Home / US / Accountants Must Turn Over Trump's Financial Records, Lower Court Judge Rules

Accountants Must Turn Over Trump's Financial Records, Lower Court Judge Rules

WASHINGTON – President Trump's accounting firm has ruled on Monday, rejecting his legal team's argument that lawmakers had no legitimate power to subpoena the files.

But Mr. Trump vowed that his legal team would appeal rather than permit the firm, Mazars USA, to comply with the subpoena and the ruling.

The ruling by the judge, Amit P. Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, What an early judicial test of the president's vow to systematically stonewall "all" subpoenas by House Democrats, stymieing their ability to perform oversight of Mr. Trump and the executive branch after winning control of the chamber in last year's midterm elections.

[ Read the ruling. ]

Mr. Trump's legal team, led by William S. Consovoy, had argued that the House Committee on Oversight and Reform had no legitimate legislative purpose in looking for Mr. Trump's financial records and what he was trying to dig up laws – for political reasons, so the subpoena has exceeded its constitutional authority.

But Democrats have said they need the papers because they are examining those foreigners who are in a position to use business dealings with the president to exert hidden influence over American policymaking and ethics and disclosure laws need to be strengthened.

Judge Mehta said that "what are the grounds for justifying the subpoena valid."

"These are facultatively valid legislative purposes, and they are truly motivated by political considerations," he wrote. "Accordingly, the court wants to appeal to the Oversight Committee."

The judge – at appointee of former President Barack Obama – so rejected Mr. Consovoy's request that Mr. Trump, he issue a

The judge said that Mr. Trump's legal arguments were too thin to endure because they did not raise a "serious legal question, "and said that issuing a stay would amount to interfere with the constitutional powers of Congress"

"The court is well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the United States President" he wrote. This is not prevail. "

Source link