***BREAKING*** Congress can seek eight years of Trump's tax records, appeals court rules

[BumRushDaShow]

Congress can seek eight years of President Trump’s tax records, according to a federal appeals court order Wednesday that moves the separation-of-powers conflict one step closer to the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit let stand an earlier ruling against the president that affirmed Congress’s investigative authority on a day when the House was holding its first public impeachment inquiry hearing. Trump’s lawyers have said they are prepared to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in this case and in several other legal battles between the president and Congress.

The D.C. Circuit was responding Wednesday to Trump’s request to have a full panel of judges rehear a three-judge decision from October that rejected the president’s request to block lawmakers from subpoenaing his longtime accounting firm.The order does not mean Trump’s taxes will be turned over to Congress immediately. The D.C. Circuit previously said it would put any ruling against the president on hold for seven days to give Trump’s attorneys time to ask the Supreme Court to step in.

Trump’s attorneys also are planning to ask the high court as soon as this week to block a similar subpoena for the president’s tax records from the Manhattan district attorney, who is investigating hush-money payments in the lead-up to the 2016 election. The New York-based appeals court ruled against Trump this month and refused to block the subpoena to his accounting firm, Mazars USA.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/congress-can-seek-eight-years-of-trumps-tax-records-appeals-court-rules/2019/11/13/b4fc8002-fc07-11e9-8906-ab6b60de9124_story.html

Now up to the SCOTUS.

[CatWoman]

1. K; R

[bluestarone]

2. I believe it would be very unusual if

The SC ruled any other way!!!!

[triron]

3. Maybe they won't even take it.

[Drahthaardogs]

6. I'm betting they don't

It's the safe move

[onenote]

27. I'm betting they will.

I don't think Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanauh care about being "safe" and if those four want to hear the case, it will be heard. Keep in mind that there were three votes to rehear the case in the court of appeals were the two Trump appointees on the court and a GHWBush appointee.

[Demsrule86]

37. Is Thomas back...I heard he was out sick...in which case they don't have the votes.

[onenote]

38. My understanding is that he was back on the bench for the DACA argument.

In any event, he doesn't have to be physically present to indicate whether he supports granting certiorari.

[Demsrule86]

39. I see. Thanks

[BumRushDaShow]

4. One would think

since this is a STATE case.

[StarfishSaver]

10. This isn't the state case

It's confusing with so many cases flying around. But this is the federal case in the DC Circuit over whether the Congress can obtain Trump's tax records from the Department of the Treasury.

Last week, in a separate case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the NY Attorney General could obtain Trump's financial records from his accountants.

Capisce?

[BumRushDaShow]

12. Thanks - I read this part

Trump’s attorneys also are planning to ask the high court as soon as this week to block a similar subpoena for the president’s tax records from the Manhattan district attorney, who is investigating hush-money payments in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

and conflated the two!

[StarfishSaver]

13. You need a diagram with a flowchart to keep them all straight

[BumRushDaShow]

17. The "web chart" of the Russian collusion investigation

was bad enough and this seems to be heading in that direction too if any of it shows money laundering!

[onenote]

28. This isn't the case about the request for the returns from the Treasury Dept

This is the case about the Oversight Committee's request for the returns from Trump's accountants, Mazars. There are three different cases: the NY state case which focuses on whether the Ways and Means can get Trump's state returns pursuant to a recently passed New York law; the demand by the Ways and Means Committee for Trump's federal returns from the IRS/Dept of Treasury; and this case which involves the Oversight Committee's demand for the returns from Mazars.

[StarfishSaver]

32. You're right

I got mixed up.

Thanks for the correction!

[DENVERPOPS]

21. Funny

Funny, I would use the word impossible..........WASF

[Arazi]

5. Smart Twitter lawyers opine that SCOTUS will decline to hear it, letting this decision stand

[onenote]

26. Maybe. But I think they'll take the case.

Three judges would have granted rehearing: two Trump appointees and a GHWBush appointee. The judges who voted not to rehear the case were all Obama and Clinton appointees except for one Bush II appointee.

