Court tells banks to hand Trump financial records to House Democrats

[webfact]

Court tells banks to hand Trump financial records to House Democrats

By Brendan Pierson and Jonathan Stempel

 

FILE PHOTO: A statue is pictured next to the logo of Germany's Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt, Germany September 30, 2016. REUTERS/Kai Pfaffenbach/File Photo

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday handed President Donald Trump another defeat in his bid to keep his financial records secret, directing Deutsche Bank AG <DBKGn.DE> and Capital One Financial Corp <COF.N> to comply with subpoenas from congressional Democrats demanding the material.

 

A three-judge panel of the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against Trump's bid to block two House of Representatives committees from enforcing subpoenas issued in April to the two banks seeking the documents. Trump is expected to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

The 2nd Circuit rejected Trump's arguments that Congress lacked a valid purpose for seeking his records and that disclosure of the material would compromise his and his family's privacy and distract the Republican president from his duties.

 

The material sought by the committees include records of accounts, transactions and investments linked to Trump, his three oldest children, their immediate family members and several Trump Organization entities.

 

"The Committees' interests in pursuing their constitutional legislative function is a far more significant public interest than whatever public interest inheres in avoiding the risk of a Chief Executive's distraction arising from disclosure of documents reflecting his private financial transactions," Judge Jon Newman wrote in the ruling.

 

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday handed President Donald Trump another defeat in his bid to keep his financial records secret, directing Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp to comply with subpoenas from congressional Democrats demanding the material. Colette Luke has more.

 

Trump had sued the two banks in an effort to prevent the disclosure of his financial records. U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos ruled in May that the subpoenas could be enforced, prompting Trump to appeal.

 

"We believe the subpoenas at issue are not valid," said Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Trump. "In light of the 2nd Circuit decision, we are evaluating our next options including seeking review at the Supreme Court of the United States."

 

The Supreme Court's 5-4 conservative majority includes two justices appointed by Trump.

 

Democratic House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the ruling "another victory for the rule of law, our constitution and our American democracy."

 

Leaders of the two House panels that issued the subpoenas - Maxine Waters of the Financial Services Committee and Adam Schiff of the Intelligence Committee - said in a statement the ruling "ensures that a significant amount of the materials sought by our committees will continue to be produced."

 

In separate legal cases, Trump also has sought to block House Democrats from obtaining his tax and financial records from his long-time accounting firm.

 

The subpoenas involved in Tuesday's ruling were issued months before House Democrats began an inquiry in September into whether there were grounds to impeach Trump over his request to Ukraine to investigate Democratic political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

 

Trump, running for re-election in 2020, has fought hard to keep his financial and tax records private. He broke with tradition by not releasing his tax returns as a candidate in 2016 and as president.

 

A PRINCIPAL LENDER

Germany's Deutsche Bank has long been a principal lender for Trump's real estate business. A 2017 disclosure form showed that Trump had at least $130 million of liabilities to the bank.

 

"As we have said previously, we remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations and will abide by a court order regarding such investigations," a Deutsche Bank spokesman said of Tuesday's decision.

 

Capital One did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

The House Financial Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for records related to Trump, three of his children and the Trump Organization. Lawmakers have said the requests are part of a wider investigation into money laundering and foreign influence over U.S. politics.

 

The Financial Services Committee subpoenaed Virginia-based Capital One, seeking records related to the Trump Organization's hotel business.

 

The two banks have said the records involved in the case do not include Trump's tax returns.

 

Congressional investigators have already identified possible failures in Deutsche Bank's money laundering controls in its dealings with Russian oligarchs, people familiar with the matter have told Reuters.

 

Judge Debra Ann Livingston dissented from the ruling, saying Trump and his family raised "serious constitutional questions" about congressional authority to enforce "deeply troubling" subpoenas seeking "voluminous" financial records, and deserved a chance to object to disclosure of more sensitive materials.

 

Newman was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. Livingston was appointed by President George W. Bush, a Republican. Newman was joined in the ruling by Judge Peter Hall, a Bush appointee.

 

The Supreme Court as soon as Dec. 13 will decide whether to hear Trump's appeal of lower court rulings that directed Mazars LLP, his accounting firm, to provide local prosecutors in New York Trump's personal and corporate tax returns from 2011 to 2018 as part of a criminal investigation.

