• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge rules against Trump in records dispute with Congress

HumblePi

HumblePi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
26,311
Reaction score
18,835
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
[h=1]Judge rules against Trump in records dispute with Congress[/h]Judge rules against Trump in records dispute with Congress - StarTribune.com


WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington ruled Monday against President Donald Trump in a financial records dispute with Congress.


U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, said Trump cannot block a House subpoena of financial records. He said the Democratic-led House committee seeking the information has said it believes the documents would help lawmakers consider strengthening ethics and disclosure laws, among other things.


The committee's reasons were "valid legislative purposes," Mehta said, and it was not for him "to question whether the Committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(mine)
The federal judge that ruled in favor of Congress for Trump's former accountants to turn over financial records said in his decision:

"There is a legitimate legislative purpose for Congress to see these documents. It's simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president, would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct, past or present, even without opening an impeachment inquiry."
 
HumblePi said:
[h=1]Judge rules against Trump in records dispute with Congress[/h]Judge rules against Trump in records dispute with Congress - StarTribune.com


WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington ruled Monday against President Donald Trump in a financial records dispute with Congress.


U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, said Trump cannot block a House subpoena of financial records. He said the Democratic-led House committee seeking the information has said it believes the documents would help lawmakers consider strengthening ethics and disclosure laws, among other things.


The committee's reasons were "valid legislative purposes," Mehta said, and it was not for him "to question whether the Committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(mine)
The federal judge that ruled in favor of Congress for Trump's former accountants to turn over financial records said in his decision:

"There is a legitimate legislative purpose for Congress to see these documents. It's simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president, would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct, past or present, even without opening an impeachment inquiry."
Click to expand...

Courts have upheld the Congressional power of subpoena for 100 years.
 
There is an absolutely fascinating line in the introduction - Court order ruling Trump cannot block subpoena | United States House Of Representatives | Federal Government Of The United States
To be sure, there are limits on Congress’s investigative authority. But those limits do not substantially constrain Congress. So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which “legislation could be had,” Congress acts as contemplated by Article I of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Essentially, what Mehta is saying is that "of course" there are limits to Congress's authority but that those limits can't be enforced. I mean, what the **** is that?

Wow! In reading farther through this Mehta explicitly states that the investigation must have a legislative purpose and that the subpoena on which this case is premised DID NOT include such a purpose. He then looked to a memo Cummings wrote to his committee and decided that the memo could be used to justify a "legislative purpose". He gets into emoluments and conflicts of interest. I mean, he didn't just open the window for any and all whims of the committee to be considered a "legislative purpose", he pretty much came right out and said that!

This WILL be appealed and I can't imagine that it won't be overturned. It simply opens the door to abusive actions way, WAY too far.
 
I'd love to see what's in certain Congress critters' financials. Nutty Nancy being one. Mad Maxine for another. Adam Shiftless and Nitwit Nadler too just for chuckles.
 
Lutherf said:
This WILL be appealed and I can't imagine that it won't be overturned.
Click to expand...

YOU can't of course, but most legal people would disagree with you. Courts have sided with Congress on checks and balances/subpoena power since 1880 and have always upheld.

The judge is so certain on this that a requested stay pending appeal was not granted. Judges are well aware of Trumps strategy to use litigation as a device to kick Constitutional cans down the road.

Trump also hurt his legal standing when he publicly stated that no cooperation with Congress/subpoena's would occur. A blanket denial. Judges don't look on such unilateral obstructive actions favorably.
 
Roadvirus said:
I'd love to see what's in certain Congress critters' financials. Nutty Nancy being one. Mad Maxine for another. Adam Shiftless and Nitwit Nadler too just for chuckles.
Click to expand...

The people you mention do not have the power to order the military to intervene (or not) to protect their financial interests or to model foreign policy on them. The president does. When he said "Russia is not in Ukraine," was that his ignorance of the world or his love of his Moscow investments talking?
 
Nickyjo said:
The people you mention do not have the power to order the military to intervene (or not) to protect their financial interests or to model foreign policy on them. The president does. When he said "Russia is not in Ukraine," was that his ignorance of the world or his love of his Moscow investments talking?
Click to expand...

Yes and what is most distressing is that it is obvious to his supporters that Trump has plenty to hide and they know what a disaster it would be for him to have his finances revealed so they support his unprecedented obstruction of Congress's oversight powers. They actually want him to continue his criminal activity unabated making them all co-conspirators.
 
Lutherf said:
Essentially, what Mehta is saying is that "of course" there are limits to Congress's authority but that those limits can't be enforced. I mean, what the **** is that?
Click to expand...
I read it as saying that the limits of Congress's power extend to anything they may want to make legislation about.
I don't see the discussion of enforcement in that quote.

