Democrats eye a new tool to hold Trump accountable if they win the House

If only it's something more than a letter

Exactly. The old tools would have worked just fine if they had fucking used them.

They can't do that, Trump controls the DOJ.

Article III section 2 of the US Constitution.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Congress can say the President has done something illegal. The President can say they have not done anything illegal. You now have a controversy. The Constitution indicates that the judicial power will now handled it.

To sue someone or something means in the strictest of senses, "I wish to bring this matter before a court of law." So a controversy has arisen, the courts have the right to review it. The Constitution outlines who is allowed to do what, and nobody is allowed to step out of that. So if a controversy wasn't present, the the courts would have no jurisdiction.

Congress believes there is a controversy and thus they are suing. That means they wish to bring the controversy to the thing that's indicated in the Constitution to settle such a thing.

However, you run into the very first question, "Is it a TRUE controversy? Or is it just a disagreement?" This is the no political questions doctrine. Congress and the President routinely disagree on things. The Courts aren't there to settle a disagreement. It has to be a genuine controversy. That means "The law objectively says XYZ. The President specifically did not do XYZ. Ergo, this is not a disagreement but a President who is not following the letter of the law which is a controversy."

So like anything Congress brings up, the President is allowed to say it's not a controversy. What the ruling on that question, the President or Congress can appeal it. If the appeal isn't good enough, the Supreme Court gets to make a final ruling. Once a controversy has been established, THEN, there's the actual case. The the final decision of the case can be appealed and then brought before the Supreme Court.

Rarely do we actually get that far with things because you can't get all that stuff done within a single President's term. And the real reason a Controversy is attempted is to get discovery and things the President has been doing on the public record. Depends on what Congress is looking for. Perhaps they want to ensure Musk stays out of politics forever, a deep and heavy discovery process into him may just do that.

But Congress can bring a suit to the Courts so long as it's within the powers of the Constitution for Congress to do so.

I could be wrong, but I think the strategy is to take control of the House, then request documents and testimony, then when ignored issue subpoenas for documents and testimony, then when they're not forthcoming with everything, sue. Then with that publicity focused on the administration having something to hide regarding the investigations into what seems to be illegal activity, bring out the articles of impeachment.

"We suspected impeachable offenses, but rather than immediately and perhaps rashly jumping straight to impeachment, we elected to do our due diligence and offer an opportunity for this President to address the facts of these matters. Instead of seizing that opportunity, he has ignored and attacked this body while hiding information from this coequal branch of government which exists to act as a check on the power of the President. We are left with no choice but to assume that he is in violation of his oath to the Constitution, acting on behalf of himself above all, and must be removed from power before any further irreversible harm is done to this nation, her citizens, and her allies. This is not an attack, this is not vengeance, this is not pettiness; this is an act of critical emergency to ensure the survival of this Republic. This is what is required of every elected member of Congress by our own oath to the Constitution."

Can I interest you in an oubliette?

The lawsuits are apparently to force discovery of various bits of evidence that trimp and co want to remain hidden.

I mean, while I understand what you mean they did impeach him multiple times. In a normal world that would have been the end of him in government.

The best result would be strong reform like the post intelscandal Church committee but history shows us that like glass steagel good reform is frequently treated a few decades later when it's politically convenient.

Yup and they still refuse to acknowledge the heritage foundation, or Thiel all while going as soft as possible on Israel, Russia, and Musk.

Also, if that were to happen, we'd just have another Trump in a few years. There have to be consequences for their actions. I firmly believe that if Nixon wouldn't have been pardoned we wouldn't be in this situation right now. When there are no consequences, there is no deterrent.

They do plenty but you dont follow politics.

Holding people responsible for their crimes isn't "imprisoning the opposition".

Also it's not a sign of communists but fascists.