The argument is even more crazy then that. The real argument they are making is that Congress can only subpoena for the purpose of making better laws. That they have no power to subpoena in their role as oversite of the President.
This is basically an argument that Congress has no power over the entire Executive branch except to impeach. They also make the claim that the DOJ has no power over the President. They are making the soft claim that no one has any power to stop a President from doing anything he wants, no matter how unconstitutional or illegal, and can not even hold him accountable after he leaves office. They only have the balls to make that claim because they know the current President won't take advantage of it if they win.
It is an attempt at obstruction and part of a series of bogus legal challenges to gum up the investigation from team Trump. We've seen the playbook before. There is no merit to their claim.
Firstly, it is not decided that you cannot impeach a former president. Most scholars say you can. So assuming they were only looking for criminal activity committed by the president for impeachment purposes, they probably have that authority anyway.
Aside from that, Congress has enormous oversight duties and not simply the crafting of new legislation.
There are also many parties involved here apart from the president, many of whom are currently in government including Congress itself who has the sole power to discipline or expel its own members.
Finally, from a simple legislative purpose, what could be more fundamental than legislation which governs how elections are conducted and secured? I think an attempted insurrection and attempted subversion of the legal process to transfer power to the newly elected President are pretty damn good reasons to look for opportunities to better secure future elections and transitions of power through legislative means.
See Watkins v. US for the Supreme Court's opinion on this. From the House's website on their rules:
In Watkins v. United States the Court described Congress' oversight power by stating that the "power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad." The Supreme Court also observed that "a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change." The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 mandated that House and Senate committees exercise "continuous watchfulness" of the administration of laws and programs under their jurisdiction. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 permitted House standing committees to "review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution of laws" under its jurisdiction.
This is the kind of lawsuit I wish we had the balls to sanction people for bringing.
Facebook
Twitter