Supreme Court puts hold on House subpoena for Trump financial records

  
Via:  1stwarrior  •  3 weeks ago  •  50 comments

Supreme Court puts hold on House subpoena for Trump financial records
Democrats said they needed the documents to investigate whether the president accurately filled out required disclosure forms.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday put a temporary hold on a   House subpoena for President Donald Trump's financial records   spanning eight years.

The   House Government Oversight committee subpoenaed the material in April. The committee acted after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified that "Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes."

House Democrats said they needed the documents to investigate whether the president accurately filled out required financial disclosure forms.

Lawyers for the president tried to have the subpoena thrown out, but they lost in the lower courts. A court order upholding the subpoena, and requiring the accounting firm to begin turning over the Trump documents, was to take effect on Wednesday.

Last Friday, Trump lawyers asked the Supreme Court to put the subpoena on hold while they pursue an appeal. On Monday, the court agreed. In a two-sentence order, the court said the House must respond by 3 p.m. Thursday.

The court's action, known as an administrative stay, does not indicate how the court might rule on the legal merits of the dispute. It simply stops the clock to give the lawyers time to file their papers.

Trump's lawyers have argued that if the subpoena is upheld, any committee of Congress could seek any personal information it wants from a president. "Given the temptation to dig up dirt on political rivals, intrusive subpoenas into personal lives of presidents will become our new normal in times of divided government — no matter which party is in power."

Lawyers for the House said the subpoena presents no threat to the president's ability to carry out his duties, because it is directed at his accountants and does not require him to do anything.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/supreme-court-temporarily-halts-court-order-requiring-accountants-to-turn-over-trumps-tax-returns-to-congress.html

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked a ruling that requires President Donald Trump’s longtime accounting firm to turn over his tax returns to Congress.

The   temporary stay order   signed by Chief Justice John Roberts gives the Democratic-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Reform until Thursday to respond. The document did not note any public votes or dissents.


The move was expected and does not provide new information about how the justices may ultimately vote on the matter. It generally requires five votes to grant a stay, though in some cases one justice may do so pending review by the full court.


Earlier in the day, attorneys for House Democrats said in a letter that they would not oppose a temporary delay in enforcing the subpoena to allow the court time to consider arguments from both sides. The committee said in the letter that it would provide its response on Friday.

A spokesperson for the committee did not immediately provide comment after the chief justice’s order. The justices are scheduled to meet in a private conference on Friday.

The president has gone to great lengths to keep his tax returns secret as two efforts to procure them work their way through the legal system. Trump broke with decades of precedent when he did not release the records while running for president in 2016.

Trump has provided conflicting explanations for his refusal to release his tax returns. In court papers, his attorneys say that requiring their disclosure would set a precedent that could weaken the presidency, counter to the Constitution’s separation of powers among the branches.

The Oversight Committee has said it needs the president’s returns in order to address whether it should update ethics-in-government legislation.

Trump’s attorneys submitted a petition last week to the justices in a separate case involving his tax returns. In that case, the president is   seeking to overturn the ruling of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals   requiring Trump’s accountants to provide his returns to the Manhattan district attorney. The justices have not yet said whether they will consider that appeal.

If they decline to do so, it will effectively mandate that the accounting firm provide the tax returns. The firm, Mazars USA, has said it will provide the returns if legally required.

Trump’s push to block release of his tax returns come less than a year before the November 2020 election, when Trump aims to earn another term in the White House.

House Democrats are moving forward with an impeachment probe into whether Trump abused his power and tried to influence the 2020 election by urging Ukraine to investigate his political rival former Vice President Joe Biden. They have looked into whether he tied a Biden probe to the release of U.S. military aid or a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

The case is Donald Trump v. Mazars USA.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
1stwarrior
1  seeder  1stwarrior    3 weeks ago

Trump's lawyers have argued that if the subpoena is upheld, any committee of Congress could seek any personal information it wants from a president. "Given the temptation to dig up dirt on political rivals, intrusive subpoenas into personal lives of presidents will become our new normal in times of divided government — no matter which party is in power."

Isn't that what's happening now?

 
 
 
bbl-1
1.1  bbl-1  replied to  1stwarrior @1    3 weeks ago

Taxes are not personal information.  Should not citizens know if their leaders at least pay taxes to help maintain the grounds at Arlington National Cemetery?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @1.1    3 weeks ago
Taxes are not personal information.

