February 29, 2020

"The dissent suggests that Congress cannot fend for itself... [but] Congress can tailor its sanctions to the gravity of the Executive Branch’s offense."

"A congressional inquiry may begin and end with a polite request for information. Or a chamber of Congress may escalate by, say, issuing a formal subpoena, threatening to withhold appropriations, or passing articles of impeachment. By the same token, the Executive Branch’s interest in reaching a mutually agreeable compromise should grow as Congress turns up the heat.... This political process also offers an array of possible resolutions in interbranch disputes—a diverse set of compromises and accommodations. For instance, the Executive Branch might agree to waive executive privilege if the Legislative Branch narrows its document request. Or if the dispute concerns an official’s testimony, the Executive Branch might agree to allow an official to answer written interrogatories or to testify in private.... The dissent’s approach would eliminate this dynamic system of escalating political sanctions and flexible settlements. When a lawsuit is the end-game of any interbranch dispute, the response to an overbroad subpoena isn’t 'Let’s talk' but 'We’ll see you in court.' And the resolution of such a dispute isn’t a negotiated compromise—one that leaves everyone a little dissatisfied—but a rigid judicial judgment.."

From D.C. Circuit the majority opinion (PDF) in the case of the House Judiciary Committee against former White House Counsel Don McGahn. President Trump claimed an absolute privilege to bar McGahn from testifying, and the Committee attempted to use the court to enforce its subpoena. You remember that during the impeachment trial, Trump's lawyers argued that it was wrong to accuse him of obstruction of Congress when the House had not gone to the courts to get an authoritative answer to the question whether he really did have the executive privilege he claimed. Now, at least according to this 3-judge panel, we can see that the judiciary would not resolve the dispute because the House committee does not have the standing that would make this a real "case or controversy" within the meaning of the "judicial power" defined in Article III of the Constitution.

We didn't get any sort of answer to the question what is the scope of executive privilege. The court is defining its own role, and even though a lot of people, during the impeachment proceedings, seemed to think that it's exactly the court's role to say what the law is and let us know how much executive privilege the President has and whether his resistance to Congress was a lofty protection of the power of the Executive Branch or a scurrilous thwarting of the power of the Legislative Branch, the court stopped at the threshold question of the power of the Judicial Branch.

No standing. That's a constitutional decision and it is — as the 2 circuit court judges said — not susceptible to a balancing test about how much we want or could benefit from an answer to the question. The part I quoted above works to say... and that's okay. The court follows a strict standing analysis because it's constitutional law and because it's better this way. It's better because it will be resolved through political back and forth. Interestingly enough, the tools of that political process include impeachment:
[A] chamber of Congress may escalate by, say, issuing a formal subpoena, threatening to withhold appropriations, or passing articles of impeachment.  

75 comments:

rcocean said...

Of course, this decision was 2-1 and it NOT binding on other appeals courts and can be ignored next year when another similar issue comes up.

But its a win for Trump - now.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

So Article II of the impeachment was not premature or moot for failure to pursue in the courts. It can be reasserted.

Mattman26 said...

That strikes me as correct, and even wise. And even though I think the recent impeachment was a joke, the political tools (including impeachment) provide a better route for resolution than judicial decrees.

It’s an imperfect world. And you can’t take the politics out of politics.

Howard said...

Trump is just trying to cement in the Deep State Dick Cheney's be legal theory of a constitutionally strong president with some seemingly absolute powers.

This is an affront to checks and balances. Be careful what you wish for. The powers Trump is seeking will be used far more effectively by leftist Deep staters in the future. It's like you guys are braiding the rope.

Mark said...

a lot of people, during the impeachment proceedings, seemed to think that it's exactly the court's role to say what the law is and let us know how much executive privilege the President has and whether his resistance to Congress was a lofty protection of the power of the Executive Branch or a scurrilous thwarting of the power of the Legislative Branch

No, a lot of people wanted the judiciary to take sides and put its thumb on the scale in a dispute between co-equal branches, as if the judges are our overlords.

"Work it out between yourselves" is the right answer.

Mattman26 said...

Howard, Congress has an impressive array of tools. Impeachment, power of the purse ...

It doesn’t need to go running to court-daddy when things don’t go its way.

Bay Area Guy said...