It seems the FF wanted the legislature to have the authority to gather information for lawmaking as they see fit.
The FF may have deemed it necessary for lawmaking that the legislature should have the authority to gather a wide range of information

Lutherf said:
Wow! In reading farther through this Mehta explicitly states that the investigation must have a legislative purpose and that the subpoena on which this case is premised DID NOT include such a purpose.
Click to expand...

In light of yoru reading above, how would you explain this quote from the ruling?

"These are facially valid legislative purposes..."​

What are the "these" in that quote?

To the uninitiated, it looks like the word "these" refers to justifications of the legislative purpose.
But to a more astute observer like yourself, the word "these" refers to some other things.

What are the "these" referred to?

Lutherf said:
This WILL be appealed and I can't imagine that it won't be overturned. It simply opens the door to abusive actions way, WAY too far.
Click to expand...

What case law renders you incapable of imagining that the precedents or the past 100+ years will be overturned?

Or is this more of a feeling of yours rather than an informed argument?
 
iguanaman said:
Yes and what is most distressing is that it is obvious to his supporters that Trump has plenty to hide and they know what a disaster it would be for him to have his finances revealed so they support his unprecedented obstruction of Congress's oversight powers. They actually want him to continue his criminal activity unabated making them all co-conspirators.
Click to expand...

It is partly that, but also a belief, expressed in this forum by a few, that democrats want to overturn the results of the 2016 election. There may also be some attraction to his roguish behavior as sticking it to the establishment, even if he is obviously dishonesty on business. If he didn't lose them with Trump U or Trump Foundation, they don't much care that he is a crook.

The reality is that democrats' rank and file may remain depressed by 2016, but mainly object to Trump's policies or actions as being outside the norm or parameters of conservative ideology or behavior, e.g., the wall, the anti-Muslim stuff, the lies about refugees and migrants, the personal insults, the racial pandering, etc.
 
Last edited:
Nickyjo said:
It is partly that, but also a belief, expressed in this forum by a few, that democrats want to overturn the results of the 2016 election. There may also be some attraction to his roguish behavior as sticking it to the establishment, even if he is obviously dishonesty on business. If he didn't lose them with Trump U or Trump Foundation, they don't much care that he is a crook.

The reality is that democrats' rank and file may remain depressed by 2016, but mainly object to Trump's policies or actions as being outside the norm or parameters of conservative ideology or behavior, e.g., the wall, the anti-Muslim stuff, the lies about refugees and migrants, the personal insults, the racial pandering, etc.
Click to expand...
Can't it just be that there is obvious reasons to suspect criminal behavior (e.g. Michael Cohen's testimony) and Congress has the natural authority to investigate presidential criminality? When a president defiles and debauches the constitution by abusing power and obstructing other branches of government, it's mind-boggling that we can read posts here [not yours] defending such behavior.
 
Nickyjo said:
It is partly that, but also a belief, expressed in this forum by a few, that democrats want to overturn the results of the 2016 election. There may also be some attraction to his roguish behavior as sticking it to the establishment, even if he is obviously dishonesty on business. If he didn't lose them with Trump U or Trump Foundation, they don't much care that he is a crook.

The reality is that democrats' rank and file may remain depressed by 2016, but mainly object to Trump's policies or actions as being outside the norm or parameters of conservative ideology or behavior, e.g., the wall, the anti-Muslim stuff, the lies about refugees and migrants, the personal insults, the racial pandering, etc.
Click to expand...

I believe history will show that Trump won the election using illegal help from Russia and defrauded voters by secretly paying off his bimbos without reporting the payments. That has nothing to do with his current obstruction of Congress and his shameful kissing up to Putin in Helsinki. It is an insult to the American people and our country that must not be ignored.
 
MTAtech said:
Can't it just be that there is obvious reasons to suspect criminal behavior (e.g. Michael Cohen's testimony) and Congress has the natural authority to investigate presidential criminality? When a president defiles and debauches the constitution by abusing power and obstructing other branches of government, it's mind-boggling that we can read posts here [not yours] defending such behavior.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. But there were bitter enders with Nixon, and Italians who said that at least Mussolini (whom Trump resembles) made the trains run on time. Very often the "law and order" crowd cares more about order than law. Witness Trump telling cops not to be so gentle with suspects, in effect telling them to break the law, to commit violence, in the service of order.
 
Lutherf said:
There is an absolutely fascinating line in the introduction - Court order ruling Trump cannot block subpoena | United States House Of Representatives | Federal Government Of The United States

Essentially, what Mehta is saying is that "of course" there are limits to Congress's authority but that those limits can't be enforced. I mean, what the **** is that?

