[ad_1]
President Trump attends the oval office of Slovak Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini on Friday. (Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post)
The lawyers for President Trump, his family and the Trump Organization on Friday requested a preliminary injunction, the latest attempt to prevent one of their banks and one of their lenders from complying with the subpoenas. Congress.
The motion is part of a lawsuit against Deutsche Bank and Capital One, a vigorous legal defense seeking to prevent both institutions from handing over documents to House intelligence and financial services committees.
Friday's request, filed in the US District Court of the Southern District of New York, argues that the injunction is necessary to remove the time limits set by the committees for the production of documents requested by the two banks.
Trump's lawyers have asked the federal judge to block the subpoenas until the court makes its final decision.
"It will no longer be possible to ring the bell once the banks have provided the information requested to Congress," wrote Trump's lawyers William S. Consovoy, Patrick Strawbridge and Marc Mukasey. "The Committees will have considered confidential documents that this Court may later determine were unlawfully summoned."
The lawyers then suggested what might be a protracted and passionate legal struggle over the financial records of the president, his family and his business. If they did not get a preliminary injunction, they pledged to appeal.
"Without [an injunction]The plaintiffs will be forced to seek the same relief at the second circuit and the Supreme Court, "said the file.
[Trump Organization and family sue Deutsche Bank and Capital One to block congressional subpoenas]
Trump's legal team has accused Democrats in the House of having subpoenaed "harassing" the president, saying representatives Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) And Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) , Chairs of the Intelligence and Financial Services Committees, respectively, are engaged in a political fishing expedition.
Legal experts have said, however, that the courts would probably not interfere with congressional oversight. They predicted that legal difficulties could delay committee investigations.
The assertion that the subpoenas were of a political nature is a "frivolous argument, even if it is true," Stanford law professor David Alan Sklansky told the Washington Post in the Washington Post. "This is not a reason to cancel a subpoena."
Schiff and Waters said in a statement that the trial was "another demonstration of the depths to which President Trump will go to obstruct the Congressional Constitutional Control Authority."
The complaint is similar to another complaint that Trump filed on April 22 against his own accounting firm, Mazars USA. This action is also intended to prevent the corporation from complying with a subpoena – in this case, the House oversight committee.
Isaac Stanley-Becker and David A. Fahrenthold contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
Source link