Great decision. Shorter summary -- "Go pound sand, Nadler"

Mark said...

Mattman is right. We have too many people in too many cases crying, "I'm gonna tell mom (or dad)," like little children. The legislative and the executive are grown-ups. The judiciary is NOT the boss of them.

David Begley said...

Who could disagree with this?

In this case, the Committee’s dispute with the Executive Branch is unfit for judicial resolution because it has no bearing on the “rights of individuals” or some entity beyond the federal government. Marbury, 5 U.S. at 170. The Committee is not a private entity seeking vindication of its “constitutional rights and liberties . . . against oppressive or discriminatory government action.” Raines, 521 U.S. at 829 (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor does the Committee seek the “production or nonproduction of specified evidence . . . in a pending criminal case”—the “kind of controversy” threatening individual liberty that “courts traditionally resolve.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 696-97 (1974).

Michael K said...

This is what elections are for. Howard, watch the election results.

Mark said...

This same separation of powers reasoning can -- and should -- be applied to all of these cases where government officials (and sometimes special interests) go running to the courts for an injunction in what is really nothing more than a policy dispute.

narciso said...

now do fast and furious, and the stonewalls therein,

Bill Peschel said...

The notion that Trump is turning the presidency into a dictatorship is a joke, especially to those who have lived in fear for their lives under actual dictatorships. To equate Trump to dictators who have murdered their opponents is equally vile.

Anyone who knows the history of this country recognize that the president has acquired vast powers in the last 50 years. This is especially true to anyone who has seen Congress refuse to hang onto its authority to declare war, like it has done since the Vietnam War.

And does anyone remember Obama's vow to impose any law he wants: "I have a pen and a phone."

Or perhaps we forget the numerous Democrats running for president, like Tom Steyer, who vow on "day one" to implement emergency measures to advance the climate emergency hoax.

Criticizing Trump, without evidence, of doing exactly what the Dems are vowing to do is risible.

Ken B said...

Would the house as a whole have standing?

Chuck said...


Blogger Mattman26 said...
Howard, Congress has an impressive array of tools. Impeachment, power of the purse ...

It doesn’t need to go running to court-daddy when things don’t go its way.


So; the Constitutional answer to “What should the House do, when a President defies a subpoena from the House, is to impeach that President; cut off funding to everything he wants; legislatively shut him down. Okay. The House can get to work on that. And Senate Republicans can work on understanding that.

rcocean said...

"This is an affront to checks and balances."

Yeah. the Courts refusing to intervene in a Congress v. President power struggle is an "affront to checks and balances".

Hello my name is Howard, I'm an idiot who doesn't read judicial opinions. I just parrot left-wing talking points. Orange man bad. Polly wants a cracker. Squawk!

Mattman26 said...

It’s not the answer to what the House should do; it’s the answer to what the House May do.

clint said...

Howard -- you're worried that the power of lawyer-client privilege will be abused by future presidents (or this one) to assume absolute power?

That seems like a bit of a reach.

Clark said...

What should the President do when the House makes an overbroad demand that invades areas of privilege? What should the House do when the President says I'm not complying with that overbroad demand? Should the House move immediately to impeachment? Should the House do some good faith negotiating on the extent of privilege first? The court decision doesn't answer these questions; it puts them back into the arena of (the) politics (of impeachment).

Prepare for an onslaught of TDSers who don't understand this.

Michael K said...

So; the Constitutional answer to “What should the House do, when a President defies a subpoena from the House, is to impeach that President; cut off funding to everything he wants; legislatively shut him down.

Chuck keeps telling us he is a lawyer and understands the law. Does he understand why there is executive privilege ? Does he understand that Adam Schiff ignores national security to leak any secret he learns ? Would he choose to disclose confidential statements made by a client ? Does he understand why so many of us consider his a terminal case of TDS ?

rcocean said...

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

We don't want unelected judges doing Congresses job for them, or favoring them over the President. As stated in the opinion, Congress is really the master, and can force the President to do anything, assuming it uses the tools it has.

If Pelosi wants testimony let her use the tools at her disposal and put pressure on the President. Her problem is she has a slim 25 seat majority, and a hostile Senate. So Sads!

Matt Sablan said...

I wonder what would have happened had Trump been found guilty, and the then Court said: "Actually, he doesn't have to let that guy testify."

