HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Excerpts from Court decis...

Mon May 20, 2019, 05:19 PM

Excerpts from Court decision Ruling Acctg Firm Must Hand Over Trump Financial Records

Judge Orders Accounting Firm to Hand Over Records to Congress


The decision to issue the subpoena came about after the President’s former lawyer and confidant,
Michael Cohen, testified before the House Oversight Committee that the President routinely would
alter the estimated value of his assets and liabilities on financial statements, depending on the
purpose for which a statement was needed. For instance, Cohen said that the President provided
inflated financial statements to a bank to obtain a loan to purchase a National Football League
franchise. But when it came time to calculate his real estate taxes, the President would deflate the
value of certain assets
. To support his accusations, Cohen produced financial statements from
2011, 2012, and 2013, at least two of which were prepared by Mazars.


History has shown that congressionally-exposed criminal conduct by the President or a
high-ranking Executive Branch official can lead to legislation. The Senate Watergate Committee
provides an apt example.


As the Supreme Court observed in McGrain, the power to investigate is deeply
rooted in the nation’s history....


“From the earliest times in its history, the Congress has assiduously performed an ‘informing function’ of this nature.” Id. (citing James M. Landis, Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 HARV. L. REV. 153, 168–194 (1926)).


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. On this score, history provides a useful guide. Cf. Tobin v. United States, 306 F.2d 270, 275–76 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (relying on historical practice to determine the scope of a congressional investigation). Twice in the last 50 years Congress has investigated a sitting President for alleged law violations, before initiating impeachment proceedings. It did so in 1973 by establishing the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, better known as the Watergate Committee, and then did so again in 1995 by establishing the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters.


VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court will enter judgment in favor of the House Oversight Committee and against Plaintiffs. The court denies Plaintiffs’ request for a stay pending appeal. A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.


Dated: May 20, 2019
Amit P. Mehta
United States District Court Judge


http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/05/20/mehta.opinion.in.trump.subpoena.case.pdf

Note: Rep. Elijah Cummings, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, and his staff, are the bomb! His well written & detailed letters to the committee, outlining the reasons for the subpoena was used by the Court to determine that there were justifiable reasons for the subpoena.

10 replies, 1088 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Excerpts from Court decision Ruling Acctg Firm Must Hand Over Trump Financial Records (Original post)
Honeycombe8 May 2019 OP
50 Shades Of Blue May 2019 #1
Frustratedlady May 2019 #2
gratuitous May 2019 #8
Frustratedlady May 2019 #9
FirstLight May 2019 #3
Honeycombe8 May 2019 #4
FirstLight May 2019 #7
Honeycombe8 May 2019 #10
Chin music May 2019 #5
Honeycombe8 May 2019 #6

Response to Honeycombe8 (Original post)

Mon May 20, 2019, 05:20 PM

1. K & R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Original post)

Mon May 20, 2019, 05:24 PM

2. Do these last two lines mean the judge already denied an appeal, or...

will they throw another appeal in?


The court denies Plaintiffs’ request for a stay pending appeal.
A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frustratedlady (Reply #2)

Mon May 20, 2019, 06:02 PM

8. When a lower court makes an appealable order or ruling

When a lower court judge issues an order or ruling that can be appealed, the judge will often stay action on the order pending an appeal by the losing party. Judges often do that when there is a close question of the law and how it should be interpreted and applied, and if the losing party might suffer irreparable harm (such as the disclosure of privileged information vital to national security, for example). However, it is within the judge's power and discretion to have the order immediately enforced if the chances of a successful appeal are bad. In this instance, Judge Mehta has ruled that the law on this subject is so clear as to make the success of any appeal unlikely, and that there is no just reason to delay implementation of his ruling.

Trump can certainly appeal; the judge just doesn't think he has any chance of succeeding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #8)

Mon May 20, 2019, 06:06 PM

9. Super! The courts seem to be turning on Trump and ruling against him.

Maybe that will finally shut up Barr and others in their fight to protect Trump.

Thank you for the explanation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Original post)

Mon May 20, 2019, 05:25 PM

3. so when do they have to turn them over?

I'm at work, can't watch!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FirstLight (Reply #3)

Mon May 20, 2019, 05:38 PM

4. I don't know. I looked & don't see a deadline.

It might be in the short "Final Order" that the Judge signs.

The subpoena was served in April. The Court says it is not going to delay the production of the records, while Trump appeals (altho Trump can & will appeal). So I would think the records would be turned over very soon. I'm sure someone in the news will get the answer to this.

We HAVE to get the records before the appeal can stop the production.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #4)

Mon May 20, 2019, 05:53 PM

7. looks like the appeal was denied...

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court will enter judgment in favor of the House Oversight Committee and against Plaintiffs. The court denies Plaintiffs’ request for a stay pending appeal. A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FirstLight (Reply #7)

Mon May 20, 2019, 06:22 PM

10. What that means...

What that means is that Trump said "If you rule against me, I'm going to appeal. So I ask you not to order the production of the records until my appeal has been ruled on by the upper court."

The Court's ruling is that it will not stop the production of the records, to wait on Trump's appeal. The records have to be produced under the subpoena. But Trump can still appeal.

"Stay" means halt the production of records temporarily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Original post)

Mon May 20, 2019, 05:39 PM

5. So the knurl'ed fickle finger of fate, reaches out from Cohens prison cell,

and taps the traitor on the shoulder eh? Nice recovery. Rough start, but, looks like Cohen STUCK the landing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chin music (Reply #5)

Mon May 20, 2019, 05:41 PM

6. He sure did. I bet Cohen is smiling a bit right now, if he's heard. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread