SCOTUS Injunction Ruling

PUBLISHED: 1:00 PM 26 Nov 2019
UPDATED: 6:04 PM 26 Nov 2019

SCOTUS Issues Ruling On Emergency Injunction To Block Dem’s Attempt To Force Financial Records

Given the very, very shady of democrat politicians and the cash schemes that are rampant among the career ones, this move is highly partisan and outrageous, many people argue.

The blow to democrats is huge.

Democrats are bound and determined, it appears, to do whatever they can to cast doubt on the Presidency of Donald Trump. And many people argue since they have no imagination, they are simply accusing him of the crimes they have committed and therefore understand.

One of the most recent abuses of power by democrats in congress is the demand that the president’s financial records… for the past eight years… be turned over for democrat inspection.

Eight years… before Donald Trump even considered running for president.

After a lower court agreed with Congress, the president took his claim to the Supreme Court, requesting an emergency injunction. Late last night, SCOTUS agreed to issue it, until President Trump files the case with a lower court.

Now, two things can happen. If a lower court takes the case, the injunction will remain in place, and democrats will be thwarted in their attempted smear job. However, if a lower court does not take the case, the injunction will expire and the president’s firm will be forced to turn over the documents to House democrats.

The Washington Times reported:

“The application for stay of the mandate presented to the Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted,” the order read.

The president’s legal team is protesting a lower court’s ruling, siding with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which issued a subpoena in February for eight years of the president’s tax returns in the House Democrats’ impeachment investigation.

They specifically sought financial records dating back to 2011 from Mazars USA LLP, the accounting firm for the president.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers told the justices a stay of the appeals court decision was necessary so that the justices could review a case of first impression, warning against the implications of the lower court’s move if Mr. Trump has to turn over his personal financial records at this time.

“Given the temptation to dig up dirt on political rivals, intrusive subpoenas into personal lives of presidents will become our new normal in times of divided government — no matter which party is in power. If every committee chairman is going to have this unbounded authority, this court should be the one to say so,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers had argued in court papers.

House Democrats had sought the records to investigate whether the president broke any campaign finance laws.

The probe came after Mr. Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen said porn star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal received money for their silence during the 2016 presidential campaign, signing deals not to come forward with accounts of alleged affairs with the president dating back to 2006.

Of course, Daniels lost big time in court, and the other claim also fizzled.