Matt Sablan said...

"Trump is just trying to cement in the Deep State Dick Cheney's be legal theory of a constitutionally strong president with some seemingly absolute powers."

-- Come on, if you're going to cite to an executive that made absolutist power grabs, I'd go to the guy who said he had a pen and a phone, and spied on Congress and journalists, not a VP.

Matt Sablan said...

"The powers Trump is seeking will be used far more effectively by leftist Deep staters in the future."

-- You realize that Trump's power is the exact same one Obama used to keep people like Holder from testifying, right? One set of rules.

narciso said...

he's at lionel hutz level of understanding,

Duty of Inquiry said...

I am not a lawyer and this confuses the heck out of me.
Haven't other presidents gone to court and lost on what seems to me to be this same question? Does the name Nixon ring a bell?

DOI

Wilbur said...

What Clark said at 10:24 ...

Matt Sablan said...

Nixon's tapes aren't a good analogue here; in part, he DID turn over some things, which in a way invalidated any attempt to assert privilege over what he had handed over. He also asserted he was like a king, as opposed to using an actual legal theory. Not only that, but Nixon's tapes were being subpoenaed for a *criminal* trial. As the Democrats repeated whenever it was convenient, the stakes and requirements for an impeachment are a *political* matter, and as such, courts will be much less likely to intervene.

Matt Sablan said...

Of course, the cynic in me wants to also add: No one liked Nixon. No one liking Trump is the only reason his case went as far as it did; if people had liked him, like they liked Obama, his assertions of executive privilege would have been accepted, like Obama's were. Luckily for Trump, while no one really likes him, he didn't commit an actual, obvious crime, like covering up Watergate.

Mark said...

I am not a lawyer and this confuses the heck out of me.

The executive (president), legislative (Congress), and judicial branches are all co-equal. None of them is supreme to the other. Recognizing that and giving due respect to the other branches, courts rightly have refused to get involved in purely political issues between the legislative and executive.

The court basically said, "leave us out of it." It's no more confusing than that.

narciso said...

just like judge brinkema, shutting down mrs lokhova's lawsuit against halper, on some ridiculous pretext,

Narayanan said...

"The dissent suggests that Congress cannot fend for itself... [but] Congress can tailor its sanctions to the gravity of the Executive Branch’s offense."
______&&&&&&&
What recourse other than election is available to Executive against Congress' offense?

But Pelosi said Congress can never offends!


Breezy said...

The House was simply on a fishing expedition here, looking for more reasons to impeach, completely ignoring the Mueller result. Didn’t that indicate there is nothing significant to find in his testimony? I wouldn’t think that open ended search would be adequate to force the testimony. As the court said, there was no specificity (relating to a case) as to what was being sought - it’s all just political ammo. I think the judges are correct here.

Yancey Ward said...

No, the issue in the impeachment was that the Congress didn't actually use subpoenae for the Ukraine witnesses- they did issue them in the case of McGahn, and when they did, the White House told McGahn to not appear. Nothing actually prevented McGahn from obeying the subpoena, but he chose to go to court to get a judicial opinion on the matter. He now has one, and they swatted the ball back into McGahn's court- McGahn is back where he started, he can either choose to obey the subpoena or obey the White House order to not appear.

ColoComment said...

Wilbur said...
What Clark said at 10:24 ...


Ditto

"President Trump claimed an absolute privilege to bar McGahn from testifying,...."

That was Trump's [instinctive] opening "deal" position. He deals. He bargains. He negotiates.
I have no doubt that he probably expected the House Committee to come back with a stepped-back proposition for slightly more limited access to McGahn -- instead, it went directly to the equivalent of political nuclear war (due to time constraints? election year coming? Nadler/Schiffty impatience? Who knows?)

Yancey Ward said...

Just to clarify- the White House is properly doing its job here in guarding the privileges of the executive because Trump won't be president forever. However, the White House can't actually stop witnesses from appearing all on its own power, even those that worked in the White House. In this case, the decision to appear or not appear, and to choose which questions to answer or not answer is still mostly up to McGahn himself. The same applies to John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, etal.

Narayanan said...