 

Trump also is due to file to the Supreme Court by Thursday his appeal of a court ruling in Washington directing Mazars to turn over his financial records to the House Oversight Committee. The Supreme Court last week put the lower court ruling on hold to give Trump time to appeal.

 

(Reporting by Brendan Pierson and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Additional reporting by Karen Freifeld in New York and Lawrence Hurley in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham and Chizu Nomiyama)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-12-04

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Ireland32]

We need to view these ASAP

[fvw53]

The US Supreme Court is very partisan ....their rulings will be accordingly and that did not happen only under Trump.

[Sujo]

Dont know why trump is fighting this. He said he was happy to make them public. Then said he cannot because its under audit, which doesnt stop him makng them public.

 

So when a judge says its ok you can release them he should be happy to do so.

[scoutman360]

The lower liberal Obama courts always rule against, him. Then the higher courts overrule the lower courts. Sounds crazy, but it is what it is.

[Sujo]

Just now, scoutman360 said:

The lower liberal Obama courts always rule against, him. Then the higher courts overrule the lower courts. Sounds crazy, but it is what it is.

The higher court ruled against him.

[xylophone]

I wonder if any evidence will be found that bolsters the impeachment case.........like large payments from foreign leaders/governments, then there's others like payments to hookers etc.

 

Also of course is the poss that it will be seen that he has been lying all along about his financial situation, but then what's one more lie amongst thousands of others?

[Tchooptip]

 Trump lawyers will appeal to the supreme court and the supreme Trump's personal friends will reverse the judgement and nobody will ever see the Trump financial (secret) records. And most of his (half-witty) followers will applaud

[Spike1938]

20 hours ago, Sujo said:

The higher court ruled against him.

So now to the Supreme Court. If they rule in his favor it will be interesting to see what knots the majority winds themselves into in order to get around a clearly stated law. 

[metisdead]

An off topic deflection post and a reply has been removed. 

[Tug]

I wonder who co-signed for trump after squandering his family’s fourtune he has lousy credit that maybe the smoking gun

[metisdead]

Meanwhile, 2 days ago this came in:

 

US Justice Ginsburg puts temporary hold on Trump financial records dispute

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/us-justice-ginsburg-puts-temporary-hold-on-trump-financial-records-dispute

 

 

Release of Trump’s Banking Records Delayed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

The stay came three days after a lower court had ordered Deutsche Bank and Capital One to turn over President Trump’s financial records to Congress.

 

 

[metisdead]

Release of Trump’s Banking Records Delayed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

The stay came three days after a lower court had ordered Deutsche Bank and Capital One to turn over President Trump’s financial records to Congress.

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday put a one-week hold on a lower court’s order for President Trump’s bank records to be turned over to Congress.

 

The stay issued by Justice Ginsburg came just three days after the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York said that Deutsche Bank and Capital One must cooperate with subpoenas of two Democratic-controlled committees in the House of Representatives.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/06/us/trump-deutsche-bank-tax-returns.html

 

[metisdead]

Trump administration wins 1, loses another Supreme Court decision

 

 

President Trump received some good news and some bad news from the Supreme Court on Friday.

First, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg temporarily blocked a congressional subpoena for President Trump's financial records from Deutsche Bank. The decision comes after Trump's emergency request to block a lower court ruling that required him to hand over the records as part of the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees' investigation into Trump's relationship with the bank.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-administration-wins-1-loses-160155311.html

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, metisdead said:

Trump administration wins 1, loses another Supreme Court decision

 

 

President Trump received some good news and some bad news from the Supreme Court on Friday.

First, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg temporarily blocked a congressional subpoena for President Trump's financial records from Deutsche Bank. The decision comes after Trump's emergency request to block a lower court ruling that required him to hand over the records as part of the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees' investigation into Trump's relationship with the bank.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-administration-wins-1-loses-160155311.html

I guess if ‘a stay’ of one week is a win.

 

The ‘stay’ is procedural pending the SC decision whether or not to hear an appeal.

 

It should be noted the stay (win for Trump?) comes from RBG, so often a target of  hate comments from Trump’s supporters and I suspect the subject of TBL’s bitter , and now demonstrated as factually wrong, comment:

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Certain of the justices will always vote according to their political views, IMO, but hopefully one will be leaving SCOTUS in time for Trump to replace her with a conservative.

