My May 8, 2019 Blog gave a lot of detail of Trump’s upcoming court dates to try to quash Congressional subpoenas served on third parties. The Blog is available here and thanks all for putting it on the REC List for a brief bit: www.dailykos.com/…
The same topic was coincidentally discussed on Rachel Maddow’s show soon after.
The 1975 US Supreme Court case Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund kills Trump’s arguments to quash the subpoenas. Full case link here: caselaw.findlaw.com/...
For me the following quote from the case destroys every one of Trump’s meritless arguments against subpoenas addressed to third parties:
Respondents also contend that the subpoena cannot be protected by the speech or debate immunity because the "sole purpose" of the investigation is to force "public disclosure of beliefs, opinions, expressions and associations of private citizens which may be unorthodox or unpopular." App. 16. Respondents view the scope of the privilege too narrowly. Our cases make clear that in determining the legitimacy of a congressional act we do not look to the motives alleged to have prompted it. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S., at 200; Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S., at 614. In Brewster, we said that "the Speech or Debate Clause protects against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts." 408 U.S., at 525 (emphasis added). And in Tenney v. Brandhove we said that "[t]he claim of an unworthy purpose does not destroy the privilege." 341 U.S., at 377. If the mere allegation that a valid legislative act was undertaken for an unworthy purpose would lift the protection of the Clause, then the Clause simply would not provide the protection historically undergirding it. "In times of political passion, dishonest or vindictive motives are readily attributed to legislative conduct and as readily believed." Id., at 378. The wisdom of congressional approach or methodology is not open to judicial veto. Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S., at 313. Nor is the legitimacy of a congressional inquiry to be defined by what it produces. The very nature of the investigative function - like any research - is that it takes the searchers up some "blind alleys" and into nonproductive enterprises. To be a valid legislative inquiry there need be no predictable end result.
Finally, respondents argue that the purpose of the subpoena was to "harass, chill, punish and deter" them in the exercise of their First Amendment rights, App. 16, and thus that the subpoena cannot be protected by the Clause. Their theory seems to be that once it is alleged that First Amendment rights may be infringed by congressional action the Judiciary may intervene to protect those rights; the Court of Appeals seems to have subscribed to that theory. That approach, however, ignores the absolute nature of the speech or debate protection and our cases which have broadly construed that protection.
I particularly like the line “The wisdom of congressional approach or methodology is not open to judicial veto.”
Trump will lose his first effort, in regards to the subpoena to his accounting firm Mazars USA LLP, at the hearing on May 14, 2019.
Trump may attempt to get a stay from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, but that is highly unlikely as the Standard of Review for the granting or denial of an injunction is Abuse of Discretion — the most difficult legal standard to win on appeal.
SCOTUS might step in and pause things for a few days while the “whole court” looks at it. Even though SCOTUS is packed with right wing conservatives it still has some decency. A SCOTUS appeal won’t work either.
My prediction...by June 10, 2019 Mazars USA LLP will comply with the congressional subpoena.
The walls are closing in...