THEY’RE BACK!
And so am I.
TODAY IN CONGRESS (C-SPAN TV SCHEDULE) & More:
I am posting the daily C-Span TV schedule, when I can, for those here who may be interested in tuning in to see what Congress is up to. Also, I have provided the results of the previous day’s votes on some significant Bills/Resolutions, when Congress was in session the previous day and an update on the status of numerous Congressional Subpoenas and Impeachment Proceedings.
Here’s today’s schedule with the events I think may be the most interesting in bold. You can watch C-Span HERE. NOTE: Sometimes C-Span posts additional Congressional events not on my list, later in the day.
House:
2:00 pm — House Session (The House returns from its summer recess at 2pm ET for legislative business. Members will consider several energy efficiency bills under suspension of the rules. Votes will take place at 6:30pm.)
Senate:
10:00 am — Senate Homeland Security Committee Hearing on Homeland Security Threats (Former Homeland Security secretaries testify before a Senate Homeland Security Committee field hearing in New York City. The hearing takes place at the National 9/11 Memorial & Museum just ahead of the 18th anniversary of the terrorist attacks.)
3:00 pm — Senate Session (The Senate returns from its August recess. Following leaders remarks, members will resume debate on the nomination of U.S. Ambassador to United Nations Kelly Knight Craft to be U.S. Representative to the sessions of the U.N. General Assembly.)
Yesterday’s Votes: None, of course.
Comments:
Today’s Events –
House — Not much happening today as members trickle in from the long Summer recess.
Senate — The Senate will resume its trend of focusing entirely on Trump nominations and ignoring all the major problems facing the Country today. The Committee Hearing on Homeland Security may be interesting, depending on whether they focus on yesterday’s threat of foreign terrorism or today’s threat of domestic terrorism.
COMMITTEE SUBPOENA WARS & IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS — (New and Important stuff in bold)
Commentary: Before I get started with today’s long list of subpoena and impeachment activity, let me impart a few words on something that is concerning me. We seem to be getting into a situation where Congressional investigators may be suffering from a little ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). By that I mean they seem to be starting new investigations every day, but not completing any they previously started. This is not their fault of course since Trump keeps committing new “alleged” crimes every day that demand investigation. While this may or may not be an intentional tactic on Trump’s part, I am concerned that it may make it difficult for the House to wrap things up and draft Articles of Impeachment when they are always having to investigate a new Trump “alleged” crime. Also, we have a number of Committees investigating an ever increasing number of Trump’s “alleged” crimes, with no one Committee organizing these investigation.
However, we may get this problem at least somewhat resolved this week. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on a motion to lay out specific procedures on how they will conduct their Impeachment Inquiry. I hope that will resolve some of the confusion. Stay Tuned!
Now on with the show.
House Judiciary Committee Barr Subpoena for Unredacted Mueller Report —
Background - Back in May, House Judiciary Chairman Nadler issued a subpoena AG Barr for the full, unredacted Mueller Report and all of the underlying documents. Of course Barr did not hand over any documents in response to this subpoena. So in June, the full House subsequently voted to give Chairman Nadler the power to go to court to enforce the subpoena. Sometime thereafter, Barr allowed Committee members and staff to review some of the underlying documents (i.o e., FBI 302 Reports compiled during the Mueller investigation). He also made an offer to Speaker Pelosi to review a somewhat “less redacted” version of the Mueller Report, which she reportedly has seen. On July 26, the Committee went to Federal Court to get portions of the Mueller Report released to Congress, arguing they need the information in order to decide whether to impeach President Donald Trump. The interesting part of this (to me anyway) is that these Grand Jury transcripts are held by the Judicial Branch of government not just the DoJ. So the courts can decide to release them directly to Congress instead of having to go through Trump’s DoJ.
New Developments — None, waiting for Court proceedings.
House Judiciary Committee McGahn Subpoena —
Background — In April, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to former White House Counsel Don McGahn for both documents and testimony regarding his statements documented in the Mueller Report pertaining to Trump’s attempts at obstruction of justice. Trump directed McGahn to defy the subpoena, which he did. In response, the House voted in June to adopt a resolution granting the House Judiciary Committee authority to take former White House counsel McGahn to federal court to enforce subpoenas. In preparation for the anticipated Court battle, Trump’s DoJ provided a legal opinion stating that, “based on long-standing, bipartisan, and constitutional precedent, the former counsel to the president cannot be forced to give such testimony, and Mr McGahn has been directed to act accordingly”, making the totally fictitious and silly claim that McGahn has “Absolute Immunity” from testifying about any matters he discussed with Trump as WH Counsel. Fictitious since such a claim has never been made before in any court (they pulled it out of thin air), and silly because they previously waived any claim of immunity by allowing McGahn to give Mueller over 30 hours of testimony on his interactions with Trump. On August 7, the Judiciary Committee exercised the power granted to them by the full House and filed a lawsuit to enforce a subpoena against former White House counsel Don McGahn, in a long-awaited effort to secure his testimony and defeat the White House’s efforts to block former top advisers from testifying about their West Wing tenure. Most significantly, the court filing finally resolved the question the Media has been hounding Congressional Democrats on for months, “Is this an Impeachment Inquiry?”
