President Trump's lawyer is seemingly questioning history to get his client off the hook.

In April, Democrats in the House Oversight committee subpoenaed several banks in an attempt to access Trump's financial records, prompting countersuits from Trump and his family. Trump's personal lawyer William Consovoy fought those subpoenas in court on Tuesday, yet "struggled to give a direct answer" when a judge asked if his argument against subpoena compliance fit two solidly established precedents, BuzzFeed News' Zoe Tillman reports.

On Tuesday, Consovoy said Congress was overstepping its authority by subpoenaing the president for "a law-enforcement purpose" rather than "to work on legislation," USA Today writes. That prompted U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta to ask Consovoy if his argument applied to former Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. After all, they both faced Congressional probes that "were inquiring as to violations of criminal law," Mehta said. Consovoy replied that he would "need to look more closely at those cases," which Mehta brushed off by saying they were "straightforward," BuzzFeed News continued.

Trump's lawsuits against Oversight Committee subpoenas are ongoing both in D.C. and New York City federal courts. Mehta said he would rule on the D.C. subpoenas after Tuesday's hearing, and given that he was appointed by former President Barack Obama and seemed skeptical of Consovoy, is expected to let them proceed. Kathryn Krawczyk