The executive (president), legislative (Congress), and judicial branches are all co-equal.
_____&&&&&
Shouldn't that be aspirational for equilibrium - dynamic rather than static ? Of checks and balances.

Mark said...

Historical note from the opinion -
In Holder, the Obama Administration argued that congressional committees could not “circumvent [the] historical . . . process of negotiation and accommodation by seeking resolution of [an] inherently political dispute in federal court.” ... Comm. on Oversight & Reform v. Holder,No. 12-cv-1332 (D.D.C. Oct. 15, 2012).

Narayanan said...

In this case, the decision to appear or not appear, and to choose which questions to answer or not answer is still mostly up to McGahn himself. The same applies to John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, etal.
_____&&&&&
What establishes veracity of anything they may say?

Yancey Ward said...

What establishes the veracity of what anyone says?

Yancey Ward said...

For what it is worth, Duty of Inquiry, I thought United States vs Nixon was wrongly decided. It is a pity of history that no one on the Warren Court wished to pen a dissent in that case- the only judge that would have done so, Rehnquist, had recused himself (and properly so). The court consisted, for this case, of 8 weathervanes.

Yancey Ward said...

And, also, as Matt above has pointed out, Nixon probably helped scuttle his chances by releasing edited transcripts of the tapes in an attempt to mollify public opinion.

Mark said...

What establishes the veracity of what anyone says?

Like any other "proof" in the law. It is all just varying levels of likelihood. Very little is ever established absolutely.

Greg the class traitor said...

[A] chamber of Congress may escalate by, say, issuing a formal subpoena, threatening to withhold appropriations, or passing articles of impeachment.


Yes, they can. And, if their demands are unreasonable, the Executive can blow them off, and campaign against the Congressional majority in the next election.

Because the proper decider of political questions is the voting public

If the Democrats had carried out honest hearings, with both sides allowed to call witnesses, and the defense side able to follow up on questions about lying by Schiff, and collusion between Schiff and Eric C....

Well, then, their entire case would have fallen apart. Which is why they conducted a sham "trial".

But if the House had actually had a case, and they had carried out the investigation in a reasonable manner, then the voters would have punished the Executive in the next round of elections.

Which is why Al Gore lost to W in a time of apparent peace and prosperity.

I realize the "elite class" hates the thought of letting the great unwashed decide important questions. Nevertheless, that is actually how our system is supposed to work.

Good for teh two Republican appointed Judges for being willing to honor that

ColoComment said...

Yancey Ward said...
2/29/20, 11:17 AM
...and to choose which questions to answer or not answer is still mostly up to McGahn himself.

YW, can you please clarify: isn't it the WH and/or Trump and/or Trump Campaign (depending on the actual then-legal relationship at issue) who enjoys and must assert the privilege? I had thought that then, after privilege is asserted, comes a discussion about specific documents, testimony, etc., and some may be public and some may be merely identified via a privilege log?

Greg the class traitor said...

Ken B said...
Would the house as a whole have standing?

The House as a whole can shut down the government, any time they're willing to pay the political cost for doing so.

The fact that the House was NOT willing to do so tells everyone with a functioning brain that not even the House members thought they had a valid case,

If it was "obstruction of justice" for President Trump to not let his attorney testify, then it was equally obstruction of justice for Schiff to not let the Republicans call Eric C as a witness. It was equally obstruction of justice for Schiff to not let the Republicans question Vindamin about who he talked to. Or subpoenaing all of Schiff's staff and making them testify, under oath, about how the whole investigation came about.

By all means, let's have a political fight about this. but, here's a hint: people who fear having the police go against them or their family members? They don't like show trials.

And many of them vote

Michael K said...

And, also, as Matt above has pointed out, Nixon probably helped scuttle his chances by releasing edited transcripts of the tapes in an attempt to mollify public opinion.

Pat Buchanan told him to burn the tapes, which was the best advice. The uncensored conversation is what sunk Nixon, not the conspiracy which was probably instituted by John Dean.

Yancey Ward said...

Colo,

What penalty could the White House impose on witness who chooses to appear and answer? The House subpoenaed McGahn, and the advice from the new Executive counsel was to not appear, though I imagine it was couched as an order to not appear. I thought it was McGahn who first went to court for legal clarification since he was caught between the two branches- but perhaps the House went to court first, and I will have to check the history of the case.

