House says Supreme Court precedents do not shield Trump financial records
Source: Washington Post
Courts & Law
House says Supreme Court precedents do not shield Trump financial records
By Robert Barnes
November 21, 2019 at 3:34 p.m. EST
There is no precedent for keeping a House committee from examining President Trumps financial records, lawyers for the House told the Supreme Court on Thursday, and each day of delay harms Congress by depriving it of important information it needs to carry out its constitutional responsibilities.
House General Counsel Doug N. Letter said in a brief that the courts precedents involving Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton make clear that the chief executive enjoys no special privilege to be free from investigation or legal action.
The Supreme Court has established that even a private citizen may invoke the courts subpoena power against the president in appropriate cases, the brief states. In light of that settled law, it would hardly make sense to say that Congress, a coordinate branch, cannot use its own subpoena power in a matter involving the president.
....
But Letter said that if the court agrees to a stay of a lower courts order telling Trumps longtime accountants Mazars USA to turn over the records, it should expedite a decision on whether to order a full briefing and a hearing on the case. Letter suggests that the court consider the issue at its private conference Dec. 13.
The case at hand involves a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that said that the House Oversight and Reform Committee may see eight years worth of Trumps personal and business financial records.
....
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow https://twitter.com/scotusreporter
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/house-says-supreme-court-precedents-do-not-shield-trump-financial-records/2019/11/21/3289fc0e-0c8c-11ea-bd9d-c628fd48b3a0_story.html
Robert Barnes is having a busy afternoon.
House says Supreme Court precedents do not shield Trump financial records
Link to tweet
Maraya1969
(22,441 posts)Last I looked you can't go much higher than the SCOTUS
Polybius
(15,238 posts)getagrip_already
(14,250 posts)But it only takes 4 justices to take up the case. Even as a delaying tactic they can run out the clock on this.
This isn't really a partisan issue. Siding with the wh on this would basically say the potus is above the law. That's the claim the wh has made - that the potus can't even be investigated while in office.
They would essentially be nullifying their own power since the potus wouldn't be subject to judicial restraint from that point on. The exec branch could just do what it wants and ignore court orders.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Apparently they can rule by decree.
bluestarone
(16,722 posts)And ONLY if it suits them.