This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/trump-supreme-court-financial-records.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Trump Again Asks Supreme Court to Block Release of His Financial Records Trump Again Asks Supreme Court to Block Release of His Financial Records
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to shield his financial records from disclosure to investigators for the second time in two days. His latest request asked the court temporarily to block the release of records held by his accounting firm to a House committee while the justices consider whether to hear his appeal in the case. WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to shield his financial records from disclosure to investigators for the second time in two days. His latest request was an emergency application that asked the court to temporarily block the release of records held by his accounting firm to a House committee while the justices consider whether to hear his appeal.
That stay application followed a petition on Thursday in a separate case in which prosecutors in Manhattan are seeking eight years of Mr. Trump’s business and personal tax returns. The prosecutors in that case had agreed not to seek immediate release of the records in exchange for a prompt request for Supreme Court review.That stay application followed a petition on Thursday in a separate case in which prosecutors in Manhattan are seeking eight years of Mr. Trump’s business and personal tax returns. The prosecutors in that case had agreed not to seek immediate release of the records in exchange for a prompt request for Supreme Court review.
There is no such agreement in the case arising from the House subpoena. If the justices do not grant a stay, the accounting firm, Mazars USA, has indicated that it will comply with the subpoena. If the justices do grant a stay, they may act on the requests for review in the two cases at the same time.There is no such agreement in the case arising from the House subpoena. If the justices do not grant a stay, the accounting firm, Mazars USA, has indicated that it will comply with the subpoena. If the justices do grant a stay, they may act on the requests for review in the two cases at the same time.
Jay Sekulow, one of the president’s lawyers, said the novelty of the House committee’s subpoena warranted a stay from the Supreme Court.
“For the first time in our nation’s history, “ he said in a statement, “Congress has subpoenaed the personal records of a sitting president from before he was in office. And, for the first time in our nation’s history, a court upheld a congressional subpoena to the president for his personal papers.”
If the Supreme Court does not act by Wednesday, the stay application said, the requested information will be disclosed and the court will be left with nothing to review.
Courts granted stays in earlier cases seeking evidence from sitting presidents in United States v. Nixon in 1974 and Clinton v. Jones in 1997. In those cases, the Supreme Court ultimately rejected claims of immunity for Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton by unanimous votes.
The new case started after the House Oversight and Reform Committee learned that Mr. Trump’s ethics disclosure forms did not list a debt for hush-money payments made in the run-up to the 2016 election. Mr. Trump and his company reimbursed the president’s former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, for payments to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. The president has denied the relationship.The new case started after the House Oversight and Reform Committee learned that Mr. Trump’s ethics disclosure forms did not list a debt for hush-money payments made in the run-up to the 2016 election. Mr. Trump and his company reimbursed the president’s former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, for payments to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. The president has denied the relationship.
Mr. Cohen also told the committee that Mr. Trump had inflated and deflated descriptions of his assets on financial statements to obtain loans and reduce his taxes.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers went to court to try to block the subpoena. They argued that the committee was powerless to obtain his records because it had no legislative need for them. They said the panel was engaged in an improper criminal inquiry and was not seeking information to help it enact legislation.Mr. Trump’s lawyers went to court to try to block the subpoena. They argued that the committee was powerless to obtain his records because it had no legislative need for them. They said the panel was engaged in an improper criminal inquiry and was not seeking information to help it enact legislation.
Lawyers for the committee responded that the records were needed for multiple, proper reasons, and that courts should not second-guess congressional decision-making. “While a legislative investigation is not illegitimate because it might incidentally expose illegal conduct,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers told the Supreme Court, “a law-enforcement investigation does not become legitimate just because it incidentally might inspire remedial legislation.”
Mr. Trump’s lawyers added that the full House of Representatives had not authorized the committee’s subpoena.
Lawyers for the committee responded that the records were needed for multiple, proper reasons, that courts should not second-guess congressional decision-making and that the committee had the authority to issue subpoenas without separate authorization by the full House.
In October, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to block the subpoena.In October, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to block the subpoena.
“Having considered the weighty interests at stake in this case, we conclude that the subpoena issued by the committee to Mazars is valid and enforceable,” Judge David S. Tatel, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote for the majority. Judge Patricia A. Millett, appointed by President Barack Obama, joined the majority opinion. “Having considered the weighty interests at stake in this case, we conclude that the subpoena issued by the committee to Mazars is valid and enforceable,” Judge David S. Tatel, who was appointed by President Clinton, wrote for the majority. Judge Patricia A. Millett, appointed by President Barack Obama, joined the majority opinion.
In dissent, Judge Neomi Rao, appointed by Mr. Trump. wrote that “allegations of illegal conduct against the President cannot be investigated by Congress except through impeachment.” In dissent, Judge Neomi J. Rao, appointed by Mr. Trump. wrote that “allegations of illegal conduct against the President cannot be investigated by Congress except through impeachment.”
On Wednesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to rehear the panel’s ruling. The three judges who noted dissents were appointed by Republican presidents. On Wednesday, the full District of Columbia Circuit refused to rehear the panel’s ruling. The three judges who noted dissents were appointed by Republican presidents.
The committee’s case may have been strengthened in the interim by the House’s vote to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry, as congressional authority to seek information in that context is quite broad.The committee’s case may have been strengthened in the interim by the House’s vote to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry, as congressional authority to seek information in that context is quite broad.
In a second dissent on Wednesday, Judge Rao said the resolution did not alter the calculus. “This circuit,” she wrote, “has not determined whether a defective subpoena can be revived by after-the-fact approval.” In any event, she wrote, the relevant House resolution did not retroactively endorse the earlier subpoena.In a second dissent on Wednesday, Judge Rao said the resolution did not alter the calculus. “This circuit,” she wrote, “has not determined whether a defective subpoena can be revived by after-the-fact approval.” In any event, she wrote, the relevant House resolution did not retroactively endorse the earlier subpoena.
In a footnote in Friday’s emergency application, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said the House committee had not invoked the impeachment inquiry in arguments before the three-judge appeals court panel, suggesting that it was too late to do so now.