A federal judge has ruled that Trump’s accounting firm must hand over some of President Trump’s taxes and financial documents, but not nearly the amount that the Democrats have been wanting.
U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta determined in a ruling Wednesday that the House Oversight Committee can proceed with a subpoena requesting records from Trump but in a very limited capacity. Democrats wanted all of his records starting in 2011.
But, they claimed they were investigating Trump for violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause. But, he did not become president until 2017, therefore he could not be in violation before then. He is granting them permission for documents only from the time that he became president until January 20th of 2021.
The Democrats had wanted documents for the Trump Hotel in Washington that was well before Trump’s time as president.
Mehta said that Democrat’s requests were overly vague and that they did not have the right to everything which has upset the Democrats who had hoped to go on a fishing expedition.
President Trump plans to appeal the decision even further as he has had to do for the past six years. Other than the emoluments clause, they did not point out a reason why they needed to see other documents.
The Democrats have long held that Trump was getting foreign money through the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C..
That lease began in 2013 and let’s face it, the profit he made on that was very small compared to the fact that he gave away his entire presidential salary for four years, and the money that Joe and Hunter raked in was quite substantial.
Mehta said the committee’s subpoena to get financial records dating back to 2011 seemed to exceed the scope of its authority, noting that Trump did not become president until 2017 and thus could not have received any prohibited emoluments before then.
He also said the committee failed to demonstrate a specific need for documents related to Trump’s financial disclosure obligation, writing that their request “does not adequately explain why other sources of information — outside President Trump’s personal papers — could not reasonably provide Congress the information it needs.”
“Due to its broad, invasive nature, the subpoena poses an appreciable risk to the separation of powers,” Mehta wrote in Wednesday’s ruling, appearing to concur with the Supreme Court. “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.”
49 comments