I'll believe you when you post your tax returns on this site. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
1.1.2  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

I am not the president.  Nor have I had charitable organizations shut down by the courts.  Nor have I ever had secret business dealings with foreign nationals. 

And if for any reason the congress, the IRS or The Treasury deems my taxes or business interests deserve an examination it is their right to do so and I also have the right to be properly represented to assure the examinations are done fairly.

You know, the old Patriot Act saying, "If you have nothing to hide-you have nothing to fear."  Remember that one?

You wanting me to post my returns on this site is a cop out.  Grow up.  Act like an adult that truly understands what the hell is going on.  JFC.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

So you do understand they are private. You just think others don't have the right to privacy that you enjoy. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
1.1.4  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

Of course taxes are private until and unless there are possibilities of discrepancies.

I was audited once.  In 1987.  I also had to show my tax returns for a home loan. 

You worry about privacy?  Really?  Hell, you're on camera when you walk down the street.  Get over it.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

I'll believe you when you post your tax returns on this site. 

When he is elected president, I will ask as well. Trump is the POTUS, remember? I also recall him saying more than once he would release his taxes if he was elected... Well? Why is he literally taking this shit to the SCOTUS to hide something he said he would release?

That doesn't strike you as the least bit odd? 

 
 
 
bbl-1
1.1.6  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

And I also assume you are fine with 'some people' at least not chipping in a bit keep the lawns maintained at Arlington National Cemetery?  You call that patriotism? 

Forever Trumper must be a strange place to hang your hat.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  bbl-1 @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
Of course taxes are private until and unless there are possibilities of discrepancies.

Then, as you explained, that is the job of the IRS to check out.  Not some blithering idiots making unfounded claims.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.5    3 weeks ago
When he is elected president, I will ask as well. Trump is the POTUS, remember?

And there are no laws or anything else requiring him to release his taxes.  Just because the past POTUS' have done it does not make it a requirement.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  bbl-1 @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

I would post mine if I could.  They would cure any member of insomnia.

 
 
 
Ender
1.2  Ender  replied to  1stwarrior @1    3 weeks ago

What I am afraid of will be the new normal if trump is successful in this. Do you know what they are arguing?

But as long as Trump is a sitting president, the attorney argued Trump could get away with the crime. Link

.

Carey Dunne, New York District Attorney Cy Vance Jr.'s general counsel, said the president's position is too absolute.

There could be examples in which a state should be able to conduct a criminal investigation of a sitting president, "if, for example, he did pull out a handgun and shoot someone on Fifth Avenue."

Asked about that, Consovoy said a president could be charged with such a crime once he was out of office or if he was impeached and removed from office. "This is not a permanent immunity," he said.

"I'm talking about while in office. Nothing could be done? That's your position?" Judge Denny Chin asked.

"That is correct," Consovoy said. Link

.

NEW YORK — Even if President Donald Trump shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, New York authorities could not punish him while he is in office, the president's lawyers argued Wednesday. Link

Imo what they are arguing for would be more detrimental than what ever stupid crap his taxes actually show.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @1    3 weeks ago
Isn't that what's happening now?

Just as the founders had feared. If it continues we will find ourselves with a Parliamentary form of government.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  1stwarrior @1    3 weeks ago

Even the SCOTUS knows a red herring when they see one!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2  Paula Bartholomew    3 weeks ago

Of course they have, Trump owns them.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2    3 weeks ago

How much did Ginny and Sotomayor sell themselves for? 

 
 
 
bbl-1
2.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1    3 weeks ago

What do you mean by that?

 
 
 
bbl-1
3  bbl-1    3 weeks ago

Why is Trump so sensitive about his financials?  Could it be that his financials are------------- a complicity of compromise?

How many times has Trump ran to the courts for cover.  And how many times have the courts provided it?  Will Gorsuch and Kavanaugh be the game changer?

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1  MrFrost  replied to  bbl-1 @3    3 weeks ago
Why is Trump so sensitive about his financials? 

I think we all know why....he's a crooked POS who has spent a lifetime ripping people off. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  bbl-1 @3    3 weeks ago

You do know that he is audited every year, right?  By the IRS - every year.  The IRS is a Federal agency and if there were discrepancies, the IRS would handle it, right?

