BREAKING: Appeals court refuses to block House subpoena for Trump's financial records

[StarfishSaver]

Whooo Doggies!

A federal appeals court has sided with House Democrats seeking to obtain President Trump’s private financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One, stating that "the public interest favors denial of a preliminary injunction.”

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit came in the ongoing legal battle Trump has waged over access to his private business records -- including two cases that have already reached the Supreme Court.

The New York-based appeals court upheld Congress’s broad investigative authority and ordered the two banks to comply with the House subpoenas for the president’s financial information. The case pre-dates the public impeachment proceedings in the House.

“The Committees’ interests in pursuing their constitutional legislative function is a far more significant public interest than whatever public interest inheres in avoiding the risk of a Chief Executive’s distraction arising from disclosure of documents reflecting his private financial transactions," states the ruling from Judge Jon O. Newman, who was joined by Judge Peter W. Hall.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/03/appeals-court-refuses-block-house-subpoena-trumps-financial-records/

[onecaliberal]

1. Winning.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Twitter accounts to watch if there turns out to be a Supreme Court angle:

https://twitter.com/JoanBiskupic

https://twitter.com/adamliptak

https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

https://twitter.com/ahoweblogger

{edited to add}

https://twitter.com/scotusblog

[StarfishSaver]

4. Thanks! These are great sources

https://twitter.com/ninatotenberg is another one. And https://www.scotusblog.com is also a great site full of information.

[Midnightwalk]

5. No suspense

Isn’t it safe to assume they will appeal? If nothing else to further delay the release or delay exposing that the records were destroyed if that’s the case.

I think our side would have appealed if the ruling was against us.

Thanks for the links though. Just my 2 cents.

[StarfishSaver]

8. They'll surely appeal, but whether the court takes the case is a different question

[Midnightwalk]

16. Agree but even that is delay

I’m not complaining about the process. Just pointing out that an appeal and some delay is just about guaranteed. A reaction to comments wondering if there will be an appeal.

There’s no silver bullet that would get us resolution quickly and accurately. The system seems to be set up to favor accuracy over speed. As it should be.

Btw read your reply 7 about conflicts between circuits being one reason to take the appeal and that doesn’t apply here. Thanks for the details. This stuff is way more fascinating than I’ve realized.

[mr_lebowski]

3. Sounds like great news! So what happens next SS? You usually have insights :) nt

[StarfishSaver]

7. I'm sure Trump's lawyers will appeal, but I don't know if the Supreme Court will take it

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2019, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)

One of the reasons for the Court to take a case is if there's a conflict between circuits (one circuit court rules one way and another rules a different way) and the Court wants to step in to resolve the conflict so all of the courts in the country have one uniform precedent to follow.

But so far in these cases, there's no conflict between the circuits. The courts that have faced these issues are pretty much coming out on the same page and taking consistent approaches, so there's no conflict for the Supreme Court to resolve.

I think the universality of the courts' opinions in these cases to date make it less likely that the Court will take the appeals. It doesn't mean it won't for some other reason, but the need to resolve a conflict between the circuits probably won't be one of them.

[spooky3]

14. Thank you, StarfishSaver! nt

[duforsure]

6. He probably has already

Instructed they be destroyed, but the FBI should do a raid on him and get them before he destroys them too.

[getagrip_already]

9. it wouldn't be legal, but.....

deutche bank has already told one court they didn't have copies of his taxes so they have likely been destroyed. Either that, or they loaned him hundreds of millions/billions without getting them, which is laughable. The law requires they be retained.

[uponit7771]

10. +1, They probably would take the hit vs be found to laundering money for Red Don.

[aggiesal]

11. On to the Supreme Court ...

Will this be included in the House case already at the supreme court?

[StarfishSaver]

12. Probably not. This is a separate case and will likely remain separate

Although the Court could consolidate them if it deems the issue to be resolved is the same. But I think not.

[gab13by13]

13. The records have been destroyed

[USALiberal]

15. Link please! Nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

17. Sucks to be Trump