- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Judge who ruled Trump accountants must comply with subpoena is an Obama appointee & donor
Posted on 5/21/19 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 5/21/19 at 3:46 pm
LINK
A federal judge ruled Monday that President Donald Trump's longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA LLP, must comply with a subpoena by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee requesting financial documents related to Trump and his businesses. But new information highlighted Monday revealed the ruling judge may have some political bias.
U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, defended the broad authority given to Congress to investigate the president.
Mehta ruled that while "there are limits on Congress's investigative authority ... those limits do not substantially constrain Congress."
Trump's legal team sued in federal court last month to block the subpoena. They argued the subpoena was politically motivated, and therefore, held no legislative purpose. Mehta, however, claimed it was not his job to determine whether or not the subpoena had a political motivation behind it.
"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," Mehta said.
Financial records indicate that Mehta personally donated to Obama's re-election campaign in 2012.
Records show that Mehta donated $1,000 to the Obama/Biden re-election campaign on Sept. 17, 2012, then donated another $1,000 to the same campaign one month later on Oct. 16, 2012.
Trump's legal team filed an appeal Tuesday, sending the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It's not clear when the appeals court will hear the case.
A federal judge ruled Monday that President Donald Trump's longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA LLP, must comply with a subpoena by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee requesting financial documents related to Trump and his businesses. But new information highlighted Monday revealed the ruling judge may have some political bias.
U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, defended the broad authority given to Congress to investigate the president.
Mehta ruled that while "there are limits on Congress's investigative authority ... those limits do not substantially constrain Congress."
Trump's legal team sued in federal court last month to block the subpoena. They argued the subpoena was politically motivated, and therefore, held no legislative purpose. Mehta, however, claimed it was not his job to determine whether or not the subpoena had a political motivation behind it.
"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," Mehta said.
Financial records indicate that Mehta personally donated to Obama's re-election campaign in 2012.
Records show that Mehta donated $1,000 to the Obama/Biden re-election campaign on Sept. 17, 2012, then donated another $1,000 to the same campaign one month later on Oct. 16, 2012.
Trump's legal team filed an appeal Tuesday, sending the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It's not clear when the appeals court will hear the case.
Posted on 5/21/19 at 3:49 pm to Crimson Wraith
quote:
new information
Posted on 5/21/19 at 4:14 pm to Crimson Wraith
quote:
Records show that Mehta donated $1,000 to the Obama/Biden re-election campaign on Sept. 17, 2012, then donated another $1,000 to the same campaign one month later on Oct. 16, 2012.
Standard protocol. They are humans who have political leanings, but to say this is political bias (even though we know it is) based on this is silly.
Posted on 5/21/19 at 4:19 pm to Crimson Wraith
quote:
Mehta ruled that while "there are limits on Congress's investigative authority ... those limits do not substantially constrain Congress."
Posted on 5/21/19 at 4:30 pm to Crimson Wraith
quote:
These are facially valid legislative purposes,
I don’t think reviewing Trump!s tax returns are ‘facially valid legislative purposes’.
If it was, it would be a requirement to run for office.
They want it valid? Pass a law to make tax returns public a requirement to run. Now THATS legislative.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News