”In a 54-page filing, the committee made clear that it is conducting an impeachment investigation, employing its strongest language to date to suggest that the panel is seriously weighing efforts to recommend Trump’s removal from office.
“McGahn is the Judiciary Committee’s most important fact witness in its consideration of whether to recommend articles of impeachment and its related investigation of misconduct by the president, including acts of obstruction of justice described in the special counsel’s report,” the filing states.”
In pursuit of the McGahn testimony, the Committee sought to have this case heard before the same Federal Judge handling the case of the Grand Jury testimony currently redacted in the Mueller Report, presumably Judge Beryl Howell who has jurisdiction over the Grand Jury testimony. However, on August 14 Federal judge Beryl Howell rejected House Democrats' effort to put two key legal cases the Judiciary Committee is pursuing in its impeachment investigation before the same judge. While this was initially viewed as a setback for the Congressional committee, it appears the Committee may have “lucked out” on the random draw of a Federal Judge for the McGahn case. Judge Beryl Howell’s decision has caused the McGahn case to be randomly assigned to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by President Barack Obama. Jackson has ruled against the Trump administration in prior cases last year, including ruling against the Department of Health and Human Services in June 2018 and striking down executive orders related to federal workers and unions last August. So it appears that Trump’s win in having a separate Judge hear the McGahn case may also be Trump’s loss. Too Bad, So Sad!
New Developments — On August 27, the House Judiciary Committee asked the court to expedite lawsuit seeking Don McGahn's testimony. According to this Salon Report:
“Democrats on the Judiciary panel asked a federal judge in the District of Columbia to grant declaratory and injunctive relief by declaring that McGahn's refusal to comply with the panel's subpoena is "unlawful." They asked the district court judge to "issue an injunction requiring McGahn to appear before the Committee."
"The committee's work here is not only time-sensitive. It is also time-intensive — particularly given the thorough consideration required in determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment — and, critically, time-limited," the court filing reads.
Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler has described McGahn as the committee's "most critical fact witness." He has argued that McGahn's testimony would bolster his panel's investigation and boost public support to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump.”
Stay tuned for the Judges ruling on the Committee’s request. If granted we could see McGahn appear in a Committee Hearing very soon.
House Judiciary Committee Hicks and Donaldson Subpoenas —
Background — On May 22, the Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to both Hope Hicks, the former White House communications director, and Annie Donaldson, former deputy White House counsel under Don McGahn, seeking both documents in their possession and testimony before the Committee. In response, on June 4, the White House instructed the two former aides to defy congressional subpoenas that sought documents related to allegations that President Donald Trump obstructed justice, in yet another act of defiance toward House Democrats’ investigations, making the claim same silly and fictitious claim of “Absolute Immunity” as they did in the McGahn case.
In the case of Hope Hicks, she released a limited number of documents to the Committee in June (presumably pre-cleared by the White House) and appeared before the Committee answering only a few questions and none about her time as WH Communications Director. That’s because the White House Counsel sitting next to her in the Hearing objected to her responding to over 150 questions on the legally very shaky grounds of “Absolute Immunity”, objections that Hicks honored.
With regard to Donaldson, she has struck a deal with the Committee to provide written responses to the Committee’s questions and testify in person in November. The deal is to accommodate the fact that Donaldson is in her third trimester of a pregnancy and is unwilling to travel to D.C. at this time. However, there is no way to tell whether she will answer all the Committee’s questions or succumb to WH objections based on “Absolute Immunity” as happened during the Hick’s testimony. But, so far the White House has blocked even her written response to 200 questions. The 55-page list of responses from Donaldson records 212 separate assertions of the clunky phrase, which appears to demand confidentiality without formally asserting executive privilege.
