Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff just flubbed a massive issue in the Supreme Court in a landmark case involving Trump’s taxes.
More embarrassing actions from the Dems that really show you how out of their depths Pelosi and Adam Schiff really are. Total lightweights who protect Wall Street, not Main Street.
“From listening to that argument you would never know the House has won every argument in the lower courts. Two cases in the district courts, two cases in the appellate courts. I say you’d never know because Douglas Letter, the attorney for the House, seemed woefully unprepared for the questions that were asked there,” Law&Crime founder Dan Abrams said.
“He couldn’t cite a particular standard for what would in any way constrain or constrict Congress from simply going on fishing expeditions and asking for medical records, et cetera.”
“But most importantly he couldn’t have not known that he would be asked what kind of legislation could Congress create from these requests— he couldn’t cite a single type of legislation,” he added.
“Now, that doesn’t mean that their position is necessarily weak legally. It does mean that Douglas Letter was in way over his head in this argument.”
“And for Douglas Letter to not be prepared for questions on that … it’s fair to say that it is unacceptable if you are a member of the House and he is your attorney,” he said.
He went on to say the lawyer did real damage to Pelosi’s case and she should be in for a rude awakening when they decide.
Abrams did praise Trump’s legal team:
“On the flip side of that, I think we saw some very strong lawyering from what my be the weaker legal argument from President Trump’s lawyer Patrick Strawbridge and the Department of Justice lawyer Jeffrey Wall, both taking on some of the trickier questions from the liberal justices,” Dan said.
“One has to wonder, in listening to the questions, whether now it is an uphill battle for the House to win this, in particular because even Justice Breyer expressed some concerns, Justice Kagan expressed some concerns about not having a standard that involves some letter of increased scrutiny when it comes to the president of the United States.”
Kavanaugh correctly tells Letter that he has failed to establish a limiting principle for a "valid legislative purpose."— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) May 12, 2020
"That's the concern I identified" from other justices' questions, Kavanaugh says. "I want to give you a chance" to explain "why it wouldn't spiral."
