Judges seem deeply skeptical about Trump's arguments against the assignment of financial documents

A panel of judges of the Federal Court of Appeal Friday was deeply skeptical about President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump boasts that Kim Jong Un "was so happy to see me" Romney defends Paul Ryan: "The fault of our defeat of 2012 is mine alone" Trump declares urgency in the face of Tropical Storm Barry MOREThe arguments against a Congressional summons seeking its financial statements.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeal judges heard the arguments of Trump's appeal from a lower court decision upholding a subpoena issued by the Chair of the Board's Supervisory and Reform Committee. Bedroom. Elijah CummingsElijah Eugene CummingsCovering Live: House Watch Discusses Trump Family Separation Policy New York City: Do not Make Acosta a Political Martyr The Hill's Morning – Trump's Retirement on the Issue of census citizenship PLUS (D-Md.) For the archives of the president of the accounting company Mazars.

The arguments lasted twice as long as expected, highlighting the seriousness with which the judges weigh the case and the legal problems it raises.

Counsel for the President argued that the subpoena did not serve a legitimate legislative purpose but was rather a form of "law enforcement", a point made by the panel of judges on Friday.

Trump's lawyer, William Consovoy, told the panel that he feared that legislators would not be able to issue a subpoena for the president's records, because the rules of the House do not explicitly state that the president can be personally targeted.

But the judges seemed doubtful of this assertion and argued that the previous decisions cited by Consovoy were not relevant to the case.

"There is no sign that this is changing the relationship between the President and Congress," said Judge David Tatel. "It's only financial disclosure, what the presidents have been doing for years."

Consovoy also asserted that the subpoenas had no "legitimate legislative purpose" – an argument that the judges also quickly opposed.

The panel referred to pieces of legislation that had already been enacted that might have been linked to the subpoena, such as the provisions of rule 1 of rule 1 concerning the president's finances, and asked how we could expect that they would ignore this type of evidence.

And Judge Neomi Rao, appointed by Trump, asked why the Justice Department was not involved in the case if the president thought the subpoena would affect his ability to perform his duties.

Consovoy said he could not answer the question.

Tatel, a Clinton appointee, also rejected Consovoy's suggestion that the possibility of a subpoena could prevent other candidates from running for president because it would result in disclosure of their financial statements. He said that he "did not see why this limited anyone's ability to run for president."

Justice Patricia Millet, appointed by former President Obama, said it would make sense for the legislator to consider a sitting president.

"You keep talking like they've chosen someone on the street to target," said Millet.

The president's supervision "seems correct to me," she added.

Tatel and Millet confirmed Consovoy's claims that the president was shielded from this kind of congressional oversight, with Tatel calling this involvement "staggering".

"I still do not understand why, if Congress is interested in determining whether the laws on disclosure of financial information are adequate," they could not get the president's financials, Tatel said.

And judges were wary of claims that subpoenas could be used as a means of law enforcement. They asked why, if Congress felt that wrongdoing could be committed in the office of the President, legislators would not be able to exercise the kind of control necessary to confirm these facts and enact laws accordingly.

"Is not that what Congress would always do if it tried to amend a bill" to deal with potential problems in the executive branch, Tatel asked Consovoy.

The jury was skeptical of the complaints presented on behalf of the president, but he also shared with the Attorney General of the House, Douglas Letter, concerns about the congressional investigating authorities.

When asked repeatedly that there was an example of a House committee issuing a subpoena against the President, Letter did not go to court. not provided an answer that seemed to satisfy Rao.

However, he said, the House oversight and reform committee has more extensive investigative powers than other groups in the House and the request for Trump documents falls well within the purview of the House. these authorities.

And he added that since the subpoena had been technically attributed to a third party, Mazars, and not to the President himself, it did not raise more significant issues with regard to the separation of powers.

Most of the questions posed to Letter also concerned the Constitution's emoluments clause, which some, including Democratic lawmakers, allege Trump is breaking the law, particularly because of Trump International Hotel's ownership of D.C.

House lawyer said that by getting Trump's financial statements, lawmakers could get more details on the president's dealings with the hotel and potentially pass legislation further defining what's going on. 39, is an emolument.

Millet pressed Letter on the fact that the requested recordings dated some time before Trump 's entry into office. She asked if this meant that legislators could then ask for documents that date back to when a president was 18, "or even a birth."

Letter responded that the House needs documents for a long period of time to look for any irregularities in Trump's finances.

However, he promised – laughing – that the House would never "seek" to have the president's diary from 7 years old.

It is not known when the panel of judges will decide on the issue. The case was set on an accelerated schedule, which means that a decision could land in the near future.

Trump promised to fight all the subpoenas issued in the myriad of House Democrats' inquiries about him, his administration, his businesses, and his family.

District Judge D.C. Amit Mehta, appointed by Obama, has decided to maintain Mazars' assignment at the beginning of the year. And a federal judge in New York has also ruled in favor of a subpoena from Trump's archives to Deutsche Bank and Capital One.

Legal experts have consistently claimed that Congressional subpoenas would be upheld by a court, with the Supreme Court relying on Congressional investigative powers in the past.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments next month on the Deutsche Bank 's order appeal.