It appears that Nadler is waiting to use the anticipated favorable outcome in the McGahn case to base a court filing against the White House in both the cases of both Hicks and Donaldson. BTW, Donaldson’s documents are especially important since she reportedly took copious contemporary notes of McGahn’s meetings with Trump that can lend support to McGahn’s past and future testimony.
New Developments — None.
House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas of Sessions, Kushner and Other Trump Staff —
Background — The House Judiciary Committee has voted to authorize Chairman Nadler to issue subpoenas for 12 of former special counsel Robert Mueller's witnesses — including President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, his former deputy Rod Rosenstein, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former chief of staff John Kelly and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.
On August 15, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) subpoenaed former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former White House official Rick Dearborn, marking Democrats’ latest efforts to receive testimony from key figures in the Mueller report. Lewandowski’s response to the subpoena is kind of a mixed bag. He has said that he is fully willing to appear. But he has also said he wants to explain that there was no collusion, there was no obstruction and these are such phoney stories. Furthermore, when he appeared behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee in March it has been reported that he repeatedly swore at Democratic lawmakers to make the point he wasn't going to talk further.
“I'm not answering your "f---ing" question, Lewandowski shouted at one point.”
So while it sounds like Lewandowski will testify on September 17, what he says and doesn’t say is another matter. I’m not optimistic.
New Developments — None
House Judiciary Committee Rob Porter Subpoena —
Background — On August 26, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to former White House staff secretary Rob Porter, a key witness in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s obstruction of justice investigation into President Donald Trump, as the panel weighs whether to recommend articles of impeachment. Porter, who resigned his post last year amid allegations that he abused his two ex-wives, was at the president’s side during several episodes of potential obstruction chronicled in Mueller’s 448-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s attempts to thwart the probe.
So does anyone want to bet on whether this ends up in court? I though not.
New Developments — None.
House Judiciary Committee Homeland Security Subpoena (NEW) —
New Developments — On September 3, House Judiciary Subpoenaed Homeland Security Over Alleged Trump Pardon Promises. According to this
Daily Beast story:
“The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the Department of Homeland Security for materials related to President Trump’s alleged attempts to offer pardons to officials “carrying out his illegal and cruel immigration policies.”
“Trump, according to Nadler, citing media reports, “reportedly discussed” pardoning McAleenan if he proceeded with building a southern border wall despite legal obstacles, or taking action to block illegal immigration by claiming to judges there wasn’t enough capacity to allow them into the country.”
Trump’s crimes just keep piling up with no end in sight.
House Intelligence Committee Subpoena —
Background — Back in May, the House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena to AG Barr for “documents and materials related Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, including all counterintelligence and foreign intelligence materials produced during the Special Counsel’s investigation, the full unredacted report, and the underlying evidence”. Although Barr did not fully comply with the subpoena, he did make a counter offer to the Committee to turn over a limited number of documents. Based on this offer, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) decided to hold off on enforcement action against the Justice Department since it had agreed to turn over documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Schiff said that the department has agreed to turn over 12 categories of counterintelligence and foreign intelligence materials. So we are waiting to see what the Committee will do after it reviews the documents from Barr. We are also waiting to see if the Committee subpoenas FBI Director Wray as Schiff has threatened.
In addition, the infamous Felix Sater (of Trump Moscow Project fame) testified voluntarily before the Intelligence Committee in a Closed Door session. However, members of the Committee were not impressed. A committee spokesman accused Sater of being uncooperative and obstructing the panel’s investigation by withholding documents and testimony in defiance of a subpoena.
“While we do not typically comment on closed interviews, given Mr. Sater’s public comments that he has fully cooperated with the Committee and answered every question asked of him, we must correct the record,” spokesman Patrick Boland said. “Mr. Sater has not fully cooperated with the Committee, and he will remain under subpoena until he does so.””
Also, on June 13, the Committee issued two (2) more subpoenas. According to this CNN Report:
“The House Intelligence Committee on Thursday issued subpoenas to two former Trump officials who pleaded guilty and cooperated in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
The intelligence panel said it had subpoenaed former Trump campaign deputy Rick Gates and former national security adviser Michael Flynn….” “..."As part of our oversight work, the House Intelligence Committee is continuing to examine the deep counterintelligence concerns raised in Special Counsel Mueller's report, and that requires speaking directly with the fact witnesses," Schiff, a Democrat from California, said in a statement. "Both Michael Flynn and Rick Gates were critical witnesses for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, but so far have refused to cooperate fully with Congress."
The subpoenas to Flynn and Gates request they provide documents later this month and appear before the panel on July 10.”
New Developments — None.
