by
Heather
Diehl/Getty
Images)
There
are
only
so
many
times
you
can
stand
in
federal
court
and
insist
that
up
is
down,
black
is
white,
and
bulldozing
a
historic
wing
of
the
White
House
is
just
a
light
home
improvement
project
before
a
judge
decides
he’s
had
enough.
This
week,
in
the
ongoing
“White
House
ballroom”
litigation,
which
to
my
continual
shock
is
not
a
Veep
subplot
but
actual
reality,
Judge
Richard
Leon
finally
let
the
exasperation
show.
(Also
known
as the
case
brought
by
the
National
Trust
for
Historic
Preservation
over
the
Trump
administration’s
unilateral
demolition
of
the
East
Wing
of
the
White
House
to
build
a
$400
million
White
House
ballroom
—
funded
privately
—
with
exactly
zero
Congressional
approval
or
oversight.)
And
when
the
judge
starts
openly
questioning
your
relationship
with
reality…
it’s
not
exactly
a
great
sign
for
the
government’s
case.
At
issue
remains
the
Trump
administration’s
apparent
belief
that
the
White
House
is
less
“seat
of
government”
and
more
“HGTV
fixer-upper.”
According
to
reports,
the
latest
hearing
made
clear
that
the
Department
of
Justice
is
still
clinging
to
its
argument
that
knocking
down
the
East
Wing
to
make
room
for
a
grotesque
ballroom
somehow
qualifies
as
a
mere
“alteration.”
That
thesaurus-based
violence
will
not
stand
in
Judge
Leon’s
courtroom,
he
said
calling
the
demo “an
alteration…
takes
some
brazen
interpretation
of
the
laws
of
vocabulary.”
Yikes.
That
can’t
feel
great.
And
if
the
DOJ
thought
it
could
smooth
things
over
by
analogizing
the
White
House
to
national
parks,
welp,
Leon
was
equally
unimpressed.
The
White
House,
he
reminded
everyone,
“is
a
special
place,”
and
this
isn’
swapping
out
a
park
bench
at
Yellowstone.
Leon
went
even
further,
emphasizing
a
point
that
seems
almost
quaint
in
this
litigation,
that
no
matter
how
much
cheap
gold
paint
Donald
Trump
bathes
the
place
in,
he
is
not
the
owner
of
the
White
House,
he’s
the
current
“steward”
of
an
“an
iconic
symbol
of
this
nation.”
Leon
described
the
government’s
“shifting
theories
and
shifting
dynamics”
which
has
become
the
defining
feature
of
the
case.
One
minute
it’s
an
alteration,
the
next
it’s
justified
by
vague
statutory
authority,
now
the
plaintiffs
don’t
have
standing
(which
Judge
Leon
described
bitingly
as
the
DOJ’s
“escape
hatch”),
and
last
month
it
somehow
had
“national
security
implications,”
a
claim
that
felt
less
like
a
legal
argument
and
more
like
someone
hitting
the
break-glass-in-case-of-losing
button.
But
it’s
clear
that
Judge
Leon
is
not
buying
whatever
the
government
is
selling.