Documents, the White House has complete control over, but actual witnesses, they do not. They can invoke the privilege, but nothing actually prevents the witness from ignoring the White House. What is the White House going to do, arrest McGahn as he walks into Congress?

Browndog said...

I disagree with this ruling.

In fact, I think it's crap.

Yancey Ward said...

Ah, Chuck, you dumb fuck- the Senate Republicans have already worked on it, or did you not pay attention to the impeachment trial that just concluded a few weeks ago?

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
Ah, Chuck, you dumb fuck- the Senate Republicans have already worked on it, or did you not pay attention to the impeachment trial that just concluded a few weeks ago?


No! The Trump Party position was, "You shoulda gone to court to enforce your subpoenas... You didn't do your work to get here... The case is half-baked..."

Well, so much for going to court.

Now, the Trump Party Republicans look so terrible. It's their job to judge the President on whether the President has obstructed Congress. They should have convicted him and removed him. Maybe they will have another chance to get that right.

Rabel said...

Duty of Inquiry said...

I am not a lawyer and this confuses the heck out of me.
Haven't other presidents gone to court and lost on what seems to me to be this same question? Does the name Nixon ring a bell?

From the decision Althouse linked:

"In United States v. Nixon, for instance, the Supreme Court resolved President Nixon’s claims of executive privilege against a subpoena issued by a district court."

"Unlike Nixon, this case involves an effort to enforce a congressional subpoena lacking the same impact on the rights of private actors."

If you follow the links and do your own dutiful inquiry instead of passing it off to others you will be less confused in the future.

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck: "Now, the Trump Party Republicans look so terrible. It's their job to judge the President on whether the President has obstructed Congress."

LOLOLOLOLOL

"obstruction of congress" is just a made up thing out of nowhere and it will continue to be a made up thing going nowhere.

Just like you and your marxist Lawfare crew's ideas.

Piss off little guy and get ready to slap that "Sander for President" bumper sticker on your car! It better be electric!

Drago said...

LLR-lefty and Sudden-Onset-Socialist with Violence Issues Chuck: "Well, so much for going to court."

That's right Chuckie.

Trump wins.

Again.

And again and again.

I'm not tired of winning yet.....how about you?

Mark said...

I disagree with this ruling.
In fact, I think it's crap.


OK. Out of curiosity's sake, could you please cite to which part of the court's opinion (page and paragraph please, with quotes) that you think are "crap"?

Mark said...

It's their job to judge the President on whether the President has obstructed Congress.

The Senate DID judge the President on whether he obstructed Congress and the Senate ruled that he did not.

Greg the class traitor said...

Mark said...
The Senate DID judge the President on whether he obstructed Congress and the Senate ruled that he did not.

Bingo.

Also, the Senate judged the quality of the House's investigation, and quite correctly found it utterly lacking.

So, now we need to impeach Schiff for obstructing the House Republican investigation into FISA abuse back in 2017 - 2018.

As well as impeaching him for obstructing the House Republican investigation into Vindamin's conversations with Eric C.

because two can play that game

iowan2 said...

Our host, and now the commenters have punched and counter punched to a very good analysis. But on the end, the answer is. The People. Dems early on explained what they were up to. If not impeached, President Trump will be elected.
Democrats hate that voters get involved in governence.

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck, you dumb fuck- the Democrats argued exactly the case you proposed they send back to the Senate, and the Republicans weren't buying it. What Trump's defense argued was irrelevant- the Senate didn't acquit with any qualification about whether or not the case was ripe for adjudication- they flat out acquitted taking the House's arguments at face value.

But, ok, let the House bring another case of impeachment. I encourage it because it damaged Trump so much the first time.

Gospace said...

As far as impeachment goes, Romney got a standing ovation for his impeachment vote! In front of a whopping huge crowd of 300 liberals that filled the auditorium! 300 people! Wow, could you imagine if President Trump could pull such a crowd of enthusiastic people? The positive news coverage it would bring?

Note - the article doesn't include photographs. I wonder why.

Char Char Binks said...

Escalation should be done one step at a time, and not by skipping steps and going nuclear. This would be the way if we elected reasonable people.

Browndog said...

Blogger Char Char Binks said...

Escalation should be done one step at a time, and not by skipping steps and going nuclear.


