[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – Former President Donald J. Trump’s accounting firm is to turn over to Congress its taxes and other financial documents from his time in the White House, and for a longer period regarding his lease of a government-owned building for a hotel, a judge ruled Wednesday in a long-standing legal battle over a House subpoena.
But in his 53-page opinion, District of Columbia Federal District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta also ruled that the House Committee on Oversight and Reform was not entitled to further financial documents spanning years before Mr. Trump took office. The panel had issued a large request for records dating back to 2011.
“In today’s polarized political climate, it’s not hard to imagine the incentives a Congress would have to threaten or influence a sitting president with an equally robust subpoena, issued after he left office. functions, in order to “grow at the expense of the president,” “Judge Mehta wrote, citing a Supreme Court ruling last year.
He added: “In the court’s opinion, this not insignificant risk to the institution of the presidency outweighs the committee’s progressive legislative need for subpoenaed material” of the accountants.
The split decision means either or both parties can appeal Judge Mehta’s ruling, so the case may not be resolved any time soon. But in one respect, the stakes have been lowered: The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office this year obtained similar cases from Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, after the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Trump’s efforts. to block their release.
The dispute arose out of Mr. Trump’s refusal, breaking with modern precedent, to make his tax returns public when he ran for president and once in office. After Democrats took control of the House in 2019, the Oversight and Reform Committee issued a subpoena for Mazars’ files and separately requested copies of his tax returns from the Treasury Department.
But Mr Trump has vowed to block all subpoenas from House Democrats, and his personal attorneys and the Trump-era Justice Department have fought the efforts in court, appealing losses and essentially failing to exposing its financial transactions to outside scrutiny ahead of its defeat in the 2020 election.
At an earlier stage in the case, Judge Mehta upheld the committee’s entire claim as a legitimate exercise of congressional oversight power, rejecting Mr. Trump’s argument that it should be declared invalid. as a politically motivated effort to harass him.
Mr. Trump’s attorneys appealed, and a District of Columbia appeals court upheld Judge Mehta’s ruling. But last year, the Supreme Court sent the case back for re-analysis by lower courts, asking them to put more emphasis on whether Congress had a legitimate need for the documents it sought or if it encroached on presidential prerogatives.
“This court has previously authorized President Trump’s Financial Records Committee’s request to proceed unreservedly,” Judge Mehta wrote. But “with the greatest scrutiny required” by the Supreme Court, he said, he “cannot now go that far.”
Judge Mehta divided the cases the committee was looking for into three categories, granting some but rejecting others.
One category was financial data on the government’s rental of the former post office in Washington to Mr. Trump’s hotel organization in 2013. Noting that Mr. Trump had chosen not to relinquish this lease when he became president, Judge Mehta ruled that Congress could see information from both before Mr. Trump became president and while he was in office.
“The decision to bid on the lease was completely voluntary, as was the decision to sign it and be bound by its terms. The same goes for President Trump’s choice not to cede his interest in the lease upon entering public service, “he wrote, adding:” A presidential candidate can choose not to contract with the federal government, or may cede its interests upon taking office, and thus avoid the scrutiny that accompanies it.
The second category was data on Mr. Trump’s finances during his tenure. Judge Mehta ruled that the committee could also see these files, accepting as convincing the House’s contention that it should consider them as part of the consideration of whether the existing rules to enforce the Constitutional prohibition on presidents from taking foreign “emoluments” during their term of office is sufficient.
But he rejected Congress’ right to widely review 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 convinced that access to documents was necessary for the rationale declared by lawmakers: to weigh whether new candidate disclosure laws are needed.
A lawyer for Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment, including on whether his client would appeal the part of the ruling that was unfavorable to him.
House Oversight and Reform Committee chair Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of New York, praised the part of the ruling that upheld parts of her panel’s summons.
“Former President Trump’s opaque financial dealings have led to an unprecedented federal ethical crisis,” Maloney said in a statement. “Today’s district court opinion recognized that the Oversight Committee is entitled to a wide range of President Trump’s financial records as part of our critical investigation to prevent presidential conflicts of interest, personal transactions and constitutional violations. “
She expressed disappointment at the part of the decision that reduced what the committee could get, but did not say whether it would appeal that part, saying only that it was “actively considering the next steps.”
Nicolas fans contributed reports.
[ad_2]
Source link