Federal Court Rules Banks Must Turn Over Trump's Financial Records

A federal appeals court has ruled Deutsche Bank and Capital One must comply with a congressional subpoena seeking years of Donald Trump's business records. The AP has more here.

The case is likely to go to the Supreme Court. Will packing the Court help Donald personally? What a shame, if it does.

< Kamala Harris Drops Out of Presidential Race | Judiciary Committee Approves Articles of Impeachment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Great opinion by Judge Newman, age 86 (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 08:16:44 PM EST
    of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Newman was appointed as US Attorney in Connecticut by LBJ when he was only 32; Nixon made him a federal trial judge before he was 40. I had my first trial in front of him when I was a public defender; he taught me a lot about the rules of evidence which (unfortunately for my clients) I needed to learn. Carter put him on the court of appeals. Oh, for the days when exceptional talent was the key consideration for appointment of federal judges.

    I hate to be the one to break (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 08:30:50 AM EST
    this to you, but McConnell/Trump have already "packed" the court, which is why we're even having this discussion. the very first thing a D majority Congress needs to do is impeach both Gorsuch & Bart K, the former for being illegally elevated, the latter for lying to Congress during his hearing. that should resolve the packing issue.

    If the court (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 04:02:33 PM EST
    covers for Trump then we really have no laws in this country that anybody should bothering to obey.

    That's a great pic of Dear Leader (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 05:04:43 PM EST
    He looks like he is sitting on his golden throne passing something large.  And spikey.

    This (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 05:32:35 PM EST

    Hair seems poofier


    His hair (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 05:55:24 PM EST
    is honestly the least of his problems. Talk about embarrassing the country on the national stage to the point where Macron had to fact check him.

    Crooks and Criminals try to hide facts. (none / 0) (#7)
    by ChiCity on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 11:19:48 AM EST

    George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, the Republicans' witness during Wednesday's House Judiciary Council hearing said that this impeachment was "slipshod" and rushed because all of the documents and witnesses had had been examined. That's because Trump has kept it from the Public and the Investigating Committees. Crooked Presidents have always hidden behind their court challenges to delay the public from learning about their crimes.

    Nixon's criminal escapades laid out on the tapes' only came to light during the Watergate scandal of 1973 and 1974, when the system was mentioned during the televised testimony of White House aide Alexander Butterfield before the Senate Watergate Committee. Nixon fought like hell to keep them from being played to Americans and his refusal of a congressional subpoena to release the tapes constituted an article of impeachment against Nixon, and led to his subsequent resignation on August 9, 1974.

    Everyone knows already that the stuff subpoenaed from Trump will show he is a crook. All Americans know he is hiding it because it shows he is a crook.

    Congress should point out only crooks hide this stuff.

    Democrats need to incorporate more of George Lakoff's methods of framing

    There is the Related Case for Records From Mazars, (none / 0) (#8)
    by RickyJim on Fri Dec 06, 2019 at 12:11:22 PM EST
    Trump's accounting firm.  An appeals courts in Washington ordered their records released to the House Oversight Committee; the committees for the Deutche Bank/Capital One case were Intelligence and Financial Services.  Apparently none of the committees explicitly said they needed the records as part of an impeachment investigation.  Why not?  The dissenter in the Mazars case, Judge Rao, wrote, "allegations of illegal conduct against the President cannot be investigated by Congress except through impeachment."

    It seems so easy to take away this argument from judges who "play interference" for Trump and it mystifies me why the House has not done so.

    At the time the Mazars subpoena was issued (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 06, 2019 at 01:43:33 PM EST
    by the House Committee, the impeachment inquiry had not yet begun. (The Tr*mp Organization, which is the actual litigant here, has been dragging out the court process for months, as is typical.) The subpoena probably cannot be retroactively recharacterized. A new one, however, can certainly be issued. But then the process would start over and the impeachment process would be over by the time the matter was adjudicated (again). The endless court appeals, no matter how weak on their merits, have effectively prevented the sought-after-evidence from being made available.

    The Supremes Took Bush vs Gore (none / 0) (#10)
    by RickyJim on Fri Dec 06, 2019 at 03:31:19 PM EST
    pretty quickly without churning through lower courts, didn't they?  It might be worth a try to get them to rule on impeachment related subpoenas ASAP.

    As Peter G reminds, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 06, 2019 at 04:13:35 PM EST
    the House impeachment inquiry had not yet begun.  In February 2019, Trump's former attorney testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform that Trump had changed the estimated value of his assets and liabilities on financial statements prepared by Mazars, Trump's accounting firm. The Committee also heard testimony that Trump may have failed to disclose certain financial holdings required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.  

    To further investigate these matters, the Oversight Committee subpoenaed Mazars for Trump's and his business financials  from 2011 to present.  Trump then sued Mazars asking the DC District Court to declare the subpoena invalid and unenforceable. The Oversight Committee intervened to defend its subpoena.

    The District Court found the subpoena to be valid and that Mazar's must comply with it. Then Trump appealed to the DC Circuit.

    On October 11, the DC Circuit affirmed the District Court's order and held that Mazar's must comply with the subpoena. The Circuit Court held that the Committee was engaged in a "legitimate legislative investigation" on a subject on which Congress could propose legislation.  Judge Neomi Rao's dissent, essentially, inserted itself into the legislative prerogatives and, is considered by some, to be an embarrassing dissent (Rao was appointed, by Trump, to the Brett Kavanaugh seat).

    There is a long history of legislative investigations; as early as 1792, Congress asked for records from President Washington as part of an investigation, and many congressional investigations have followed over the years.  They were not necessarily a part of an impeachment inquiry or process, nor were they deployed for impeachment purposes.

    Moreover, the Supreme Court has affirmed Congress's broad power to investigate, for example, administration of existing laws as well as possibly needed laws. Following information that Trump might have failed to disclose certain financial holdings in required disclosures, Congress would have an interest in obtaining more facts so as to inform the need to strengthen existing financial disclosure laws and consider the need for additional restrictions on presidential conflicts of interest.

    This case will be a test for the Supreme Court and for the rule of law.


    Yes, it is true that the Court has authority (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 06, 2019 at 08:54:20 PM EST
    to put litigants on any sort of expedited schedule they wish. Looks like the subpoena cases are being at least somewhat sped up.

    SC (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 13, 2019 at 03:18:07 PM EST
    Just agreed to hear this case