House Financial Services Committee and House Intelligence Committee Deutsche Bank and Capital One Subpoenas (Trump’s Banking Records) —
Background — Back in May, the aforementioned Committees issued subpoenas to two banks for Trump’s financial records. However, Trump went to court to try to block the turn over. Then on May 23, a federal judge took a rare step of ruling from the bench and rejected President Trump's effort to block congressional subpoenas seeking his financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One. But the Trump Organization filed an Appeal (of course). The appeals court said it will speedily consider President Donald Trump’s challenge to congressional subpoenas seeking financial records from two banks with which he did business. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued a brief order setting a schedule for written arguments to be submitted by July 18. On July 19, Lawyers for President Donald Trump on Thursday filed a motion the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking to reverse a lower court’s decision denying Trump’s request for a preliminary injunction to prevent Deutsche Bank from releasing financial records to the House Committee on Financial Services. In an argument that has taken aback at least one legal scholar. Trump’s attorneys claim that the Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting any legislation that pertains to a sitting president’s finances. Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and current professor at the Georgetown University Law Center Marty Lederman seemed particularly struck by the claim, calling it “radical” in a series of tweets Friday morning. CRAZY!
On August 23, the Judicial Hearing on Trump’s financial records was held. According to this Reuter's Report:
“”Douglas Letter, a lawyer for the committees, told the court that Congress needed the information to craft new legislation aimed at curbing money laundering and foreign meddling in U.S. affairs.
“We’re investigating massive amounts of Russian money,” he said.
Both sides said during Friday’s hearing that they might be willing to negotiate about the scope of the subpoena, and that they had made such offers before. Letter said he believed Trump’s offer to negotiate was “insincere,” which Strawbridge denied.”
But in a surprise question from the bench...
At the end of the argument, Circuit Judge Jon Newman asked lawyers for Deutsche Bank and Capital One if they have Trump’s tax returns or those of his children.
Raphael Prober, Deutsche Bank’s lawyer, said he could not answer the question in open court because of the bank’s “contractual obligations.”
Capital One’s lawyer, James Murphy, also declined to answer, saying simply, “I prefer not to.”
Both lawyers said they would submit letters to the court responding to the question within 48 hours.
New Developments — On August 27, Deutsche Bank Confirmed to the Court that It Has Tax Returns Requested by Subpoenas for President Trump and Family. According to this TIME story:
“Deutsche Bank AG confirmed that it has tax returns requested by U.S. lawmakers seeking financial information for President Donald Trump and his family. Whose returns are those? That’s still a secret.
The disclosure was made in a letter filed Tuesday by the bank in response to a question from an appeals court last week. The panel is considering a request from Trump to block access to financial records at Deutsche Bank and Capital One Financial Corp. that have been subpoenaed by House Democrats. In a separate letter, Capital One said it ±≠±does not possess any tax returns responsive to the subpoena.”
So if the Judge decides in the Committee’s favor, they could also get some of the Trump family tax returns in addition to other financial records, pending an appeal of course.
House Oversight and Reform Committee Subpoena (Financial Records) —
Background — Way back in April (I think) the House Oversight and Reform Committee issued a subpoena requiring Trump’s former accounting firm (Mazars) to hand over Trump’s financial records. Of course Trump went to Federal Court to block this subpoena and on May 20, Federal Judge Amit Mehta handed down a ruling which stated that Congress was well within their oversight authority in requesting the records and that Mazars must honor the subpoena in 7 days. Of course Trump appealed this ruling. So on July 12 a three-judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals held a Hearing on Trump’s appeal in the Mazar’s case and it didn’t go well for Team Trump. Note — There was an actual voice recording made of this Hearing. C-Span has the Oral Argument HERE. Although the panel expressed significant doubts about Trump’s arguments, they decided to delay issuing a ruling in this case. According to this Law & Crime Report on July 15:
“The D.C. Circuit, though, does not appear to relish the idea of moving forward without some serious input from the DOJ. The court issued an order on its own motion that, “the Department of Justice be invited to file a brief amicus curiae, not to exceed 5,200 words,” by August 5.”
On August 5, according to this Vanity Fair Article on Aug. 7, Trump’s DoJ headed by his own Roy Cohn (AG Barr), weighed in on the Mazars’ case with this:
“The department argued in the court document that the House subpoena amounted to little more than presidential harassment, claiming the subpoena serves no “legitimate legislative purpose.”
Why am I not surprised! As far as I can tell we are still waiting for the Appeals Court decision in this case while they presumably digest the crap they got from Trump’s DoJ.
