White House: Supreme Court Ruling Rebuked Congressional Fishing Expeditions

|
|
Posted: Jul 09, 2020 3:55 PM
White House: Supreme Court Ruling Rebuked Congressional Fishing Expeditions

Source: (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The White House is officially reacting to the Supreme Court decision released Thursday, Trump v. Mazars, which sent the issue of releasing President Trump's tax returns back to a lower court. 

"President Trump is gratified by today’s decision by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Mazars.  As the Court made clear, the limited authority of Congress to conduct fact-finding through subpoenas must be used in aid of Congress’ authority to legislate and must be tied to a valid legislative purpose.  Congress may not act as a roving investigative body, especially against a co-equal branch of government," Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany released in a statement. 

"Last year, Democrat-run House committees subpoenaed President Trump’s financial records in an effort to gain partisan advantage in the upcoming presidential campaign.  Their claim that the financial records could serve as 'a useful case study' to learn about 'unsafe lending practices' and 'money laundering' was plainly disingenuous.  The Supreme Court saw through these transparent smoke-screens, with all nine Justices declaring that more is required to establish a valid legislative purpose than the mere say-so of partisan committee chairmen," she continued. "By recognizing, yet again, that the job of Congress is to legislate—and not to grandstand, harass, or seek to embarrass its political opponents—the Supreme Court has reinforced the separation of powers that our Framers established as an essential bulwark of individual liberty."

In the majority opinion for the case, Congress was rebuked for overstepping. 

"The House’s approach would leave essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President’s personal records. A limitless subpoena power could transform the established practice of the political branches and allow Congress to aggrandize itself at the President’s expense," the opinion states. 

Recommended
Treason… There, Somebody Said It.
Kevin McCullough

McEnany also addressed the second opinion released today, which was also sent back to the lower courts.  

"In the accompanying decision in Trump v. Vance, the Court also protected the President’s financial records from intrusive subpoenas from a partisan district attorney. As the Court determined, the New York district attorney has not yet established his ability to secure access to those records.  Instead, further proceedings are required in the lower court in which the President can raise additional arguments, including constitutional protections, against this frivolous and politically motivated subpoena," she said. "President Trump remains committed to fulfilling his promises to the American people despite any harassment or distractions his political opponents try to use to impede him."