The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC denied Trump’s attempt to keep his financial documents at Deutsche Bank secreted and withheld from the American public. The appellate court ruled that Trump and the bank did have to comply with a congressional subpoena for his records, according to CNBC.
The ruling in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals offers another judicial loss for Trump, who has fought off attempts to obtain his financial records, including his tax returns, through multiple lawsuits.
The case is likely destined for the Supreme Court, where the president has already appealed two other lower court decisions requiring the disclosure of his financial records. The court gave Trump’s attorneys seven days to bring the matter to the justices.
As far as I’m concerned, this is the biggest case out there, because I believe the most damning information isn’t within Trump’s records, but at the bank. Trump would have had every reason to destroy records, or selectively alter them. The bank would not, not necessarily, anyway.
I am deeply concerned about the dissent in the 2-1 ruling, made up of two George Bush appointees and one Carter appointee. In her dissent, Judge Debra Livingston stated:
“I cannot accept the majority’s conclusions that ‘this case does not concern separation of powers,’ and that there is ‘minimal at best’ risk of distraction to this and future Presidents from legislative subpoenas of this sort,”
Livingston said she would send the case back to a lower court and require the House committees to provide more details about the legislative purposes behind their requests before deciding whether the banks must comply.
THAT is a highly highly dangerous line of thought that the SCOTUS could use as justification to give Trump an “out” before the election. They could rule that Trump is subject to subpoena, but that the House did not develop its “legislative purpose” enough and needs to straighten-out just what legislation it envisions. A ruling along these lines would likely give Trump another two years of freedom from release of the records.
It is also utter bullshit and she knows it.
Congress need only state: “We are looking at how vulnerable the United States is in having a president who never disclosed his taxes. We are considering impeaching him. That IS our legislative purpose.” Moreover, Congress could state that it’s considering passing a law that anyone seeking to register for a federal office needs to disclose five years of back tax returns. Done. There is your “legislative purpose.” Congress can assert that it cannot draft legislation that forces each officeholder to disclose those tax returns without reviewing past president’s taxes and financial documents.
Regardless, it is all bs because Congress relied upon a law past specifically to allow Congress to investigate corruption, which is exactly what it’s doing.
The Supreme Court will decide in the next month or two whether to hear this case – it near surely will hear this particular case, as there are near certainly four votes on the SCOTUS to at least buy Trump time by agreeing to hear it.
I don’t know about you but it is infuriating knowing that all players understand what is going on here. Everyone knows that Trump cannot survive disclosure of all that Deutsche Bank has on file. If a president cannot survive disclosure of his financial records, the person shouldn’t be president. Everyone knows the principle, yet we have to walk around pretending this is all normal. I am done pretending it is normal to have such a president.
firstname.lastname@example.org and on Twitter @MiciakZoom