Donald Trump was furious with former Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from handling the Special Counsel Robert Mueller III’s investigation. The president thought the AG was supposed to do what the man in the Oval Office wanted including investigating anyone the president chose. This is what he has the AG to doing now.
POTUS has resisted turning over his financial/tax records ever since he was on the campaign trail. First, he was under audit. Second, he was under audit, which would not have prevented him from releasing his records. Then, the House Judiciary Committee came up with an idea. It would subpoena Trump’s records from the Deutsche Bank and Capital One.
The commander-in-chief sued Capital One and Deutsche Bank to halt them from turning over his business records to the House Financial Services, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform committees. They were seeking information about Russian money laundering and financial crimes in this country.
The SDNY (District Court fo the Southern District of New York) ruled last May that the House subpoenas could proceed. However, they had to wait until Trump’s appeals were completed.
The DOJ went to the district court and argued that approving the subpoenas was a mistake, because the court had not asked the legislators to narrow their scope of the case. The DOJ continued, claiming the legislators had not proven a single legislative reason to support the subpoenas.
The DOJ said that there was a conflict with executive powers as laid out by the Constitution, CNN reported:
‘There is no objective reason for a congressional investigation into the general problem of money laundering and other illicit financial transactions to focus on the President and his family. The Committees have not connected the dots between the “undeniably broad” scope of these subpoenas and the general legislative purpose that the House has articulated: closing regulatory loopholes that permit corrupt financial activity.’
The DOJ wrote in its brief:
‘The House’s lack of responsibility is sufficient reason for this Court to declare this subpoena invalid.
‘A congressional demand for the President’s personal records raises the specter that members of the Legislative Branch are impermissibly attempting to interfere with or harass the Head of the Executive Branch, or at least that the subpoena will have that effect, especially given the possibility of a multitude of such subpoenas. The House’s recent blank-check authorization of all existing and future subpoenas concerning the President underscores the need for this Court to require the House itself to provide a clear explanation of the purpose of this specific subpoena.’
The president sued the House Oversight Committee in an attempt to prevent subpoenaing his accounting firm, Mazars USA. The committee wanted eight years of the commander-in-chief’s personal and business financial records and additional documents.
A federal district judge ruled against Trump’s attempt to block these subcommittees was not justified. The committees’ subpoenas were within their rights.
Trump appealed, then the appeals court requested the DOJ’s position in the case.
Apparently, the lawsuit against the Oversight Committees is just one of many cases where either the Trump administration or his private business have been trying to block the House Democrats’ requests.’
Judge Amit Mehta in the D.C. District wrote a 41-page-opinion agreeing with Congress:
‘History has shown that congressionally-exposed criminal conduct by the president or a high-ranking Executive Branch official can lead to legislation.’
The Mueller Report Adventures: In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page. These quick, two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people. Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery. Interestingly enough, Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order.