Supreme Court blocks House Democrats from access to Trump's financial records for now

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: USA Today

Supreme Court blocks House Democrats from access to Trump's financial records for now

Richard Wolf
USA TODAY
Published 10:27 a.m. ET Jul. 9, 2020 -- Updated 10:37 a.m. ET Jul. 9, 2020

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court temporarily blocked congressional investigators Thursday from gaining access to President Donald Trump's personal financial records.

The 7-2 decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Trump's two nominees, Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. It sends the separation of powers dispute back to lower courts for further determination.

"Courts must perform a careful analysis that takes adequate account of the separation of powers principles at stake, including both the significant legislative interests of Congress and the 'unique position' of the president," Roberts wrote.

The ruling was one of two issued Thursday regarding whether investigators will have access to Trump's financial records. In the other, the court ruled 7-2 that Trump cannot keep tax and financial records from a Manhattan prosecutor investigating alleged hush-money payments.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/09/supreme-court-blocks-congress-donald-trumps-financial-records/5365268002/

---

TRUMP ET AL. v. MAZARS USA, LLP, ET AL.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. What kind of bullshit headline is that?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. It's the only account of Mazars I could find. Everyone else is talking about Vance.

Once Vance came out (10:10 a.m.), everyone took off at full speed on that.

Ten minutes later, Mazars was released, to no fanfare whatsoever. No one was left to cover it. Richard Wolf said he would, and there you go.

I'm working with what I've got.

Thanks for writing.

[patricia92243]

6. Yes - the actual headline said COngress not Democrats. It has

been posted incorrectly.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. Then they changed it after I cut and pasted. I will go back. Thank you.

Update: no, they didn't change the headline. It still says what it said when I copied it.

[Hoyt]

7. Unfortunately, it's pretty much true. As CNN legal "expert" put it, "It's a legal defeat for trump,

but practical victory," because it's unlikely he'll have to produce documents before election.

In future, it will help prevent the next trump from hiding records for years subject to a subpoena.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. The public wouldn't see the documents anyhow.

I think there was an expectation that they'd be instantly posted on the Internet, and that wasn't going to happen. The documents in both cases are part of ongoing investigations, and there was no chance that they'd be available to the public, nor the investigations concluded, before the election even if they were turned over immediately.

[C_U_L8R]

12. It's not a practical victory at all.

This is a political albatross that will follow Trump through Election Day. A huge vulnerability. It's not so good to appear criminal and evasive like Trump. And Joe is already on it. Beat that drum, Joe!

[Hoyt]

16. He's been a confirmed criminal since day 1, and he's still in office. Hopefully, not much longer.

[C_U_L8R]

17. The end is near. Thank goodness.

Time to close this dark chapter and send these crooks and racists back under their rocks.

[Hoyt]

18. Exactly.

[DownriverDem]

19. Any bets they will

be leaked?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. No, because they haven't been turned over yet.

But Deutsche Bank apparently will be voluntarily giving up the financial records. People go to jail for improperly divulging tax returns, though (that's the Congressional subpoena).

[Warpy]

24. One they can read aloud to Dumdum so he'll think he's still a winner

It would be far worse had the decision gone the other way, giving the House access but denying it to the SDNY prosecutor. As it stands, if there is any fire under all that smoke he's been blowing around, a prosecutor will be able to act on it immediately. And if the administration finds another stooge quickly enough, I'm sure Audrey Strauss (who took on Roy Cohn and won) is smart enough to distribute pertinent information to state District Attorneys the way Kerry did in Iran-Contra.

I don't mind bogus headlines as much these days, as I know they'll give him a false sense of security and prevent him from taking drastic action quickly enough.

[former9thward]

31. SDNY does not want his returns, the NY prosecutor does.

It will go to court first and that will last beyond the election.

[empedocles]

2. This, and the delayable actual tax records, is what I expected from roberts

Manipulative fellow

[bucolic_frolic]

4. They're making so much of the "legislative" relevance

Why isn't this just a matter of needing to know if the president is compromised by foreign obligations, and the need for Congress to consider writing legislation - sanctions - to protect the country from foreign influence? It's about the nation's sovereignty.

[JudyM]

15. This. Emphasizing legislative is limiting, considering it's a checks and balances oversight issue.

ETA just caught the end of Speaker Pelosi saying the opinion most importantly rejected trumps claim that he’s above the law.

[bdamomma]

5. boy they are definitely using

mafia tactics to protect this POS. Stopping the Congress from records

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. That's not what happened.

The cases were remanded to the lower courts with directions to apply a particular standard. Since all the lower courts ruled against Fat Nixon in the first place it's predictable that they will continue to do so. The public is not going to see those records anyhow until the investigations are concluded and maybe not even then. The investigations would not be finished before the election even if the records were turned over immediately. It makes no difference with respect to the election. What does make a difference is the fact that the court held Trump isn't absolutely immune from judicial processes and congressional investigations, which is what he's been arguing all along.

[dhill926]

23. thx for this explanation...

my head is spinning from all the news this morning...

[bdamomma]

28. Yes, thanks for explanation

too much stuff going on.

[former9thward]

32. Not predictable at all.

The SC said Congress and Trump had used improper standards in the case. The case will have to be re argued based on the SC decision.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

29. Your "They" includes Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

The decision is likely right.

[bdamomma]

30. thanks for

the correction. Those are Justices are on the correct side of the law.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. Somone's upset.

Courts in the past have given “broad deference”. BUT NOT ME!

Link to tweet

[Bayard]

13. The tweets he's putting out now are obviously written by someone else

Example: Deference. He has no idea what that means.

[Kali]

14. ...

[dhill926]

22. jesus...someone give him his binky already...

so he shuts the fuck up...

[yaesu]

21. its all about control, the fascists control the justice system, they don't control the House

another protection for their dictator

[Polybius]

25. Who are the two that dissented?

Crazy how the article didn't say.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

26. Alito and Thomas. Per LBN rules, I'm limited to four paragraphs. NT

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Thomas and Alito

Same as the prosecutor decision.