Judge Delivers Bad House Subpoena News – Trump In Monday Spiral

0
1537

A federal judge has ruled against the president of the United States Monday after he unleashed his legal team on the House Oversight Committee to try and stop them from attaining his financial records.

District Judge Amit Mehta ruled in favor of the committee in a 41-page court document in which Mehta explains that the president cannot block a subpoena to Mazars, one of Trump’s former accounting firm.

Trump’s team argued that the subpoena was invalid because it wasn’t linked to any kind of law, but federal prosecutors insisted that the information from his financial records will bring investigators a more solid view into the president’s financial history.

The judge explained in court docs:

“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.”

Screenshot via Scribd

The judge reminded Republicans that the House’s “broad investigative power is not new,” noting past investigations into Democrats that may have seemed even more frivolous than Trump’s financial records. Mehta also stated for the record that “it is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.”

The judge also let the president know that looking into matters that occurred before he became president was in no way out of line, nor out of the ordinary:

“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.”

The judge then denied the request by Trump’s team to issue a stay in the matter:

“The court is well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States. But on the question of whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail.”