What right do you, a private citizen, have to view/analyze another private citizens tax returns - NONE.

Congress wants copies, that the IRS has, for eight years PRIOR to Trump running for President.  Sorry guys - private information that you're not privy too.

Oh, and this "request" is a result of Cohen's "testimony"???????  Bullshyte.

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2    3 weeks ago

No I don't know.  That is what he says.  If you believe him good for you.

Besides, now to The Supreme Court.  To bad we peasants don't have that 'pull'.

Don't care.  "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide."  Patriot Act thing ya know.

If Trump is so clean, so successful and so honest you'd think he'd be proud to show it---wear it as a badge of honor----and scream to the naysayers----SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!  Except he won't.  Why?  Everyone else does and has done so for decades.  And, on multiple occasions he said he would.  But he never did.  Why?

Cohen has nothing to do with this.  Stop.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.2.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  bbl-1 @3.2.1    3 weeks ago

Better learn what you're dismissing before you dismiss it.

Directly from line two above in the seed - "The committee acted after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified that "Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes."

 
 
 
Kavika
3.2.3  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

It's simply another case of Trump proving himself to be a liar. 

On more than one occasion he said he would release his taxes. 

 
 
 
WallyW
3.2.4  WallyW  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

And that is not illegal.

 
 
 
Kavika
3.2.5  Kavika   replied to  WallyW @3.2.4    3 weeks ago
And that is not illegal.

Thank you for that clarification, Wally. 

I don't believe that I said it was illegal just pointing out that Trump is a liar. 

Cheers.

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.6  katrix  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2    3 weeks ago
What right do you, a private citizen, have to view/analyze another private citizens tax returns - NONE.

Congress DOES have the right to request copies of Trump's taxes, whether you like it or not.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.2.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  katrix @3.2.6    3 weeks ago

They can request till the cows come home but that doesn't mean that they are entitled to get them.................whether you like it or not.

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.8  katrix  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.7    3 weeks ago
They can request till the cows come home but that doesn't mean that they are entitled to get

For someone who argues in favor of everything Trump does, you sure don't seem to read up on laws, tax code, and the Constitution. I suppose it's easier to support Trump that way; if you can plead ignorance of those basic things, you can pretend to yourself that he has done nothing wrong.

Congress absolutely is entitled to get them if they can show the courts that there is a legitimate legislative purpose. The fact that Deranged Donnie keeps ordering his people to disobey subpoenas and anything else that would provide transparency - all while telling his deluded base that he's the most transparent President ever - may fool his base, but intelligent people know better.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.2.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  katrix @3.2.8    3 weeks ago

The fact that the SCOTUS has put it on hold should tell you something. And do you have a clue to what a "legitimate legislative purpose" may be after all these years of DJT private citizen scrutinized by the IRS? I think I do..................

384

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.10  katrix  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.9    3 weeks ago
The fact that the SCOTUS has put it on hold should tell you something

It tells me that they want to think about it before deciding whether it's a legitimate request. So far, the lower courts disagree with Trump - so we shall see how SCOTUS handles it. There's no guarantee they'll even take the case, so only an idiot would pretend they know exactly what that "something" is.

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.2.11  bbl-1  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

So what?  If Cohen lied then one would think the Trump would be eager to prove it.  Except Trump says nothing.  Why?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.2.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  katrix @3.2.10    3 weeks ago
so only an idiot would pretend they know exactly what that "something" is.

You brought it up. Don't be so hard on yourself................

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.13  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.7    3 weeks ago

They can request till the cows come home but that doesn't mean that they are entitled to get them.................whether you like it or not.

Actually they are. 

One such exception is the statute’s authorization of certain congressional committees with jurisdiction
over federal taxes to acquire tax return information. Congress originally provided this authority in 1924 in
part to address perceived difficulties in acquiring tax information during congressional investigations into
the Harding Administration’s Teapot Dome scandal. Specifically, Section 6103(f)(1) of the IRC provides
that, upon written request of the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Joint Committee on
Taxation (JCT), or Senate Finance Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “tax committees”), the
Treasury Secretary “shall furnish” the requested tax returns or return information to the relevant
committee. Under 6103(f)(2), the Treasury Secretary also “shall furnish” requested tax return information
to the JCT’s chief of staff, who may share the return information to any of the tax committees. Absent the
relevant taxpayer’s consent, any personally identifiable tax return information received by a tax
committee under 6103(f)(1) or (f)(2) may only be provided when the requesting committee is “in closed
executive session.” Section 6103(f)(5) also authorizes a whistleblower who has access to tax return
information to disclose it to the tax committees “if such person believes such return or return information
may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.” 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/LSB10275.pdf

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.9    3 weeks ago
The fact that the SCOTUS has put it on hold should tell you something.
"The court's action, known as an administrative stay, does not indicate how the court might rule on the legal merits of the dispute. It simply stops the clock to give the lawyers time to file their papers."