There are things to hope for in life, some are commendable, others far from it.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[bendejo]

58 minutes ago, Tug said:

I wonder who co-signed for trump after squandering his family’s fourtune he has lousy credit that maybe the smoking gun

This is one of the big questions: why did the German banks loan him $$$ when he is such a well-known deadbeat, even while he was suing the very bank?

 

On 12/4/2019 at 9:30 PM, xylophone said:

I wonder if any evidence will be found that bolsters the impeachment case.........like large payments from foreign leaders/governments, then there's others like payments to hookers etc.

I call it "the Golden Rope" which will tie him to Russia, money laundering, and a career of international financial rascality, all of this pre-2017.  Depending what irons were still in the fire post-inauguration possibly impeachable charges.

 

And this is why I want the House to delay passing the impeachment on to the Senate:  There is much, much more egregious stuff against him out there, which makes this Ukraine thing look like a parking ticket.  If he slides on dismissal, and afterwards the real filth emerges, doing the impeach thing again won't look good.   Unless, maybe, they catch him with something so bad his own party leads the charge!  Fat chance, I know. 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by bendejo

[ThaiBunny]

7 minutes ago, bendejo said:

This is one of the big questions: why did the German banks loan him $$$ when he is such a well-known deadbeat, even while he was suing the very bank?

There would have been a salesman or two whose commission or annual bonus depended on Trump getting his loan. Never underestimate the greed of someone whose income relies on such incentives

[AussieBob18]

Quote:  The material sought by the committees include records of accounts, transactions and investments linked to Trump, his three oldest children, their immediate family members, and several Trump Organization entities.

 

Do you Trump haters know what this will mean if it is successful?  All future POTUS' (Dem or GOP) will have all their financial accounts, transactions and investments - for themselves and all their children, and all their family members - obtained by the opposing Party if they have a majority in the House/Senate.  Remember - there is no actual 'reason' for the request, like an offence or a specific breach.

 

The Dem House Committee just wants to troll through everything - maybe they wioll find something and maybe they will not.  Should any political Party be able to troll through the financial records of anyone and all their family members, for purely political purposes?  Remember - if this precent is allowed by SCOTUS - this will apply to all and any Americans.  Do you think that when the GOP wins back control of the House that they will not use this precedent to troll through all financial records of the Clintons and Obama?   

 

There must be a line drawn. If Trump, or anyone, has committed any specific financial offence or a specific breach, then I think it is OK for all records related to that specific offence or breach to be released.  But ALL records of Trump? And his children? And their children?  Surely any rational person can see the downsides to this Dems demand succeeding - for both sides of politics.

 

[Credo]

9 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Quote:  The material sought by the committees include records of accounts, transactions and investments linked to Trump, his three oldest children, their immediate family members, and several Trump Organization entities.

 

Do you Trump haters know what this will mean if it is successful?  All future POTUS' (Dem or GOP) will have all their financial accounts, transactions and investments - for themselves and all their children, and all their family members - obtained by the opposing Party if they have a majority in the House/Senate.  Remember - there is no actual 'reason' for the request, like an offence or a specific breach.

 

The Dem House Committee just wants to troll through everything - maybe they wioll find something and maybe they will not.  Should any political Party be able to troll through the financial records of anyone and all their family members, for purely political purposes?  Remember - if this precent is allowed by SCOTUS - this will apply to all and any Americans.  Do you think that when the GOP wins back control of the House that they will not use this precedent to troll through all financial records of the Clintons and Obama?   

 

There must be a line drawn. If Trump, or anyone, has committed any specific financial offence or a specific breach, then I think it is OK for all records related to that specific offence or breach to be released.  But ALL records of Trump? And his children? And their children?  Surely any rational person can see the downsides to this Dems demand succeeding - for both sides of politics.

 

It is already the law.   The House Ways and Means Committee the power to request tax returns from the Treasury Department for review in closed session.  Trump has decided to ignore that law.

 

[Tug]

18 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Quote:  The material sought by the committees include records of accounts, transactions and investments linked to Trump, his three oldest children, their immediate family members, and several Trump Organization entities.

