Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.
The United States Supreme Court heard two different cases on a single matter: who may (or may not) have the legal right to access President Donald Trump’s financial and tax records.
The two cases involve investigations at the Congressional level as well as within the state Trump once called his home, New York.
The District Attorney from Manhattan, Cyrus Vance Jr., is seeking to obtain financial statements from Mazars USA, an accounting firm used by Trump in the past, in order to ascertain whether the president acted improperly in allegedly disbursing hush-money payments to two women, adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal, in exchange for their silence prior to and during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, in Congress, House committee heads had sought to subpoena records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One, to view tax and financial records in order to help them in oversight matters.
Trump’s legal teams in both cases are arguing that neither the Manhattan DA nor Congress has the legal right to demand such documents, even though past presidents (such as Richard Nixon with Watergate and Bill Clinton in a sexual harassment lawsuit against him) have had to respond to such legal requests.
On the congressional matter, Trump’s lawyer Patrick Strawbridge was adamant in describing Democrats’ subpoena orders as political rather than for practical purposes.
“These subpoenas are overreaching. They’re an obvious distraction,” he said.
Conservative stalwarts on the bench, like Justice Clarence Thomas, seemed willing to buy into Trump’s lawyers’ arguments, that multiple subpoenas were detrimental to presidents being able to carry out the functions of their jobs.
“At some point, there’s a straw that breaks the camel’s back. At some point, it debilitates the president,” Thomas said.
But other justices appeared to be divided on the matter, with some conservatives on the bench even voicing skepticism over the arguments Trump’s lawyers were making.
Chief Justice John Roberts seemed highly concerned over the High Court overstepping its bounds in a legislative matter, and asked whether it was right for justices to probe “the mental processes” of lawmakers in Congress.
“Should members of House committees be subject to cross-examination on why you were really seeking the documents?” he asked aloud.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, seemed to want to find a balance on the topic.
“How can we both protect the House’s interest in obtaining information it needs to legislate, but also protect the presidency?”
Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal bloc justice of the Court, also worried about future presidencies dealing with congressional committees possibly using subpoena powers for political reasons.
“What I hold today will also apply to a future Senator McCarthy asking a future Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman exactly the same questions. That bothers me,” Breyer said.
Other liberal justice bloc members said it was difficult to see a difference between Trump’s arguments and failed arguments of the past.
“How do you distinguish, say, Whitewater, when President Clinton’s personal records were subpoenaed from his accountant, or even Hillary Clinton’s law firm billing records were subpoenaed?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked.
Even with the thinking of the justices somewhat understood, the final outcome of the cases before the Court on Tuesday could not be ascertained or predicted by most legal experts. Indeed, it’s possible that a mixed outcome could result, in spite of precedents set by rulings during the Nixon and Clinton eras, or that a decision from the Supreme Court could send the matter back to lower courts to uncover more facts, before possibly returning to the justices down the road.
A terrifying moment. We appeal for your support.
In the last weeks, we have witnessed an authoritarian assault on communities in Minnesota and across the nation.
The need for truthful, grassroots reporting is urgent at this cataclysmic historical moment. Yet, Trump-aligned billionaires and other allies have taken over many legacy media outlets — the culmination of a decades-long campaign to place control of the narrative into the hands of the political right.
We refuse to let Trump’s blatant propaganda machine go unchecked. Untethered to corporate ownership or advertisers, Truthout remains fearless in our reporting and our determination to use journalism as a tool for justice.
But we need your help just to fund our basic expenses. Over 80 percent of Truthout’s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors.
Truthout has launched a fundraiser to add 432 new monthly donors in the next 7 days. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger one-time gift, Truthout only works with your support.