Wow! In reading farther through this Mehta explicitly states that the investigation must have a legislative purpose and that the subpoena on which this case is premised DID NOT include such a purpose. He then looked to a memo Cummings wrote to his committee and decided that the memo could be used to justify a "legislative purpose". He gets into emoluments and conflicts of interest. I mean, he didn't just open the window for any and all whims of the committee to be considered a "legislative purpose", he pretty much came right out and said that!

This WILL be appealed and I can't imagine that it won't be overturned. It simply opens the door to abusive actions way, WAY too far.
Click to expand...

Explain to us how you, as an informed citizen, don't want to know if the president's investments might influence his policy decisions. Hillary's foundation was fair game, appropriately, why shouldn't Trump's financials be? He claims to be a billionaire. Why should he care?
 
Nickyjo said:
Explain to us how you, as an informed citizen, don't want to know if the president's investments might influence his policy decisions. Hillary's foundation was fair game, appropriately, why shouldn't Trump's financials be? He claims to be a billionaire. Why should he care?
Click to expand...

The reason the Clinton Foundation came under scrutiny stemmed from foreign contributions from individuals and entities associated with the Uranium One deal. There were also emails discovered between Clinton Foundation executives and State Department officials which indicated the existence of a "pay to play" scheme.

The reason for Cummings wanting Trump's financial information is because Cohen, the lying sack of **** criminal who is trying to get out of being butt ***** in prison, said Trump manipulated the value of various properties to obtain loans.

I don't know exactly what Cohen is complaining about but it's perfectly reasonable that real estate will have both a "book value" and a "fair market value". That happens all the time. For example, one might buy a house for $250k. 5 years later the neighborhood became one of the more popular in the city and the house could now be sold for $400k. If you go to the bank to get an equity loan on the house you're going to use the $400k value rather than the "book value" of $250k.
 
Lutherf said:
The reason the Clinton Foundation came under scrutiny stemmed from foreign contributions from individuals and entities associated with the Uranium One deal. There were also emails discovered between Clinton Foundation executives and State Department officials which indicated the existence of a "pay to play" scheme.

The reason for Cummings wanting Trump's financial information is because Cohen, the lying sack of **** criminal who is trying to get out of being butt ***** in prison, said Trump manipulated the value of various properties to obtain loans.

I don't know exactly what Cohen is complaining about but it's perfectly reasonable that real estate will have both a "book value" and a "fair market value". That happens all the time. For example, one might buy a house for $250k. 5 years later the neighborhood became one of the more popular in the city and the house could now be sold for $400k. If you go to the bank to get an equity loan on the house you're going to use the $400k value rather than the "book value" of $250k.
Click to expand...

And your point is? Why do you not want the same info that other candidates and presidents have made available? Is there a pay to play situation with Trump? He doth protest too much. But his Fifth Ave supporters don't seem to care. I don't get it. You have the examples of Trump cheating with his university and foundation, yet you seem to suspect nada.
 
Lutherf said:
I don't know exactly what Cohen is complaining about but it's perfectly reasonable that real estate will have both a "book value" and a "fair market value". That happens all the time. For example, one might buy a house for $250k. 5 years later the neighborhood became one of the more popular in the city and the house could now be sold for $400k. If you go to the bank to get an equity loan on the house you're going to use the $400k value rather than the "book value" of $250k.
Click to expand...

Then let's find out if that actually happened. If it is a perfectly legit manipulation of land values, show us. If what you say is true, it can easily be determined that other properties in the area also rose in similar value, right?

The allegation suggests that Trump overstated the value of the property to obtain a loan (bank fraud) and understated property value to reduce tax liability (tax fraud). Cohen is credible because he was in a position to know.

Seems to me this could be cleared up in a matter of days if only Trump would cooperate. But Trump's argument that presidents don't have to answer to Congress, that presidents can ignore subpoenas, that anyone in the executive branch must obey the president, regardless of what the courts say, is outrageous on its face. His argument is the president, this president, is above the law.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Then let's find out if that actually happened. If it is a perfectly legit manipulation of land values, show us. If what you say is true, it can easily be determined that other properties in the area also rose in similar value, right?

The allegation suggests that Trump overstated the value of the property to obtain a loan (bank fraud) and understated property value to reduce tax liability (tax fraud). Cohen is credible because he was in a position to know.

Seems to me this could be cleared up in a matter of days if only Trump would cooperate. But Trump's argument that presidents don't have to answer to Congress, that presidents can ignore subpoenas, that anyone in the executive branch must obey the president, regardless of what the courts say, is outrageous on its face. His argument is the president, this president, is above the law.
Click to expand...

