The change in language eliminates the potential preemption issues I reference in #3 (same language as Federal law regarding subpoenas issued by Congress) but creates new ones in that it now conflicts with Federal law requiring that prior language.
How much time have you spent trying to justify a crook hiding his crimes from voters?
#5 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-05-23 12:02 AM
See #4, Gal just showed that I was correct, which is why the NY Assembly tried to change the language that I called out in #3.
It is a perfectly legitimate purpose to determine if the President owes large sums of money to foreign oligarchs.
I don't disagree, but the problem lies in the language authorizing Congressional Subpoenas- they must ordinarily have a legitimate "legislative purpose" unless a really good argument can be made that it relates to oversight. That is the issue that Trump is using to ignore many of the subpoenas, which argument is greatly diminished if impeachment proceedings commence.
What subpoena do you think doesn't meet this very low standard?
First, it isn't as low as you may think, look at the lengthy discussion in Judge Mehta's recent opinion where he analyzes each possible request in the Mazur subpoenas for their "legislative" purpose (and on the first category doesn't find one, but buys the oversight argument). Second, I really don't know how the subpoenas are worded, which is why I asked you on the other thread if you had seen them.