Required reading from around the web of the best, most interesting, or most though provoking things we’ve read:
Re: Federal judge sides with House Democrats over subpoena for Trump’s financial records
“Barack Obama-appointed judge Amit P. Mehta’s 41-page opinion began by comparing President Trump’s concerns over congressional overreach to those of President James Buchanan, asserting that Trump “has taken up the fight of his predecessor.” And Mehta acknowledged that he was “well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States.” But, Mehta said, Democrats’ subpoena fell within well-established congressional investigative powers. He said he would not stay his ruling pending appeal.”
Klein: House Democrats Seek Brennan’s Malignant Advice on Iran
“House Democrats are wasting time listening to Brennan on Iran. It’s a lame attempt to bolster Brennan’s reputation as a so-called national security expert and divert attention as more damaging facts come out about his abuse of power as CIA director during and shortly after the 2016 presidential election campaign. Starting with Brennan’s baseless complaints regarding President Trump’s confrontational stance with the Iranian regime, President Trump is merely trying to clean up the mess that Brennan’s boss Barack Obama and top members of his administration created. […] At least Brennan no longer poses a danger to our national security. President Trump sidelined him by revoking his security clearance. All this has-been can do now is spew his vile on twitter and as an NBC correspondent. However, while he served as CIA director during the Obama administration, his actions endangered the very fabric of our constitutional republic.”
Barkoukis: Kavanaugh and Gorsuch Disagree on Several Decisions on Same Day
“Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch are showing their independent streaks, disagreeing on three decisions on the same day. According to Law & Crime, the differing opinions came after Kavanaugh joined the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc last week in Apple v. Pepper’s ruling that consumers have the standing to sue Apple. Monday’s disagreements came in decisions on . . . […] Jonathan Adler, law professor at Case Western Reserve University’s School of Law, cautioned that the differences don’t necessarily mean one justice is more conservative than the other, but reflect ‘meaningful differences in method and underlying jurisprudence.’ He also said their experiences may have had a hand in shaping their differing opinions, . . . Adler concluded: ‘While it may be premature to draw broad conclusions about the nature of their differences, these splits show . . .'”