icon bookmark-bicon bookmarkicon cameraicon checkicon chevron downicon chevron lefticon chevron righticon chevron upicon closeicon v-compressicon downloadicon editicon v-expandicon fbicon fileicon filtericon flag ruicon full chevron downicon full chevron lefticon full chevron righticon full chevron upicon gpicon insicon mailicon moveicon-musicicon mutedicon nomutedicon okicon v-pauseicon v-playicon searchicon shareicon sign inicon sign upicon stepbackicon stepforicon swipe downicon tagicon tagsicon tgicon trashicon twicon vkicon yticon wticon fm
20 May, 2019 22:46

Federal judge upholds Congress subpoena for Trump financial records, Trump vows to appeal

Federal judge upholds Congress subpoena for Trump financial records, Trump vows to appeal

In a landmark move, a federal judge has ruled that the firm that handled Donald Trump's finances before he became president must hand over the records under the subpoena issued by a Democrat-controlled House committee.

US District Court Judge Amit Mehta has sided with the House Oversight Committee in ruling that a subpoena it issued for Trump's financial records is in line with the law. In his opinion, Mehta pointed to "broad investigative power" with which the committee is endowed while refusing to speculate whether the Democrat-driven hunt for Trump's records is politically motivated.

"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.

Also on rt.com House Democrats issue new subpoena for Trump’s tax returns

Trump, who earlier vowed to fight all legal challenges by Democrats against his businesses, associates or former and current staffers, has insisted that the subpoena filed last month by the committee's chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) constituted legislative overreach, as it sought information dating back to 2011, long before Trump expressed his intent to run for office.

The president’s lawyers attempted to quash the subpoena, arguing that its sole purpose was to dig up personal information on Trump to smear him. Trump himself earlier stated that the Democrats would use the subpoena to "turn up something" to cast a shadow over his 2020 reelection bid.

In his ruling, the Obama-appointed Mehta argued that while "courts have grappled for more than a century with the question of the scope of Congress's investigative power" so long as it "investigates on a subject matter on which 'legislation could be had,'" it has virtually unlimited powers.

"To be sure, there are limits on Congress's investigative authority. But those limits do not substantially constrain Congress," he wrote.

In addition to giving the green light to the House's legislative onslaught on Trump, Mehta has refused to grant a stay on his ruling as requested by Trump's lawyers. Trump's legal team had asked the judge to give them time to lodge an appeal on the decision. With Mehta refusing to do so, the accounting firm, Mazars LLP, will have to provide the requested documents as soon as the ruling takes effect.

"On the question of whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail," Mehta wrote.

Trump has remained defiant despite the setback, telling reporters on Monday that he would appeal the decision.

The committee insisted that the disclosure of the records is necessary to determine whether Trump was not in breach of the emoluments clause, which they say prohibits his businesses from profiting from deals with foreign governments. Democrats have long doubted the notion that Trump had fully handed over control over his vast estate and business operations to his sons.

Last week, Mehta ruled that the financial records from Trump's business era would be a "proper subject of investigation."

Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won’t tell you.