump’s tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee.

White House officials also have been digging in their heels on other requests related to Trump’s actions as president.

The administration has signaled it does not plan to turn over information being sought about how particular individuals received their security clearances, Trump’s meetings with foreign leaders and other topics that they plan to argue are subject to executive privilege, according to several aides familiar with internal discussions.

[...]

The suit came as House Democrats issued another subpoena likely to touch a nerve for the president. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Monday ordered former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify before the panel next month and hand over documents and records pertaining to federal investigations of Trump, his finances, his campaign and allegations he sought to obstruct justice.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.