Image 01 Image 03

Federal Judge Upholds Democrat Congressional Subpoena of Trump’s Financial Records

Federal Judge Upholds Democrat Congressional Subpoena of Trump’s Financial Records

Lawfare rages on

A federal judge upheld a subpoena issued by Congressional Democrats demanding access to Trump’s personal financial information. Arguing the subpoena was political warfare (and it is), Trump’s lawyers filed suit, hoping to block the subpoena.

More from Politico:

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling means that Mazars USA must comply with the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s subpoena for eight years of Trump’s financial records, though the president is certain to appeal the ruling.

The president filed suit last month to block the subpoena, arguing that it amounted to an abuse of congressional authority.

Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) issued the subpoena to Mazars last month as part of the panel’s investigation into whether Trump committed financial crimes before he became president.

In particular, the committee has sought to corroborate specific claims made by Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer Michael Cohen. Earlier this year, Cohen turned over documents to the panel which purport to show that Trump artificially inflated and deflated the values of his assets to suit his personal financial benefit.

And from CNBC:

Mehta wrote in a 41-page memorandum opinion that while “there are limits on Congress’s investigative authority … those limits do not substantially constrain Congress.”

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. Trump’s lawyers sued in Washington, D.C., federal court to block that subpoena, writing that Democrats had “declared all-out political war” against Trump.

While Trump’s lawyers had argued that the committee’s subpoena did not have a legitimate legislative purpose — and was therefore invalid — Mehta took a more liberal view.

“So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which ‘legislation could be had,’” then Congress is acting within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution, the judge wrote. “President Trump cannot block the subpoena to Mazars.”

The Democrat-led committee argued that the requested financial documents will help it strengthen ethics and disclosure laws and their penalties, as well as assisting in making sure that the president does not violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

“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,” Mehta wrote.

All speculation suggests Trump will appeal the ruling.

We can play, “imagine if Congressional Republicans played the same game with all of Obama’s sealed records,” but we live by two completely different sets of rules here.

Full ruling here:

Mehta Opinion in Trump Subpoena Case by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


What a surprise, another judge undermines my President. I’m shocked.

A warlock trial? Never go full Pro-Choice.

Unconstitutional before passage of the Twilight Amendment. Perhaps if their demand was equally upheld and applied to all people in a class (“diversity”).

Obama spied, Clinton colluded, Biden obstructed, DNC denied, and WaPo, CNN et al prosecuted a multi-trimester cover-up and witch hunt.

Another Obama judge joins the deep-state to keep their coup alive.

‘legislation could be had,’

Uh, that applies to pretty much anything. A democrat congress could in theory demand the financial records of every republican candidate for political office.

    Voyager in reply to Sanddog. | May 20, 2019 at 6:00 pm

    Every Republican, period. Basically gives carte blance to one political party to do what ever it wants to the other guys. A legal doxing of Joe the Plumber.

      stablesort in reply to Voyager. | May 20, 2019 at 6:03 pm

      Everybody, Republican, Democrat, soldier, sailor, Marine or baker. There is no one who has a right to privacy.

    NoFlow in reply to Sanddog. | May 20, 2019 at 6:58 pm

    Filegate 25 Years Later….

Gremlin1974 | May 20, 2019 at 6:01 pm

Since when is it the houses job to investigate the financial dealings of a private citizen? They are asking for things from before he became President, i.e. a private citizen.

No legitimate legislative purpose was presented.

    smalltownoklahoman in reply to puhiawa. | May 21, 2019 at 5:58 am

    Yup, just a maybe something will be passed IN THE FUTURE that would justify this. Hopefully on appeal that will be struck down with the appeals court saying “No, legislation has to actually be passed first before you can pull this stuff.”

This Obama appointed judge is but the first stop on a path to the United States Supreme Court. He did his part for the cause by taking hours for his ruling rather than weeks.

Next stop the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The SCOTUS.

The Republicans could do the same to all the progressive fascists running for office throughout the country.

    Conan in reply to ConradCA. | May 21, 2019 at 5:11 pm

    But they won’t and you could say it is cowardice but the reality is to me that you need the Media to bless these things or they backfire.

    The problem with the country is a corrupt Media allows the Democrats, their judges, activists, etc to do what they want and the rest of us incluidng and mostly Trump have to take it.


“there are limits on Congress’s investigative authority … those limits do not substantially constrain Congress.”

This is complete gibberish. It brings to mind an old QA.

Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 75?
A: Your Honor.

Hey is there a Senate committee out there that can find an “oversight” excuse to subpoena the records of every Democrat in office? What fun! 🙂

    dystopia in reply to labrat. | May 20, 2019 at 8:38 pm

    I suggest that the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena the accounting records and Tax Returns held by the accountant of U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta. The legislative purpose is to see if corrective legislation is needed to reduce judicial corruption.

