Have you ever seen a legal argument taken apart and left as a pile of smoking meat on the sidewalk, like a still-throbbing wildebeest carcass on the savanna? Have you ever seen a judge eat a lawyer's heart—figuratively, of course, at least for now? Have you ever seen a judge take a legal team apart, brick by brick, and reassemble the parts into a great big ship of fools for the rest of us to laugh at?

Let me introduce you to U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta.

Mehta was sitting in judgment of the validity of the House Oversight Committee's subpoenas to the president*'s accountants for eight years worth of the president*'s financial records. It was to Mehta that the president*'s lawyers directed the novel constitutional interpretation that the president* is essentially beyond congressional oversight unless the Congress was acting with a "legislative purpose." Mehta was obviously dubious about this bit of clumsy sleight-of-hand when it was argued in front of him last week.

On Monday, he handed them their theory back to them without its viscera. To Wit:

“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry."

“Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a president, before and after taking office. This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.”

“Thus, it is not the court’s role to decipher whether Congress’s true purpose in pursuing an investigation is to aid legislation or something more sinister such as exacting political retribution."

And, not content with eviscerating the president*'s case, Mehta went one step further. He refused to stay his judgment pending the inevitable White House appeal. Mehta threw the president* out of his courtroom like a bouncer dispatching an unruly drunk.

There seems little doubt now that the decisive constitutional showdown is going to come when the president* and his henchfolk decline to follow a court's order in a matter like this one. There also seems little doubt that the president* doesn't have a leg to stand on in most of the legal challenges he thus far has stonewalled. Why this is obvious to everyone except the responsible parties in the House majority remains a mystery.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here.

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io