Without regard to Cohen, the claim itself isn't credible. The FMV of most real estate is subjective. Even in a close location the value of two similar properties can be significantly different. Think of a condo in New York. You can have the same floor plan in two units with the same amenities but one unit has a view of the building across the street while the other has a view of the Hudson. The one with the river view is going to be substantially more valuable than the one with the street view.
 
Lutherf said:
Without regard to Cohen, the claim itself isn't credible. The FMV of most real estate is subjective. Even in a close location the value of two similar properties can be significantly different. Think of a condo in New York. You can have the same floor plan in two units with the same amenities but one unit has a view of the building across the street while the other has a view of the Hudson. The one with the river view is going to be substantially more valuable than the one with the street view.
Click to expand...
People who are innocent don't pull out all the stops, don't hire a new team of lawyers and don't violate subpoenas when they are squeaky clean innocent. They instead say, 'all my business actions are 100% on the up-and-up. Come over and look at the records and see for yourselves.' People who are guilty try to prevent the authorities from getting to the records. This should be obvious but clearly isn't.
 
Lutherf said:
There is an absolutely fascinating line in the introduction - Court order ruling Trump cannot block subpoena | United States House Of Representatives | Federal Government Of The United States


Essentially, what Mehta is saying is that "of course" there are limits to Congress's authority but that those limits can't be enforced. I mean, what the **** is that?

Wow! In reading farther through this Mehta explicitly states that the investigation must have a legislative purpose and that the subpoena on which this case is premised DID NOT include such a purpose. He then looked to a memo Cummings wrote to his committee and decided that the memo could be used to justify a "legislative purpose". He gets into emoluments and conflicts of interest. I mean, he didn't just open the window for any and all whims of the committee to be considered a "legislative purpose", he pretty much came right out and said that!

This WILL be appealed and I can't imagine that it won't be overturned. It simply opens the door to abusive actions way, WAY too far.
Click to expand...

"Investigating potential crimes committed by the president" is pretty much inherently a valid legislative purpose, because this is a responsibility explicitly placed upon them by the constitution. The judge is right about that.


It's simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president, would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct, past or present, even without opening an impeachment inquiry."
Click to expand...

Right wingers think, somehow, Congress is supposed to have the power to remove the president but the president has complete control over investigating himself. It is unfathomable.
 
Lutherf said:
Without regard to Cohen, the claim itself isn't credible. The FMV of most real estate is subjective. Even in a close location the value of two similar properties can be significantly different. Think of a condo in New York. You can have the same floor plan in two units with the same amenities but one unit has a view of the building across the street while the other has a view of the Hudson. The one with the river view is going to be substantially more valuable than the one with the street view.
Click to expand...

Ok but saying a building has more floors than it does is not subjective.
 
MTAtech said:
People who are innocent don't pull out all the stops, don't hire a new team of lawyers and don't violate subpoenas when they are squeaky clean innocent. They instead say, 'all my business actions are 100% on the up-and-up. Come over and look at the records and see for yourselves.' People who are guilty try to prevent the authorities from getting to the records. This should be obvious but clearly isn't.
Click to expand...

People who are blithering idiots might do that.

These "investigations" have nothing to do with law and nothing to do with facts. They are PURE political theater designed to feed media propaganda.
 
Lutherf said:
People who are blithering idiots might do that.

These "investigations" have nothing to do with law and nothing to do with facts. They are PURE political theater designed to feed media propaganda.
Click to expand...
The judges seem to hold a different opinion than yours.

“It is simply not fathomable,” the judge wrote, “that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.”
 
Lutherf said:
People who are blithering idiots might do that.

These "investigations" have nothing to do with law and nothing to do with facts. They are PURE political theater designed to feed media propaganda.
Click to expand...

Rep. Collins pretty much said the same things this morning in his statements. This is headed to the circuit court where I feel the left won't like the results.
 
Lutherf said:
People who are blithering idiots might do that.

These "investigations" have nothing to do with law and nothing to do with facts. They are PURE political theater designed to feed media propaganda.
Click to expand...

Unlike all of the Clinton investigations, right?
 
MTAtech said:
The judges seem to hold a different opinion than yours.

“It is simply not fathomable,” the judge wrote, “that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.”
Click to expand...

The judge is right. Congress does have the OBLIGATION to investigate criminal acts of the president. The do not, however, have the right to investigate merely for the purpose of finding a criminal act.

If congress hears that Trump may have violated tax law they can go to the IRS and have the IRS investigate. If they hear that Trump coordinated with Russia to manipulate an election they can request a special counsel to investigate. What they can't (or should not be allowed to) do is to hold a series of open hearings based on hearsay, speculation and half truths merely for the political spectacle of it all. Doing so is no longer "oversight". It's chilling the ability of the Executive branch to do their job. It's blatant overreach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom