To be clear, I have no idea how the current legal battle between Trump and the Democrats in the House will end up, in terms of these subpoenas regarding Trump's personal finances.
I suspect that Congress has both a better standing to subpoena the financial institutions as well as a better chance to garner those records, than they do with their subpoena to the Treasury department to garner Trump's tax returns.
The reason for this would be at least some suggestion from "whistleblowers" that some of Jared Kushner's financial records were flagged as suspicious activity. Of course, that statement sounds worse than it probably is. Banks are obligated to flag a whole range of transactions as "suspicious" based on timing, size, and other generic factors. Those "suspicious" activities are then singled out and looked over to see if the flag found something. By all accounts, a very small percentage of those flagged are actually unlawful. Moreover, if these transactions were a problem, and the bank didn't report them, then they would be on the hook for criminal liability as well. Unlikely any banks would be considering cooperating with Congress if they had criminal liability to hide.
All that being said, the argument could be made that these "suspicious" activities might raise the sorts of questions that would satisfy a Judge who believes that it provides some probable cause to review. The case to demand tax returns is a much murkier one, and the law that Congress is using is dubious at best.
Either way, let's assume that Congress is able to garner all of Trump's financial records, as well as the financial records of all of his close associates (such as Donald Jr, Jared Kushner, and others)... then look what precedent that sets. Everyone and anyone looking to run for President would not only be exposing his or her own financial records for Congressional dissection, but they would be exposing the financial records of anyone close to them as well.
Imagine Joe Biden wins the 2020 election. Knowing what we know about possible conflicts with political decisions made regarding Ukraine (when Biden was V.P.) and business interests of his son and others in Ukraine, there would be the same probable cause for Congress to garner any and all of Joe Biden's records, as well as that of his Son and possibly anyone else loosely associated with any of this. Joe Biden would not only be sacrificing his own right against unreasonable search and seizure, but would be sacrificing the rights to those close to him. Him becoming President puts his own son at risk.
Imagine the decision any person would have to make to run for President, if they knew that they were putting themselves and everyone around them in jeopardy not of just the normal political attacks, but allowing the opposition Party to dig through all of their financial records (and those of their loved ones) to find political fodder to attack.
That would place an overwhelming burden on anyone who would choose to run for President. I suspect that many, many qualified people would shy away from the job if they knew it came with this sort of political probing of everyone around them.
Should becoming President mean you have to give up your constitutional rights?
Because what ever happens to Trump WILL happen to every President moving forward.
15 comments:
Imagine Joe Biden wins the 2020 election. Knowing what we know about possible conflicts with political decisions made regarding Ukraine (when Biden was V.P.) and business interests of his son and others in Ukraine, there would be the same probable cause for Congress to garner any and all of Joe Biden's records, as well as that of his Son and possibly anyone else loosely associated with any of this. Joe Biden would not only be sacrificing his own right against unreasonable search and seizure, but would be sacrificing the rights to those close to him. Him becoming President puts his own son at risk.
You would support the inquiries because you are fucking hypocrit.
Pelosi is facing increasing pressure to start impeachment hearings. She's doing the right thing, by not buying into the President's strategy. He wants the Democrats to hold impeachment hearings.
She's trying to perhaps hold hearings, but not specifically designed impeachment hearings.
The Stonewall strategy is going to get the issue into the courts where even conservatives judges are going to allow the Presidency into becoming a dictatorship.
Scott, impeachment is not a judicial process. The Constitution gives the Congress a wide range of inquiries that don't necessarily require the 4th circuit criteria.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
They don't apply for impeachment inquiries or indictments.
Look at this knuckle headed moron.
"Pelosi is facing increasing pressure to start impeachment hearings. She's doing the right thing, by not buying into the President's strategy. He wants the Democrats to hold impeachment hearings." Alky stupid
Denise posts this dribble:
"lying morally bankrupt leader who wants to be a dictator."
Alky version attacking the Justice System.
"
courts where even conservatives judges are going to allow the Presidency into becoming a dictatorship."
Lol@HBdaily
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
They don't apply for impeachment inquiries or indictments
It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
There are no exceptions to this right. Not sure where you came up with the idea that you can bypass it through an impeachment inquiry or by indicting someone.
Perhaps you can show us the relevant case law that tosses the fourth amendment aside for "indictments" ??
Because it reads an awful lot like you just made this shit up on the fly.
Impeachment is not a criminal investigation. They must testify or face criminal charges. They can plead the 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination, but the President does not have the executive authority to prohibit the testimony.
You need to read Articles 1
You don't understand the Constitution and the separation of powers.
Once again asshole, impeachment is not a criminal investigation, the high crimes and misdemeanors have determined by the Congress.
I saw Lawrence Tribe earlier today, after I had written, that the courts will not support the President and his use of executive authority.
I'm right and you are wrong again.
You are the only one I have seen, using the 4th amendment argument.
Even the President isn't using the 4th
amendment argument to Stonewall the house inquiry on the President. He's used executive authority.
It looks like you pulled it out of your ass.
There is a very definite 4th amendment consideration. As well as a 14th amendment consideration. It is an unreasonable search and seizure and you can't justify it simple because he's president. He doesn't lose his rights when he became president.
Once again asshole, impeachment is not a criminal investigation, the high crimes and misdemeanors have determined by the Congress.
Admitting that it's political, rather than legal... is all the more reason that they should not be allowed to simply take someone's personal information and filter through it.
The fact is that if the actual law enforcement authorities wanted to subpoena Trump's information, they would have to go through a judge and show probable cause that they might find a crime.
I believe that there is "less" standing for politicians to garner financial information to engage in behavior you are arguing is purely political.
You are the only one I have seen, using the 4th amendment argument.
Well Roger,
How many opinions outside of Tribe and Toobin have you read?
You would support the inquiries because you are fucking hypocrit.
The question is:
Would you support them?
You are the one advocating that Congress can garner the financial records of the President, family, and friends with little or no due process?
Not me. Not my argument.
So wouldn't you support every President having their personal records, the personal records of their family, etc... turned over to opposition Party in congress for purely political reasons (as you keep reminding us that this is not legal but political).
Certainly you cannot make any sort of reasonable claim that this should "JUST" happen to Trump and no other Presidents.
Because that would be the definition of a hypocrite.
How many opinions outside of Tribe and Toobin have you read?
Zero
warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
The house of Representatives is issuing subpoenas. All that means is that they must testify under oath. They are not being seized, nor is any property or records being seized.
They can implement their 5th amendment rights. But other than that, their rights are not being violated under their 4th amendment rights.
Your opinion has absolutely no bearings upon their 4th amendment rights.
Roger...
Wow, just wow! Your argument has become so nonsensical at this point it's hardly worth addressing.
I mean seriously, now you believe that a warrant is not needed for information unless that information is going to be physically "seized"? You cannot even technically "seize" most banking records or tax returns because they are electronic. Which according to your logic, would mean that no warrant would ever be necessary if you are just copying electronic information rather than physically seizing it.
But sure, if that is what you believe, than that is what you believe. No fixing stupid.
Post a Comment