    I bet Amit would blow a gasket if that happened.

    TheOldZombie in reply to labrat. | May 20, 2019 at 11:49 pm


    They can start with Bill and Hillary’s financial records because the Senate may want to pass new laws concerning charities and foreign donations.

    Than they can move onto President Obama’s financial records because the Senate may want to pass new laws concerning multi-million dollar book deals to former Presidents.

    I don’t think the Democrats truly understand the can of worms they are opening.

Apparently the 4th Amendment does not apply to Trump.

I haven’t read the decision- but I assume that when all legal gibberish is cut through, it says (maybe even with an exclamation point):

Orange Man Bad.

How do ethics laws apply to private citizens holding no form of public office, incidentally?

Once again we see a court which simply refuses to exercise its duty.

The arguments made by the plaintiffs were that

1) Congress was infringing upon the duties of the executive by investigating potential wrongdoing which did not occur while Trump was an elected official and which does not involve the federal government.

2) That Congress is investigating the actions of a private citizen, Trump before he ran for office, which would be a violation of privacy.

3) That any Congressional investigation has to be pertinent to existing, pending or potential legislation. And, that there is NO evidence that there is any pending legislation or planned legislation.

Interestingly, the court decided that the first point does not automatically preclude Congress from investigating criminal or potential criminal activity. While this is arguably correct, the Congress would still have to identify a violation, or potential violation, of federal law.

In the case of the second argument, the court essentially agrees with the plaintiff. But…. the court then embarks on a convoluted journey to attempt to find some scrap of judicial decision making which will allow it to ignore this argument. And, even though the court does not truly find an such judicial decision, it decides to ignore this argument anyway. The third argument should be the easiest to satisfy. All that the court had to do was to ask the defendants to produce a reasonable legislative purpose for the investigation. Instead, the court jumped through hoops in an attempt to claim that the court HAS to ASSUME that such a reasonable legislative purpose exists, without evidence that it does. This is essentially judicial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. What this actually is, is the court surrendering its duty to obtain information necessary to rendering an accurate, fair decision. But, it gets worse. The court actually dismisses factually reported statements, made by the defendants, which strongly suggest, if not outright state, that there is no legislative basis for the request for this information.

The least invasive course, which the court could have taken, would have been to issue a temporary injunction and schedule a more formal hearing in a couple of weeks. Why these courts fail to do this has always intrigued me. There is not time sensitivity to the production of these records. So, why not actually conduct a thorough judicial hearing on the matter? Oh, yeah. The whole point was to dismiss the request for an injunction, nothing else.

regulus arcturus | May 20, 2019 at 9:15 pm

This judge needs to be removed.

The ruling will be reversed on appeal, but the judge didn’t even make an effort.

    TheOldZombie in reply to regulus arcturus. | May 20, 2019 at 11:53 pm

    Sadly I wouldn’t assume that any judge at any higher level will back Trump.

    It’s probably going to take a SCOTUS to do it but even than you’ve got a weasel in Chief Justice John Roberts.

Be interesting if the repubs win the house next election and go after Elijah Cummings. He’s scum of the lowest order.

    Barry in reply to 4fun. | May 20, 2019 at 10:00 pm

    90% of the R’s are chickenshit and corrupt. They never do anything to fight back. They like what the commies are doing.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 21, 2019 at 1:09 am

Speaking of corrupt lawyers..,.

“New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, the man at the helm of the cabal that is attacking President Donald Trump, has a major issue on his hands. It has been discovered that his son, Michael Nadler, works for Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, a New York based law firm.

What is significant about this job is that that office has repeatedly sued President Trump, including on behalf of CNN reporter Jim Acosta, Big League Politics reported.

“Congressman Jerry Nadler has a big conflict,” our source tells Big League Politics in Washington, D.C. “His son (Michael Nadler) got a job with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP in 2018. That’s convenient because Jerry Nadler and the Democrats just won control of the House in 2018.

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher hire Jerry’s son and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher are the main Nemesis against Trump and the Trump Administration on numerous lawsuits.
Such an arrangement — Jerry Nadler investigating Trump with his son’s firm trying to get access to documents in other cases — violates ethics rules for federal investigators.”

What goes around, comes around.

We can thank the democrats in advance for the playbook in the event biden gets elected.

So maybe a Senate committee could demand the financial records of Hunter Biden

Bucky Barkingham | May 21, 2019 at 7:20 am

How about DOJ subpoenaing 8 years of Mr. Cummings financial records? Gotta be something there.

Ignore the SOBs.

tic...tic...BOOM | May 21, 2019 at 3:18 pm

Here’s something that Rep. Cunmmings can investigate:

Or it could be Attorney General Barr.

“There are no Obama judges”
-John Roberts, one of Obama´s extortion victims