I suspect that Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will vote to take the case and once again it will be up to Roberts to be the deciding vote when the case is decided.

[still_one]

29. I think so too. This involves the President of the United States, and whether a sitting president

is immune from all criminal investigations while he or she is a sitting president

I would be very surprised if they didn't hear it

[getagrip_already]

35. Plenty of precedent already set...

Nixon had to turn over the watergate tapes.

Clinton had to be deposed and provide dna.

This isnt even a seperation of powers issue since it involves personal and corporate tax returns from before he was president which have zero executive privelage.

Now i dont doubt the might vote to hear it, as a delaying tactic. They could tie it up until after the 2020 elections. That might be thejr goal.

But its doubtful the current court would shirld him on this. If they replace any of our 4 or roberts though, all bets are off. .

[onenote]

30. What makes a "twitter lawyer" smart?

I'll be very surprised if Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch don't follow the lead of the DC Circuit Trump appointees who clearly think that the returns should not be turned over.

[Arazi]

31. Neal Katyal, Laurence Tribe, Asha Rangappa, Ryan Goodman, Renato Marriotti

Etc etc...

Smart legal experts imo.

Kavanaugh has played it very safe this 1st year, voting with Roberts. While SCOTUS is now unfortunately a wild card, I have hope Roberts can provide leadership here. Taking this would be pretty damaging to the institution

[EveHammond13]

7. WOMP WOMP trump

[Maeve]

8. kick!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

9. Lock him up!!!

[Gothmog]

11. New: DC Circuit, voting 8-3, upholds October panel ruling

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

14. They didn't uphold it. They declined to rehear it en banc

[H2O Man]

15. +1

[Cha]

16. Whoa! KR!

Mahalo, BRDS!

[NoMoreRepugs]

18. It's up to SCOTUS or the 5 scrotums????

[UniteFightBack]

19. November 13, 2019 will be a day that dump rues for several reasons.

[Wounded Bear]

20. In a just world, SCOTUS will decline to accept the case...

and effectively let it stand.

[StarfishSaver]

22. Or even better

It would take the case and promptly smack down all of Trump's stupid immunity arguments in one fell swoop.

[Wounded Bear]

23. Waste of time...

Assuming they agree with the lower court ruling, the easiest thing to do is to decline to take the case, and indicate that the lower court decision is according to settled law.

[StarfishSaver]

33. Not necessarily

Leaving the lower court case to stand
doesn't settle the case but simply makes the holding binding only on courts in that circuit. Other circuits could still rule for Trump on the same issue.

The Court would actually save time by ruling on the immunity claim, which would make the decision binding on every federal court in the country, not just the DC Circuit, which would settle the issue once and for all.

[SergeStorms]

24. Fake news.

Trump is totally innocent of everything. As a matter of alternative-fact, he's never done a single wrong thing in his entire life. So there!

[VOX]

25. Per NYT: "The decision almost certainly paves the way for a major Supreme Court case"...

“...over President Trump’s stonewalling of congressional oversight efforts.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/us/politics/trump-financial-records-lawsuit.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
New York Times
By Charlie Savage
Nov. 13, 2019
Updated 8:59 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON — A full federal appeals court on Wednesday let stand an earlier ruling that President Trump’s accounting firm must turn over eight years of his financial records to Congress, bringing the case to the threshold of a likely Supreme Court battle.

In the latest of a string of court losses for Mr. Trump over his uncompromising vow to fight “all” subpoenas from Congress, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected his request that it rehear a case in which he challenged the subpoena to the firm, Mazars USA. A panel of the court had sided with lawmakers in that earlier ruling.

The president will now appeal to the Supreme Court, said a lawyer for Mr. Trump, Jay Sekulow. If the justices take the case, as seems likely, it would add another blockbuster case over separation of powers to the court’s current term, which ends in June — in the middle of the presidential election campaign.
<snip>

[ecstatic]

34. Thanks for including the next step (SCOTUS)

It gets confusing hearing about the same victories every week.

[progressoid]

36. Trump's lawyers just need to stall another 12 months.