As I have said many a time before, all of the judgments from Trump’s (NOW impeachment), stonewalling, will be sped through the courts. Just like they were in Nixon’s time, (having lived through it) we are going through it again and just like before, every case literally takes two to three EXTRA weeks. Again the delay we have lived through to date is literally an added two extra weeks to the Account Firms case, 2 to 3 weeks!!!
The president vowed to appeal. He had sued to prevent his accounting firm, Mazars USA, from disclosing the data.
A federal judge on Monday denied President Trump’s bid to quash a House subpoena for years of his financial records from his accounting firm and stayed his order seven days to allow the president’s lawyers time to appeal.
The ruling handed an initial defeat to Trump’s vow to defy subpoenas by House Democrats and came in one of the first courtroom challenges to a series of lawmakers’ investigative demands for his bank records, accounting statements and tax returns.
Trump called the ruling “ridiculous” and vowed to appeal it.
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta of Washington, D.C., refused to block the records request to Mazars USA from the House Oversight and Reform Committee while litigation continues. Attorneys for Trump and associated businesses filed suit April 22, arguing Congress is not entitled to investigate his past personal financial dealings for potential corruption.
“So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which ‘legislation could be had,’ Congress acts as contemplated by Article I of the Constitution,” Mehta said in a 41-page opinion. Mehta ruled the committee’s claims that Trump’s records will help it consider strengthening ethics and disclosure laws and enforce a constitutional ban on acceptance of foreign gifts by a president were “facially valid,” saying, “It is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.”
In an additional blow to Trump’s lawyers, Mehta denied their request to stay his order beyond the seven days both sides previously agreed to for an appeal, finding the public’s interest in “maximizing the effectiveness of the investigatory powers of Congress” was greater than any harm to Trump or his businesses.
In court, Douglas N. Letter, general counsel of the House of Representatives, has charged that the lawsuit would dismiss Congress’s constitutional oversight powers as “a nuisance . . . getting in [Trump’s] way while he’s trying to run the country.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s private attorney, Jay Sekulow, said when the lawsuit was filed that the president’s team “will not allow Congressional Presidential harassment to go unanswered.”
“Mazars USA will respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations,” the company said in a statement Monday.
An appeal would test decades of legal precedent that have upheld Congress’s right to investigate, arguing the theory that a president’s past dealings are irrelevant to the legislative branch’s fundamental job of writing bills. The legal battle comes as House Democrats seek to probe Trump’s finances, his campaign and allegations he sought to obstruct justice in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation.
[White House blocks former counsel McGahn from testifying to Congress]
In the Mazars case, Mehta cut down Trump lawyers’ complaint that Congress was usurping the Justice Department’s powers to investigate “dubious and partisan” allegations of private conduct, by inquiring into whether Trump misled his lenders by inflating his net worth.
Rather, Mehta said, a congressional investigation into illegal conduct before and during a president’s time in office fits “comfortably”with Congress’s broad investigative powers, which include an “informing function,” or power to expose corruption.
“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,” Mehta wrote. Finish here: Judge upholds House subpoena demanding years of Trump’s financial records
The judge, Amit Mehta, ruled that Congress can investigate the president without beginning formal impeachment proceedings.
The judge, Amit Mehta, ruled that Congress can investigate the president without beginning formal impeachment proceedings.
A federal judge on Monday upheld a congressional subpoena seeking President Donald Trump’s financial records from an accounting firm, arguing that Congress is well within its rights to investigate potential illegal behavior by a president — even without opening a formal impeachment inquiry.
U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling delivers a striking blow to the president’s efforts to resist Democratic investigations, and is certain to give Democrats further legal basis to investigate Trump, his finances, and his presidential campaign.
In addition to upholding the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s subpoena to accounting firm Mazars USA for eight years of Trump’s financial records, Mehta took the extra step of denying the president’s request for a stay pending appeal.
“We will be filing a timely notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,” said Jay Sekulow, one of the president’s personal attorneys.
Mehta’s decision is a sweeping repudiation of Trump’s claim to be largely immune from congressional scrutiny, particularly in matters of potential legal violations. Mehta’s opinion emphasizes that lawmakers have the authority to investigate Trump’s conduct from both before and after taking office.
The ruling represents the first time the federal judiciary has weighed in on the ongoing oversight battle between Trump and House Democrats. Mehta’s ruling is likely to provide a blueprint for other judges who are set to make their own rulings on Trump’s vow to defy all congressional subpoenas.
In a 41-page opinion issued Monday, Mehta systematically dismantled the Trump legal team’s arguments against the validity of the subpoena — and he pushed back on claims from congressional Republicans that the House Judiciary Committee must formally launch an impeachment inquiry before requesting such…. Finish here: Judge upholds Dem subpoena for Trump financial records