As is the normal reconciliation process as Trump's lawyers argued.

But they went straight to impeachment. This court ruled that is a proper course of action.

I'm not reading this ruling as favorably to the Executive as others. I think the ruling was a cheap shot at Trump while claiming it none of the court's business.

Don't like it.

Inga said...

“So Article II of the impeachment was not premature or moot for failure to pursue in the courts. It can be reasserted.”

Indeed.

Clark said...

"This court ruled that is a proper course of action."

That depends on what you mean by "proper."

I would say the court ruled that whether or not that is a proper course of action is not a question for judges to answer, it is a question that the political branches have to answer.

Inga said...

“The Trump Party position was, "You shoulda gone to court to enforce your subpoenas... You didn't do your work to get here... The case is half-baked..."

Well, so much for going to court.”

Indeed, who could’ve predicted this? The courts have said before they didn’t want to hear such cases, yet Republicans kept saying Democrats needed to go to court to enforce the subpoenas, BEFORE impeaching. The court has now spoken. Impeach first.

Chuck said...

Right; the Senate Republicans bought the argument that it is up to the courts to enforce a subpoena, and that the House should have waited for that. That the subpoenas were disputed matters and as such the House impeachment managers had rushed it.

But here is the DC Circuit, saying to Congress that it is up to them to deal with their own inter-branch subpoenas.

So okay, Senator Graham; what do you expect if and when a Democratic president tells your Senate Judiciary Committee to pound sand when you issue a subpoena to that Democratic White House? The answer clearly is now; “Impeach that president. Cut off funds. Deny Congressional support. Otherwise, you are s. o. l.

I’m not s fan of the DC Circuit opinion, but I get it. And it is a sterling example of why the vote for witnesses in the Senate should have been unanimous, for subpoenaing witnesses.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

You must Impeach Trump for Biden family graft.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

Without being all pissy about Trump, Chuck, give us your strictly LEGAL opinion on why or how the D.C. Court of Appeals is wrong on the merits, sticking to the separation of powers principles at issue regardless of who is president.

Notice that the court saw that the Obama Administration had made the exact same argument that the Trump Administration made and that the court ruled.

So, given 200 years of historical practice being against the House committee here, what is the justification under the Constitution for the judiciary sticking its nose in such a dispute that is entirely between two co-equal branches?

iowan2 said...

Our host, and now the commenters have punched and counter punched to a very good analysis. But on the end, the answer is. The People. Dems early on explained what they were up to. If not impeached, President Trump will be elected.
Democrats hate that voters get involved in governence.

Char Char Binks said...

"But they went straight to impeachment. This court ruled that is a proper course of action."

It's not a "proper course of action', but it's allowed. The House can impeach because the sky is blue, or because they think birds aren't real; it's totally up them, and there's nothing anyone else can do to change that. That's doesn't mean it was proper, at least not by my working definition of "proper". We garner the government we deserve.

Browndog said...

It's not a "proper course of action', but it's allowed.

Which, makes it "a proper course".

Char Char Binks said...

'Which, makes it "a proper course".'

Tomato, Clamato

Leland said...

This seems right to me. I don't think the President should have absolute Executive Privilege, but if you wanted McGahn to testify, then at least past the Articles of Impeachment first (naming the crime you are investigating), and then we can discuss the value of what witnesses you are calling.

Democrats were simply playing a game of impropriety. They knew McGahn's testimony would never help them, so they decided to make the lack of McGahn's testimony be their reason for removal. It was dumb and shame on Romney for going along with it.

Greg the class traitor said...

Chuck said...
Right; the Senate Republicans bought the argument that it is up to the courts to enforce a subpoena,

No, Chuck, the Senate "bought" the argument that the House impeachment was a sham trial and a clown show, and that no one sane should want anything to do with it.

They "bought" this, because it was correct.

There's a way and an order to do an actual impeachment. The Democrats violated those norms and standards from the beginning.

They did so because they didn't have a valid "high crime or misdemeanor" to impeach, and they didn't care.

Neither, obviously, do you. Because what you all are actually impeaching Trump for is the way he made you feel butthurt when he won.

Well, enjoy your butthurt, and piss off.

Or, even better, impeach Trump again. i'm sure it will go better a second time!