Sheer Frivolity

Re Trump’s suit to quash the DB subpoenas from Congress, ⁦@steve_vladeck⁩ said, “It’s a long shot on the merits, but it’s not frivolous.” https://t.co/qzLAeLoqpB

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) May 1, 2019

It's been awhile, and far be it from me to engage a law professor in an argument over legal minutiae, and yes, "frivolous" is a higher bar than non-lawyers might think it is, but case law on the issue:

In the suit filed this week, Mr. Trump’s lawyers accused House Democrats of making a number of statements about investigating him, some of which were either taken out of context or misattributed. They accused the lawmakers of targeting a “private citizen,” despite the fact he is president. And they said the documents sought included some for accounts linked to underage relatives of Mr. Trump’s, which they said could serve no relevant purpose.

The lawyers also said that the subpoenas serve no legislative function, and are merely political tools to “harass” the president.

Does not mean "frivolous" has no meaning:

Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said that there was precedent for people who believe congressional subpoenas may be overly intrusive seeking help from the courts.

“It’s a long shot on the merits, but it’s not frivolous,” Mr. Vladeck said of the suit.

The determination goes to the purpose of the suit, not just the legitimacy of the cause of action.  I don't think the lawyers for Trump have actually stated a cause of action, which is one strike against them.  I also think there is evidence the suit is brought in bad faith, simply as a delaying tactic, or to be obstructive of a legitimate subpoena (I've filed motions to quash before, I know how it's done, even if it has been many moons since I drafted one).  Congress doesn't want to bother with pursuing the claim, though (of a frivolous claim); it's a separate evidentiary matter that would just keep the case in court longer.  And while I'm not up on the FRCP anymore, this sounds about right:

From the article, it sounds like he means a long shot but not frivolous on the merits substantively, not whether a complaint like this, which didn't name the committees, is proper procedurally. A rule 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss should be granted.

— Greg Sergienko (@GregSergienko) May 1, 2019

Better to dismiss than take time getting the suit declared frivolous, on procedural grounds (FRCP) or substantive legal grounds (case law).  But if this isn't frivolous, then the rules against frivolous filings have just been erased as pointless.

Oh, and if you read the article and get to this:

Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the House oversight panel during Barack Obama’s presidency, said Mr. Trump’s actions reflected an understanding that congressional subpoenas have been losing power for years.

“Your subpoena is only as good as your ability to enforce it,” Mr. Chaffetz said, “and the reality is the only way to enforce a subpoena is through the Department of Justice, so good luck with that.”

Really not an issue, here.  Deutsche Bank and Capital One were ready and willing to comply with the subpoenas.  The family lawsuits block that action only temporarily, and if they are refused, neither bank will need court enforcement to comply with the requests.  That's one reason Congress went after them.