 

Do you Trump haters know what this will mean if it is successful?  All future POTUS' (Dem or GOP) will have all their financial accounts, transactions and investments - for themselves and all their children, and all their family members - obtained by the opposing Party if they have a majority in the House/Senate.  Remember - there is no actual 'reason' for the request, like an offence or a specific breach.

 

The Dem House Committee just wants to troll through everything - maybe they wioll find something and maybe they will not.  Should any political Party be able to troll through the financial records of anyone and all their family members, for purely political purposes?  Remember - if this precent is allowed by SCOTUS - this will apply to all and any Americans.  Do you think that when the GOP wins back control of the House that they will not use this precedent to troll through all financial records of the Clintons and Obama?   

 

There must be a line drawn. If Trump, or anyone, has committed any specific financial offence or a specific breach, then I think it is OK for all records related to that specific offence or breach to be released.  But ALL records of Trump? And his children? And their children?  Surely any rational person can see the downsides to this Dems demand succeeding - for both sides of politics.

 

Trump is the only potus I’m aware of who hasent released his records he has been ordered to comply he refuses and delays the dude is dirty and most likely compermrised that’s the reason for the pressure also his constant deference to putin and spouting of russan disinformation is another reason for this pressure

[bendejo]

As DT enjoyed saying continuously during Obama's time in the WH "what is he hiding?"

This guy sure as hell behaves like someone who's guilty.

 

 

[AussieBob18]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

It is already the law.   The House Ways and Means Committee the power to request tax returns from the Treasury Department for review in closed session.  Trump has decided to ignore that law.

 

No it is not a 'law'.  Yes they have used a provision they have, and that matter is currently a seperate Court case. Trump is likely to succeed in that case because the Dems have used that provision to seek his tax returns. Most legal experts believe that Congress still needs a legitimate legislative reason or purpose to make that request.

 

But as I said - the Dems have decided to seperately subpeona all the financial records of Trump and his family (all of them). But again they have done that without a legitimate reason or purpose to make that request.

 

Trump is a mutli-billionaire businessman with hundreds of seperate companies, trusts and other structured legal entities, and as a result he has extremely complicated tax and financial arrangements - most of which are highly secret for business reasons - as they are for all business people who have competitors and detractors that would abuse/use that informatioon. Unlike most other POTUS' before him, that are basically indiviudual persons/families with a few business/investments, Trump has chosen not to release his tax records for many reasons such as above.  IMO there is probably a few things here and there out of order, but there is no businessman who does not have that in their history, and the Dems are counting on that.  That is why the Dems want the tax and financial records - so they can troll through and find something wrong - and of course selectively leak that information  - and use it in their impeachment hearings/sham. 

 

The Dems need to establish a breach or offence first - then they can demand the records related to that breach/offence.  Demanding all tax and financial information in the hope of then finding a breach/offence is an unacceptable thing for any American citizen to be subjected too.

 

 

[AussieBob18]

52 minutes ago, Tug said:

Trump is the only potus I’m aware of who hasent released his records he has been ordered to comply he refuses and delays the dude is dirty and most likely compermrised that’s the reason for the pressure also his constant deference to putin and spouting of russan disinformation is another reason for this pressure

Wrong.  Trump has refused to release his Tax Returns and he does not have to do so.  Every POTUS since Nixon has done that voluntarily - none did so before Nixon - but none of them were a billionaire businesman - see my reply to Credo. 

 

The Dems want all his financial records (and his family's) because they cant get his tax returns.  But they want them for political reasons so that they can troll through them.  But they need a real reason first - and IMO the SCOTUS will uphold that right for Trump and every other American citizen.

 

[Credo]

5 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

No it is not a 'law'.  Yes they have used a provision they have, and that matter is currently a seperate Court case. Trump is likely to succeed in that case because the Dems have used that provision to seek his tax returns. Most legal experts believe that Congress still needs a legitimate legislative reason or purpose to make that request.

 

But as I said - the Dems have decided to seperately subpeona all the financial records of Trump and his family (all of them). But again they have done that without a legitimate reason or purpose to make that request.

