Rao is both a former Trump White House official and a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. And her name is well-known to anyone who has followed President Trump’s efforts to avoid congressional oversight. Last fall, she wrote a widely mocked dissenting opinion that could have shut down much of Congress’s power to investigate the president altogether.
Additionally, Rao’s Grand Jury appears to fit a pattern. Last October, her court handed down Trump v. Mazars USA, a case asking whether Trump can shield many of his financial records from congressional oversight (this case will be heard by the Supreme Court later this month). Rao, meanwhile, wrote a dissent arguing that the Constitution forbids Congress from investigating “illegal conduct by the President” unless that investigation takes place during an impeachment investigation.
Her Mazars opinion claims that Congress has only one path it can use to investigate President Trump. Then, when Congress traveled down the very same path that Rao identified in Mazars, Judge Rao invents a new limit — suggesting that Congress may only get one shot at an impeachment inquiry.
Impossible to mash this down, you’ve got to read the full article to understand its argument.
Article, submitted by, Great Gazoo.
