What exactly do the Democrats expect to find in Trump’s tax returns?
Their constant and desperate insistence that Trump hand over his financial information to a group of lawmakers hell-bent on destroying his life, ending his political career, and erasing his influence has gone overboard. The fight has even made its way to the Supreme Court, where Trump was handed not one, but two victories in the battle over his tax info.
Still, the Democrats do not believe the law applies to them and have pushed forward in the hopes of exposing some farfetched crime supposedly committed by Trump during his days as a billionaire businessman.
A federal judge ruled that former President Donald Trump’s accountants will have to turn in two years’ worth of his tax records to a House committee investigating whether he and his businesses profited from his service in the executive branch.
On Wednesday, Amit Mehta, a judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., approved a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena for the former president’s records surrounding the years of 2017 and 2018 but rejected the panel’s request for similar information dating back to 2011.
“Such limited legislative need cannot justify the degree to which the Maloney Subpoena imposes on the separation of powers, even in the case of a former President,” Mehta, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote.
“The more Congress can invade the personal sphere of a former President, the greater the leverage Congress would have on a sitting President,” Mehta argued.
Trump’s lawyers are likely to attempt to appeal the ruling, and the House panel could challenge the decision as well.
The ruling follows more than a year after the Supreme Court intervened in the case, overruling early wins for the House in lower courts and advising judges to be more careful about balancing the interest of the executive and legislative branches. While the Supreme Court ruled in July 2020 that the Manhattan district attorney could obtain Trump’s tax returns, Trump prevailed in a second case at the time, with the justices saying they would not allow Congress to obtain tax and financial records and kicking the issue back to the lower courts.
The Former President is still shielded legally in some regards thanks to the Supreme Court decision in the Mazars case. The ruling asserts which that the lower courts did not adequately consider whether congressional subpoenas requesting information from the president raise separation of powers concerns.
Author: Nolan Sheridan