 

Trump is a mutli-billionaire businessman with hundreds of seperate companies, trusts and other structured legal entities, and as a result he has extremely complicated tax and financial arrangements - most of which are highly secret for business reasons - as they are for all business people who have competitors and detractors that would abuse/use that informatioon. Unlike most other POTUS' before him, that are basically indiviudual persons/families with a few business/investments, Trump has chosen not to release his tax records for many reasons such as above.  IMO there is probably a few things here and there out of order, but there is no businessman who does not have that in their history, and the Dems are counting on that.  That is why the Dems want the tax and financial records - so they can troll through and find something wrong - and of course selectively leak that information  - and use it in their impeachment hearings/sham. 

 

The Dems need to establish a breach or offence first - then they can demand the records related to that breach/offence.  Demanding all tax and financial information in the hope of then finding a breach/offence is an unacceptable thing for any American citizen to be subjected too.

I'll try to make it simple for you.   It is the law:

 

The letter cites a 1924 law that gives the House Ways and Means Committee the power to request tax returns from the Treasury Department for review in closed session.

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/18296806/trump-tax-returns-congress-legal-experts

[AussieBob18]

8 minutes ago, Credo said:

I'll try to make it simple for you.   It is the law:

 

The letter cites a 1924 law that gives the House Ways and Means Committee the power to request tax returns from the Treasury Department for review in closed session.

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/18296806/trump-tax-returns-congress-legal-experts

I will make it even simpler for you. This is from your Vox article (liberal organisation that it is):

 

Presidential candidates are not required by law to release tax returns, but every major-party nominee in modern American history has done so — until Donald Trump. Trump’s refusal to adhere to this norm has set up a massive legal fight between Congress and the White House.

--------------

The Constitution applies to Congress. The Supreme Court has repeatedly told us that the Constitution permits Congress to perform investigations and subpoena documents only when it pursues a legitimate legislative purpose.

----------------

I will also advise you that Congress has the authrity to issue a subpeona - but that does not make it 'The Law'.

Have you seen that movie 'Judge Dredd' - the one with Sylvester Stallone? 

 

 

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

I will make it even simpler for you. This is from your Vox article (liberal organisation that it is):

 

Presidential candidates are not required by law to release tax returns, but every major-party nominee in modern American history has done so — until Donald Trump. Trump’s refusal to adhere to this norm has set up a massive legal fight between Congress and the White House.

--------------

The Constitution applies to Congress. The Supreme Court has repeatedly told us that the Constitution permits Congress to perform investigations and subpoena documents only when it pursues a legitimate legislative purpose.

----------------

I will also advise you that Congress has the authrity to issue a subpeona - but that does not make it 'The Law'.

Have you seen that movie 'Judge Dredd' - the one with Sylvester Stallone? 

 

 

Do you understand that there is a law that authorizes the House Ways and Means Committee to do exactly that?

[AussieBob18]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Do you understand that there is a law that authorizes the House Ways and Means Committee to do exactly that?

I have no intention of entering into a debate with someone who has no understanding of legal definitions. 

But seeing you asked so nicely - Where is that Law? Do you have a copy? Link and Reference?

Gotta go - will read/respond later.

[AussieBob18]

2 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

I have no intention of entering into a debate with someone who has no understanding of legal definitions. 

But seeing you asked so nicely - Where is that Law? Do you have a copy? Link and Reference?

Gotta go - will read/respond later.

 

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Do you understand that there is a law that authorizes the House Ways and Means Committee to do exactly that?

I'll come back tomorrow for that link then shall I ??

 

[Sujo]

6 hours ago, bendejo said:

This is one of the big questions: why did the German banks loan him $$$ when he is such a well-known deadbeat, even while he was suing the very bank?

 

I call it "the Golden Rope" which will tie him to Russia, money laundering, and a career of international financial rascality, all of this pre-2017.  Depending what irons were still in the fire post-inauguration possibly impeachable charges.

 

And this is why I want the House to delay passing the impeachment on to the Senate:  There is much, much more egregious stuff against him out there, which makes this Ukraine thing look like a parking ticket.  If he slides on dismissal, and afterwards the real filth emerges, doing the impeach thing again won't look good.   Unless, maybe, they catch him with something so bad his own party leads the charge!  Fat chance, I know. 

 

 

I too think dems going too fast. Wait a week and trump will have done something else illegal. Lots of pressure on giuliano now, lots more to come out.

[Sujo]

28 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

 

I'll come back tomorrow for that link then shall I ??

 

You have no idea trump is a billionaire. Unless you are taking his word for it. Thats dangerous with a capital D.