First, thank you for this. It really is insightful!
Justice Thomas dissents, saying he doesn't think that Congress has the power to issue legislative subpoenas to a private individual, president or otherwise.
Wait, what the fuck? Is he using his "originalism" to say that oversight isn't in the constitution and therefore the whole oversight game is wack? Or that no one really needs to be compelled to testify before committees for the specific purpose of drafting legislation? I'm really confused by this. It seems really far outside the mainstream even for him.