Judge rules against Trump in lawsuit to block Democrats’ subpoena......

I suggest you begin your reading with page 25 under Plaintiff's Contentions.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wcOqhrV6_3hCJMhpWQ-qeSjaiZJaUGVJ/view

After doing so, please cite any controlling document that prevents Congress from conducting an investigation unless it identifies a specific crime. Keeping in mind.........

"Courts have grappled for more than a century with the question of the scope of Congress’s
investigative power. The binding principle that emerges from these judicial decisions is that courts
must presume Congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate and
must defer to congressional judgments about what Congress needs to carry out that purpose. To be
sure, there are limits on Congress’s investigative authority. But those limits do not substantially
constrain Congress. 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.

Applying those principles here compels the conclusion that President Trump cannot block
the subpoena to Mazars. According to the Oversight Committee, it believes that the requested
records will aid its consideration of strengthening ethics and disclosure laws, as well as amending
the penalties for violating such laws. The Committee also says that the records will assist in
monitoring the President’s compliance with the Foreign Emoluments Clauses. These are facially
valid legislative purposes, and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions
are truly motivated by political considerations. Accordingly, the court will enter judgment in favor
of the Oversight Committee."

and................

"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."

 

Not the same. They are telling his staff that they have to provide personal information belonging to Trump.

 

Yes, but Trump was also ordering staffers to simply refuse to testify at all, which is illegal to begin with.

Now, he could have had a case when it comes to his tax returns, but according to the judge he doesn't. Now Trump will appeal, and it will be decided by a higher court.

 

Show me in the constitution.

 

I thought we were talking about turning over tax returns and financial information which is personal and, unless linked to a specific crime, congress has no jurisdiction.

 

Refute the judge's ruling......with documented sources.

 

Nope. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wcOqhrV6_3hCJMhpWQ-qeSjaiZJaUGVJ/view

 

That whole document reads like they asked some law student to gather all the words they could that might possibly relate to the subject.
Again. Show me where the constitution requires or allows any of this.

 

Except that he cites pertinent case law (you'd know if you read it), Supreme Court precedent, and references to applicable Articles in the Constitution.

Don't feel bad that you can't refute a word he wrote. I didn't think you could.

 

I haven't found the specific articles in the constitution. Show me where in the constitution.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wcOqhrV6_3hCJMhpWQ-qeSjaiZJaUGVJ/view

The most humorous aspect of your objection is that it is your objection, not the prez's lawyers.

Echoing the protests of President Buchanan, President Trump and his associated entities
are before this court, claiming that the Oversight Committee’s subpoena to Mazars exceeds the
Committee’s constitutional power to conduct investigations. The President argues that there is no
legislative purpose for the subpoena. The Oversight Committee’s true motive, the President
insists, is to collect personal information about him solely for political advantage. He asks the
court to declare the Mazars subpoena invalid and unenforceable.

 

In other words, you can't show me where in the constitution.

 

In other you are chasing your tail and want me to join you. No thanks.

 

Like I said, you can't find where it is covered in the constitution either. You are the one who is trying to convince me and you are not doing a very good job. In fact, a pee poor job.

 

Not true. Congress has subpoena power for any investigations done by their committees, and refusing an congressional subpoena is just as illegal as refusing one from a court. There is no requirement that such investigations be for specific crimes. Many of the hearings over Benghazi, for example, were LOOKING for a crime to charge Clinton with

Now, if you want to argue that Trump's tax returns could be covered by executive privilege, you could have a case, but this judge disagrees. Trump's lawyers will likely appeal, and it could even go to SCOTUS.

But typically executive privilege only applies if keeping something secret is necessary to protect the integrity of the Presidency. I'm not sure that would apply to the President's personal tax records, since they are usually released anyway. This judge doesn't seem to think it applies either, so we wil have to wait to see what the Appeals court says.

 

Bad example. For Benghazi their were a number of suspected crimes. Failure to promptly provide help. Failure to evacuate when other embassies were evacuated. Those are only the ones I can think of without checking.

Show me in the constitution where it is allowed for congress to investigate when there is no specific suspected crime.

That is not a legal requirement.

 

Correct. Voluntarily releasing them is a tradition not a requirement. On the other hand..........

IRS Memo Says Trump Must Release Tax Returns Or Invoke Executive Privilege

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-tax-returns-executive-privilege-irs

And since tax returns aren't covered by EP....................................

"The House effectively delegates its oversight responsibilities to its committees which can issue subpoenasfor documents or testimony from the executive branch. In the matter of tax returns, the law could not be more clear (see Code sec. 6103(f)): Upon written request by either the Chairman of either the Ways and Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee, the Treasury Secretary “shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request.” The Committee may share these tax returns and related information with the full House, assuming there is a legitimate purpose for doing so.

Congress gave itself the right to review any return or return information in 1924, in the aftermath of two controversies. One was the Teapot Dome scandal, where senior officials in the Harding Administration granted public oil field leases in exchange for bribes. The other involved allegations that Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon continued to own many business interests while serving in government. Some believed the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the precursor to the IRS, showed favoritism to the secretary and his businesses."

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/congress-can-and-should-demand-president-trumps-tax-returns

 

Judge rejects Trump’s request to halt congressional subpoenas for his banking records

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.faece46886f1

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a request by President Trump to block congressional subpoenas for his banking records, dealing the latest blow to the president in his bid to battle Democratic investigations into his personal finances.

The decision in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York could clear the way for Deutsche Bank and Capital One to hand over the president’s financial records to Democrats in the House. Trump’s attorneys could appeal the decision.

 

What's new?? Federal District judges make political rulings against the president all the time.

 

After incorrectly railing about how Congress doesn't have the rights they have you really had no choice but to characterize both legal rulings as political. So too the Orange Turd.
What about this is political?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wcOqhrV6_3hCJMhpWQ-qeSjaiZJaUGVJ/view