[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Tuesday told President Trump's personal solicitor very skeptical questions about his attempt to block a Congressional summons seeking years of financial documents from Trump's accounting firm – and suggested to rule on the dispute next week.
The hearing, before Judge Amit P. Mehta of the Federal District Court of Columbia, was an early judicial test of the president's promise to systematically suppress all subpoenas made by House Democrats. And Justice Mehta's inquiries leave no doubt that he was deeply skeptical of the arguments of Mr. Trump's legal team, led by William S. Consovoy.
Mr. Consovoy essentially argued that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to investigate possible presidential corruption, because determining whether someone has broken the law is a function reserved for the executive branch. But Judge Mehta pointed out that under this logic, many of Congress's famous historical control investigations were illegitimate.
"Do you feel that Whitewater and Watergate's investigations exceeded the authority of Congress?" Asked the judge, referring to Congressional investigations into the Nixon and Clinton presidencies. "They were investigating violations of the criminal law."
Judge Mehta, appointed in 2014 by President Barack Obama, also stated that he did not see the need for new briefings or arguments, as the dispute revolved around the issue of "the case". a question of law and that the Constitution did not authorize Mr. Trump's team of lawyers to compel the House to rule. internal documents as proof. He said that he would let the lawyers submit any additional documents desired until Friday, then that he would make his decision.
Any decision of Judge Mehta will probably only be the beginning of the case. Both parties acknowledged that an appeal was virtually certain and Mr. Consovoy asked the judge, when he ruled against Mr. Trump, to stay the proceedings until the delay of the appeal was over. 39 subpoena of Mazars USA, the accounting firm, is not delayed. before the dispute takes place fully.
But Douglas Letter, the Attorney General of the House, asked the judge not to defer such a decision – or, as the case may be, to make it subject to the condition that Trump's team promptly file a call. The biggest threat, he said, was that the Trump team could use the courts to overrun the Congress, which would hamper its ability to monitor.
"Any delay affects the ability of the House to do what the Constitution allows it to do," Letter said.
The judge's comments and questions suggest that he is probably in agreement with the House that the information he is looking for falls within his legitimate supervisory role, rejecting the argument of Trump's team according to which the subpoena is an illegitimate effort to obtain political land without any connection to the function of Congress. decide to enact new laws.
Judge Mehta has repeatedly pointed out the Supreme Court 's jurisprudence that the Congress had the power to conduct surveillance investigations in order to inform and inform the public on matters relating to the conduct of the investigation. public interest, distinct from his lawmaking function – an argument that Mr. Letter said he accepted in the House. with but do not need to count to win the case.
And he doubted whether he had the power to doubt the motive of the Congress or the scope of the information he said he wanted.
The Chamber said that it was investigating Mr. Trump's finances in part to determine if he had hidden entanglements in the cases that made him secretly beholden to strangers, so as to create a conflict of interest. interests in his decision-making as president. An investigation could lay the groundwork for tougher presidential finance laws.
"We need to know if the President of the United States is beholden to foreign interests who can hold him over the head," Letter said. "Obviously, these are very legitimate things that Congress needs to consider."
But Mr. Consovoy referred to a statement by Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland – the chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, who issued the subpoena – suggesting that his motive was rather to investigate whether Mr. Trump was breaking the law. .
Mr. Consovoy also argued that no legislation that Congress could pass could be constitutional, as the Constitution limits the ability of the legislature to impose limits on the presidency.
But Judge Mehta resisted the idea that he should determine that there was no conceivable law that could be passed by Congress, saying: "You are not suggesting that I have to undertake a constitutional review of a nonexistent law. ? ".
And Mr. Letter enumerated a series of existing laws that would be unconstitutional according to the logic of the Trump team, such as the Presidential Law on Archives, which prevents presidents from destroying the records of their administration, and a law on ethics. requiring presidents to make annual financial statements.
"Mr. Consovoy seems to argue that Congress can not regulate the presidency," said Letter. "Oh yes? We are doing it. "
[ad_2]
Source link