It tells you nothing about how they view the case, they are merely following the appeals process and precedent by stopping the clock till it can be appealed by the Presidents attorneys, even though they've lost every single lower court battle.

"Lawyers for the president tried to have the subpoena thrown out, but they lost in the lower courts. A court order upholding the subpoena, and requiring the accounting firm to begin turning over the Trump documents, was to take effect on Wednesday"

I find it rather hilarious that the Republican defense comes down to "screw the law, screw the judges who dare rule against our dear Leader! All Hail Trump! All Hail Trump! All Hail Trump!".

Scotus will look at this and will rule the same way the lower courts have. The conservatives on the Supreme Court aren't rabid lawless bigots like many of Trumps supporters, they are men of intelligence and high morals and will find for the rule of law and will follow the constitutional precedents already set down in regards to congressional subpoena power just as the lower courts have ruled. The Presidents attorneys haven't got a smidgen of actual legal defense, just smoke and mirrors that the SCOTUS will see right through.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.15  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.14    3 weeks ago
Scotus will look at this and will rule the same way the lower courts have.

if they agreed with the lower courts they would not be hearing the case.

 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.16  MrFrost  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2    3 weeks ago

Just curious...if a dem candidate refused or lied about releasing their taxes.

..would u be ok with it....all the was to the scotus?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3.2.16    3 weeks ago

There are lots of folks who realize that tax returns are personal and not subject to scrutiny because someone wants to see them.

Have you suggested to your reps that they create new laws?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.18  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  katrix @3.2.8    3 weeks ago

Trump is as transparent as a mud puddle.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4  The Magic Eight Ball    3 weeks ago
Supreme Court Puts Hold On House Subpoena For Trump Financial Records

of course they did.

who expected otherwise? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

It's hard not to see this in the same light as the impeachment. They have been talking about getting a look at Trump's taxes since he was merely a candidate. The current efforts are just more attempts at jobbing the system to get what they want. If any of this stuff had actually been a concern, there would have been legal action against Ordinary Citizen Trump a long time ago.

 
 
 
WallyW
5.1  WallyW  replied to  Tacos! @5    3 weeks ago

The lefties are setting precedents that will come back to hunt them eventually.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tacos! @5    3 weeks ago
The current efforts are just more attempts at jobbing the system to get what they want. If any of this stuff had actually been a concern, there would have been legal action against Ordinary Citizen Trump a long time ago.

This exactly......................

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6  Just Jim NC TttH    3 weeks ago

384

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7  Just Jim NC TttH    3 weeks ago

384

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
8  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    3 weeks ago

The Snowflakes are melting. Expect to see more pink crotch hat protests organized by Russian trolls on Facebook.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
9  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 weeks ago
a   House subpoena for President Donald Trump's financial records   spanning eight years.

They don't think Obama's corrupt IRS "officials" didn't check out President Trumps financial records running up to the elections?  IF there were something there it would have been made public then.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9    3 weeks ago

It is highly amusing to see people who think that something is wrong with Trump's taxes---and that the IRS never seemed to catch it even while auditing him.

Surely SOMETHING would have leaked by now.

The IRS seemingly had no trouble bending and stretching the rules to target conservative groups, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to leak Trump's taxes had there been anything wrong.

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    3 weeks ago

Just as funny about the WB...LOL

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
9.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    3 weeks ago
The IRS seemingly had no trouble bending and stretching the rules to target conservative groups, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to leak Trump's taxes had there been anything wrong.

And the fact that they weren't leaked just shows that there is nothing there.  The Democrats would have made an announcement and Trump wouldn't have run.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @9.1.1    3 weeks ago

Not one thing to do with the WB.

Are you on the right article, or just can't stay on topic?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online





29 visitors