Washington: U.S. Supreme Court judges posed serious questions to Donald Trump ’s lawyers and the Department of Justice ’s lawyers on Tuesday, trying to prove that the president was trying to prevent the Democratic Party-led Congressional Committee from obtaining financial records in the presidential battle. The justifications presented are reasonable.
Nine justices conducted a verbal debate on a pair of cases that the House Committee tried to obtain records through a conference call. These cases tested the authority of Congress to supervise the president.
Trump tried to prevent the House Committee from obstructing the execution of subpoenas, which were sought from his long-term accounting firm Mazars LLP, Deutsche Bank and Capital One for their financial records. The third case to be debated immediately after the conclusion of the first argument involved Trump’s bid to prevent the execution of a New York City prosecutor subpoena to obtain Trump’s financial records.
The judge asked Trump’s lawyer Patrick Strawbridge if lawmakers could summon the president’s financial records. The conservative chief justice John Roberts (John Roberts) raised wide-ranging doubts on Straubridge’s argument.
“Do you recognize that the House of Representatives has the right to summon the president’s personal documents?” Roberts asked.
Strawbridge said that “it’s hard to imagine” this situation is reasonable.
Roberts ’question to lawyers representing Trump and the House of Representatives shows that he believes it is necessary to strike a balance between the powers of the president and Congress. On the one hand, he expressed doubt that Congress had no right to issue subpoenas, or the court could guess the motive for issuing subpoenas for the second time, and also doubted that Congress ’powers were unlimited.
“Should the court be investigating the psychological process of the legislator? Should members of the House Committee be questioned for why you are really seeking these documents?” Roberts asked Jeffrey Wall, a lawyer for the Justice Department.
Trump’s lawyers argued that the congressional group had no right to issue subpoenas and no legal reasons for seeking records.
Roberts also seems to be skeptical of the House attorney’s argument, arguing that lawmakers have the power to investigate the president extensively to make laws.
Roberts told House Lawyer Doug Letter: “Your test is not a test, not a limitation.” He added that the House needs to consider that it is dealing with another equal government department.
Trump, unlike other recent presidents, refused to release his tax returns and other financial records, which may reveal his net worth and the activities of his family’s real estate company, the Trump Organization. The content of these records remains a long-standing mystery during his presidency.
Liberalist Stephen Breyer explored whether Congress could properly investigate the 1970s Watergate under President Richard Nixon under the Trump lawyers ’Congress.
Freelance judge Elena Kagan pointed out that in terms of personal records, “the president is just a person”.
“In my opinion, what you want us to do is put a 10-ton weight on the scale between the president and the Congress, which essentially prevents Congress from performing supervision and performing its duties, Kagan told Straubri odd.
Conservative judges seem to be different in the court ’s role in investigating the motivation behind the subpoena. Trump ’s lawyers said the investigations were aimed at investigating the president ’s misconduct, while the House of Representatives said it was seeking potential anti-corruption legislation.
Roberts and conservative justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the two appointees of Trump ’s Supreme Court, seem to be hesitant to speculate about Congress for the second time, while Clarence Thomas (Clarence Judge Thomas and Judge Samuel Alito seem to be skeptical about the motives of the Democratic Party.
“Why shouldn’t we obey the House of Representatives for legislative purposes?” Gosucci asked, suggesting skepticism about one of the president’s arguments.
Wall said allowing the House of Representatives to subpoena would cause the president to “harass” his personal life.
Wall said to the justices: “When you are president, the possibility of harassing and destroying the president is obvious.” “Before the House of Representatives explored the president’s personal life, there weren’t many requirements that explained it in a meaningful way. The law under consideration and why it particularly needs the president ’s documents. The subpoenas here are not even close. “
The third case immediately followed a subpoena related to the massive jury investigation of Trump by the Democrat Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s office, which was issued to Maza Mazars to obtain similar information including tax bills.
The lower courts in Washington and New York ruled on Trump in all three cases.