House says Supreme Court precedents do not shield Trump financial records

[mahatmakanejeeves]

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 Trump’s 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 court’s 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 court’s order telling Trump’s 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 Trump’s 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]

1. So is this it???? When do they get released? Wait? Oh forget it.

Last I looked you can't go much higher than the SCOTUS

[Polybius]

2. But Roberts and his gang don't care about precedent

[getagrip_already]

3. I don't think roberts would side with the wh on this.....

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]

4. They illegally halted the recount in Florida, installing the Bush administration.

Apparently they can rule by decree.

[bluestarone]

5. Right! Seems like they can rule on state issues IF it suits them

And ONLY if it suits them.