The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

A federal judge on Monday excoriated Trump, ruling in a 41-page opinion that Congress has a legitimate reason to conduct oversight of Trump’s finances and that Trump cannot order his accounting firm to ignore a congressional subpoena for his financial records.

The ruling comes after Democrats sued Trump for ordering his accounting firm, Mazars USA LLP, not to comply with a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee for Trump’s financial records, including 10 years’ worth of audits that could have shown potential bank and loan fraud.

“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,” U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta wrote.

Mehta went on to say that there is even legitimate evidence for Congress to open these probes, including evidence that Trump committed financial crimes before he became president.

“It is undisputed that the President did not initially identify as liabilities on his public disclosure forms the payments that Michael Cohen made to alleged mistresses during the presidential campaign,” Mehta wrote, referring to the hush money payments to porn stars Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal that earned Trump the dubious title as “Individual 1” in Michael Cohen’s indictment.

“Furthermore, Michael Cohen has pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations arising from those payments. These events, when combined with Cohen’s testimony and the financial statements he supplied, make it reasonable for the Oversight Committee to believe that the records sought from Mazars might reveal other financial transgressions or improprieties,” the judge continued.

The ruling is a major win for Democrats, who have been fighting Trump’s numerous attempts to obstruct congressional oversight in order to shield himself from scrutiny of his finances and other possible crimes.

Trump is likely to appeal the ruling.

However the fact that one federal judge so forcefully ruled against him is a promising first sign for Democrats, who are carrying out their constitutional duty of providing oversight of the Executive Branch.

So, the legal battle over Trump’s congressional stonewalling is now: Democrats 1, Trump 0.

Published with permission of The American Independent.

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

U.S. SUPREME COURT

YouTube Screenshot

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion after almost 50 years, some conservatives and mainstream media outlets have suggested that anti-abortionists may be willing to support more generous family welfare programs to offset the financial burden of forced birth. These suggestions, whether made in bad faith or ignorance, completely misunderstand the social function of prohibiting abortion, which is to exert control over women and all people who can get pregnant.

In adopting or replicating the right’s framing of anti-abortionists as “pro-life,” these outlets mystify the conservative movement’s history and current goals. Conservatives have sought to dismantle the United State’s limited safety net since the passage of the New Deal. Expecting the movement to reverse course now is absurd, and suggesting so serves primarily to obfuscate the economic hardship the end of Roe will inflict on people forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

Keep reading... Show less

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters

YouTube Screenshot

Donald Trump's hand-picked candidate Blake Masters is the latest to endorse the unpopular idea.

The front-runner in the GOP primary to run for Senate in Arizona in November against Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly suggested on June 23 that Social Security should be privatized, an approach to the popular government program that experts say could jeopardize a vital financial lifeline for retired Americans.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}