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

.......for financial records

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/20/jud...democrats-subpoena-for-financial-records.html

A federal judge ruled against President Donald Trump on Monday in a lawsuit to block a subpoena from House Democrats for information about his finances.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed accounting firm Mazars in April, requesting financial documents and related materials from Trump, his trust and a handful of his businesses.
...............................................................................................
So.........put one on the board for America. Hopefully, Don's attempts to run out the clock on these matters will be thwarted by expedited rulings like this one.
It's encouraging to see the rule of law and Congress' oversight authority prevail.......for now.

 

Great news Lee. Now, what do we do?

 

Baby Donald's lawyers asked the judge to stay the ruling so they could appeal before his ruling went in to effect. He said stuff it.

 

Read the ruling.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/judge-trump-mazars-subpoena

 

"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."

 

"U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta strongly endorsed Congress’ broad authority to investigate the president, striking a blow to arguments made by Trump’s legal team."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/20/jud...democrats-subpoena-for-financial-records.html

 

The first of many many court fights that Trump will lose.

The hope of the extremists being that the Supreme Court will change the Constitution to save their idol. Not much to hang on to, but it's all they have left now.

 

The question now is how long the appeals process will take and whether Don will defy the court when he loses on appeal.......setting up a real constitutional crisis.

 

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.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019...-subpoena-for-trump-financial-records-1335370

 

I don't think that happens...mostly because the actions required are to be taken by third parties...not by Trump himself.

Trump can say, "Do not release X"...but if the court has ruled that party Y must release X...Y is the person in the hot seat.

Some of those Y's...are not interested in saving Trump's fat ass.

 

True. The documents in question are in the possession of his accounting firm. I wonder if they might comply with this order even if Don wants to appeal it?

 

But the judge denied a stay on the order. Shouldn't Mazars comply with the order immediately?

 

I suppose they could. Cuz if they don't they will be held in contempt of a court order. Mazars has reputational risk here, not to mention legal jeopardy.

 

From Politico........

"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 information."

 

Next step here seems to be to just send Marshalls over to get the records, like they did with Trump's lawyer.

 

The Trumpists will appeal.

 

Appeals in courts don't stop men at the door with handcuffs and cardboard boxes. Trumps lawyer's records have been seized before.

 

But not while a ruling to obtain them was being appealed.

 

But only parts of the constitution, mind you - they won't touch 2A

 

INALB a court ruling which could be appealed endlessly while the shredders are working would seem to be the type of thing most judges would find a tad problematic. Or do they have these records already

 

Trump is not beneath the law, his Mariana Trenchmouth pronouncements notwithstanding.

The waning years of Trumpery are destined to be furtive ones, as he tries to hide everything from everybody.

 

'The judge said that the Mr. Trump’s legal arguments were too thin to merit a stay because they did not raise a “serious legal question,” and said that issuing such a stay would amount to interfering with the constitutional powers of Congress.'

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

U.S. Supreme Court
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957)
Watkins v. United States

No. 261

Argued March 7, 1957

Decided June 17, 1957

354 U.S. 178

(a) The power of Congress to conduct investigations, inherent in the legislative process, is broad, but it is not unlimited. P. 354 U. S. 187.

(b) Congress has no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of Congress. P. 354 U. S. 187.

(c) No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress. P.354 U. S. 187.

(d) The Bill of Rights is applicable to congressional investigations, as it is to all forms of governmental action. P. 354 U. S. 188.

(g) A congressional investigation into individual affairs is invalid if unrelated to any legislative purpose, because it is beyond the powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168. P. 354 U. S. 198.

(h) It cannot simply be assumed that every congressional investigation is justified by a public need that overbalances any private rights affected, since to do so would be to abdicate the responsibility placed by the Constitution upon the judiciary to insure that Congress does not unjustifiably encroach upon an individual's right of privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion or assembly. Pp. 354 U. S. 198-199.

(i) There is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure where the predominant result can be only an invasion of the private rights of individuals. P. 354 U. S. 200.

(j) In authorizing an investigation by a committee, it is essential that the Senate or House should spell out the committee's jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity to insure that compulsory process is used only in furtherance of a legislative purpose. P. 354 U. S. 201.

I luv that obozo appointed judges have no sense of stare decisis. Get ready to lose ... again!

 

They already did.

 

Start your reading with page 16. You guys are so screwed.

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

"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."