“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”, wrote US District Judge Amit Mehta, in a 41-page ruling that compels Mazars USA, Donald Trump’s accounting firm, to comply with a congressional subpoena within seven days.
The ruling is a blow the White House’s desperate efforts to obstruct Congress from exercising its oversight and investigative functions. The administration is staring down subpoenas from multiple committees.
Generally speaking, Trump’s attorneys have fallen back on a blanket assertion that lawmakers lack a legitimate legislative purpose, but Monday’s ruling rejected that claim, at least as it relates to the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s document requests from Mazars. Here’s a passage from the ruling:
The binding principle that emerges from these judicial decisions is that courts must presume Congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate and must defer to congressional judgments about what Congress needs to carry out that purpose. To be sure, there are limits on Congress’s investigative authority. But those limits do not substantially constrain Congress. So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which “legislation could be had,” Congress acts as contemplated by Article I of the Constitution. Applying those principles here compels the conclusion that President Trump cannot block the subpoena to Mazars. According to the Oversight Committee, it believes that the requested records will aid its consideration of strengthening ethics and disclosure laws, as well as amending the penalties for violating such laws. The Committee also says that the records will assist in monitoring the President’s compliance with the Foreign Emoluments Clauses. These are facially valid legislative purposes, and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations. Accordingly, the court will enter judgment in favor of the Oversight Committee.
Last month, Trump sued committee chair Elijah Cummings in an effort to block Mazars from cooperating. Now, the president will have to appeal.
Read the background: Trump V. Cummings: Naturally, US President Sues Black Man For Asking About His Finances
Cummings called the ruling “a resounding victory for the rule of law and our Constitutional system of checks and balances.” Generally speaking, Trump isn’t a fan of those checks and balances and it’s becoming increasingly clear that he’s not big on the whole “Constitution” thing either.
Cummings implored the White House to “stop engaging in this unprecedented cover-up and start complying with the law.” One hopes Cummings isn’t holding his breath.
Trump will have to hurry it up with the appeal, though. Mehta denied a request from Trump’s lawyers to forestall Mazars from complying with the subpoena until the president can appeal.
“The court is well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States, but on the question of whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail”, Mehta said.
Cummings initially wrote to Mazars USA chairman and CEO Victor Wahba as part of an investigation into the claims Michael Cohen made during public testimony in February. Specifically, Cummings was curious to know if Trump was in fact in the habit of altering the value of his assets for personal gain.
Mazars is now compelled to produce what sounds like scores of records pertaining to their work for Trump, his businesses and now defunct foundation, dating back to 2011.
“The court recognized the basic, but crucial fact that Congress has authority to conduct investigations as part of our core function under the Constitution”, Cummings declared.
Trump was on his way to Pennsylvania for a rally when the news started grabbing headlines. Asked about the ruling, he reminded reporters that Mehta was an Obama nominee.
“We disagree with that ruling”, he said. “It’s crazy”.
mehta.opinion.in.trump.subpoena.case
