Federal judge says Trump's accountants must turn over tax records to House panel

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

A federal judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s accountants must turn over two years’ worth of his tax and financial records to a House committee investigating whether Trump and his businesses profited from his service in the White House.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta approved a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena for Trump’s records covering 2017 and 2018, but turned down most of the panel’s request for similar information dating back to 2011.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/11/trump-taxes-house-subpoeana-503800

---

That was quick.

[Thomas Hurt]

1. pending the Pig's immediate appeal...

[Moostache]

2. Arrest him and hold him without bail until the records are LAWFULLY handed over...

Enough of this shit with that fucker, time to put some REAL pain behind his ass and make him toe the line.

[onenote]

19. I understand the rant, but obviously that isn't how the law works.

[hlthe2b]

3. The law is damned clear on this... Honestly, it is obscene that the courts have allowed such delay.

Of course, he will continue appeals to SCOTUS. I can only hope that Thomas or some other presumed Trump stooge will immediately refuse consideration.

[gab13by13]

8. I agree,

The written law could say that Donald Trump must turn his taxes over to Congress and somehow it wouldn't happen. WTF is it with this guy?

[captain queeg]

4. No doubt it'll end up in the SC. Even his hand picked judges aren't going to protect him.

I wouldn’t be too surprised if they won’t even hear the case.

[MiniMe]

5. But he doesn't wanna

That's been good enough in the past

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. This was the only ruling that the judge could make right now

[Wuddles440]

7. Not likely...

that the years 2017 and 2018 contain any real damaging information. It's the prior years that would potentially provide the most incriminating material and the request for those has been rejected.

[stillcool]

10. not rejected, just kicked the can down the road...

again. I think the next trial date is for October, or November.

[LiberalLovinLug]

11. I don't know about that.

No way could or would Trump in his arrogance resist NOT taking advantage of all of his time in office. I'm sure they'll find something

[Crazyleftie]

9. only two years.....

The House can't prosecute Trump anyway.....

[bluestarone]

12. I just gotta ask ONE MORE TIME

How many FCKN appeals does this Dirty Bastard get?

[Escurumbele]

13. "SOME" tax records...not all...Why are they protecting the thug? I don't get it.

[JohnnyRingo]

14. The good news is the audit is over.

'bout time.
hahaha

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

15. Off we go to the SCOTUS again.

Maybe not. The issue seems to be whether the accountants have to turn over the tax returns. TFG might not get a chance to interject himself, no matter how hard he tries. If he does, however, the attorney fees billable hours clock will keep running. I foresee a seventh bankruptcy in T*****'s future.

[elleng]

16. Accountants must give the House some of Trump's financial data, a judge rules. NYT

(Decent summary.)

'Former President Donald J. Trump’s accounting firm must give Congress his tax and other financial records from his time in the White House, and for a longer period about his lease of a government-owned building for a hotel, a judge ruled on Wednesday in a long-running legal fight over a House subpoena.

But in his 53-page opinion, the judge, Amit P. Mehta of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, also ruled that the House Committee on Oversight and Reform was not entitled to other financial records covering years before Mr. Trump took office. The panel had issued a broad request for records dating back to 2011.

“In the current polarized political climate, it is not difficult to imagine the incentives a Congress would have to threaten or influence a sitting president with a similarly robust subpoena, issued after he leaves office, in order to ‘aggrandize itself at the president’s expense,’” Judge Mehta wrote, citing a Supreme Court ruling last year.

He added, “In the court’s view, this not-insignificant risk to the institution of the presidency outweighs the committee’s incremental legislative need for the material subpoenaed” from the accountants.

The split decision means that either side, or both sides, may appeal Judge Mehta’s ruling, so the case may not be resolved anytime soon. But in one respect, the stakes have been lowered: The Manhattan district attorney’s office obtained similar records this year from Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, after the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Trump’s efforts to block their release.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/11/us/politics/trump-financial-data-subpoena-ruling.html

[LiberalFighter]

17. How does it involve separation of powers for earlier tax records when

he wasn't President at the time?

[elleng]

18. Judge Mehta split the records the committee has been seeking into three categories,

granting some but rejecting others.

One category was financial data about the government’s leasing of the Old Post Office in Washington to Mr. Trump’s organization for a hotel in 2013. Noting that Mr. Trump chose not to divest from that lease when he became president, Judge Mehta ruled that Congress could see the information from both before Mr. Trump became president and while he was in office.

“The decision to bid for the lease was entirely voluntary, as was the decision to sign it and be bound by its terms. The same is true for President Trump’s choice not to divest his interests in the lease upon entering public office,” he wrote, adding, “A presidential candidate can choose not to contract with the federal government, or can divest his interests upon assuming office, and thereby avoid the accompanying scrutiny.”

The second category was data about Mr. Trump’s finances while he was in office. Judge Mehta ruled that the committee could see those records, too, accepting as persuasive the House’s claim that it needed to look at them as part of weighing whether existing rules to enforce the Constitution’s ban on presidents’ taking foreign “emoluments” while in office are sufficient.

But he rejected Congress’s right to broadly scrutinize Mr. Trump’s financial records for the years before he became a public official, citing the Supreme Court’s concerns and saying he was not persuaded that access to the documents was necessary for lawmakers’ stated rationale: weighing whether new candidate disclosure laws are needed..>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/11/us/politics/trump-financial-data-subpoena-ruling.html

[LiberalFighter]

20. It seems the judge was reaching with his opinion in the last paragraph above.