New Developments — None
House Oversight and Reform Committee Subpoenas of Barr & Ross —
Background — Back in April, the House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross regarding the 2020 census. Chairman Cummings said, “The Committee is trying to determine the real reason Secretary Ross added the citizenship question, and the documents and testimony covered by these subpoenas are critical to answering that question.” Of course both Barr and Ross ignored these subpoenas. So, on June 12, in response to being ignored, the House Oversight Committee voted to recommend to the Full House that Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross be held in Contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas to provide documents and information related to the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Then on July 17, the House passed a Resolution holding both AG Barr and Secretary Wilbur Ross in Contempt of Congress for ignoring Congressional subpoenas requiring them to turn over certain documents related to the Census proposed Citizenship question. Historically, being voted in Criminal Contempt of Congress would be an unthinkable shame. But for Trump’s people who have no shame, it’s NO BIG THING! That is as long as they can get away with it.
Let’s be clear, the Contempt Resolution passed by the House was NOT “Inherent Contempt” that can be enforced directly by the House. The type of contempt passed by the House was basically a referral to DoJ for enforcement. So from The Hill comes this:
“The Department of Justice (DOJ) said Wednesday that federal prosecutors will not prosecute Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross following a House vote to hold the officials in contempt for failing to comply with congressional subpoenas.”
Now why are we all NOT surprised! Did anyone in Congress really think Trump’s DoJ was going to prosecute a Trump cabinet official and their own AG? I would hope not.
New Developments — Nothing has happened since then on these subpoenas. But that is probably because our side won the Court fight over the addition of the Citizenship question to the 2020 census, or more accurately Trump decided to wave the white flag and not further pursue the legal battle to put the question on the census. So the Committee is either quietly ending the contempt fight or at least has put it on the back burner.
House Oversight and Reform Committee Subpoenas of White House Staff Documents —
Background — On July 26, the House Oversight and Reform Committee voted to authorize subpoenas for senior White House officials’ communications via private email accounts and messaging applications. On a party-line vote, the committee authorized Cummings to subpoena all communications sent or received since President Donald Trump took office that were not forwarded to official email accounts within 20 days, as required by law. Cummings can also subpoena information about whether those messages contained classified information.
There should be a treasure trove of incriminating stuff in these White House records. So Trump lawyers will once again fight these subpoenas on the claim of “Absolute Immunity” and eventually lose in court. Patience All!
New Developments — None, still waiting to see if Cummings issues subpoenas.
House Ways & Means Committee Subpoena (Trump’s Tax Returns) —
Background — The Committee is in the process of enforcing its subpoena against Mnuchin and the IRS. However, in anticipation of the legal battle ahead DoJ has now filed a legal opinion with respect to Trump’s taxes. In it “the DOJ acknowledged that a plain-language reading of Section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code required compliance and an obligation on the part of the IRS to turn over the requested tax returns — but then the DOJ divined and opined that Chairman Neal’s request had no legislative justification and was a pretextual means to a public disclosure end result that was ultimately motivated by politics.” So they acknowledge Democrats have a strong case via a plain reading of the law, but they can’t have Trump’s tax returns because the DoJ feels the Democrats have illicit motives. Yeah, that will fly in Court when a pig flys.
But with regard to Trump’s NYS Tax Returns, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Monday signed a bill that would allow certain members of Congress to access President Donald Trump's New York state tax returns.
However, House Ways & Means Committee Chairman McNeal has said he does not expect to request Trump’s State taxes since he fears it weakens his case to obtain Trump’s Federal Taxes. It’s Complicated! However, the Committee did file a lawsuit in Federal Court on July 2 against both Mnuchin and IRS Director Rettig. Let’s hope the Courts see the urgency of these matters.
On July 23, Trump went on offense by firing a retaliatory strike. He filed suit in Federal Court to block the release of both his Federal and State tax returns to the House Ways & Means Committee and to the NYS AG. According to this report from
Intelligencer:
“President Trump has filed suit to prevent the handover of his tax returns. The lawsuit is not good. Reading over the document, it is astonishing to believe its authors attended law school. It should be written in crayon.
The Trump legal team advances three broad legal arguments. (Though both the terms “legal” and “arguments” have to be defined loosely.) First, the brief argues that Democrats are biased and hate Trump:
Plaintiff Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the United States. He is a member of the Republican Party. President Trump brings this suit in his individual capacity as a private citizen.
Defendant Committee on Ways and Means is a standing committee of the United States House of Representatives. Representative Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts) is its chair. Both the House and the Committee are currently controlled by the Democratic Party.
Defendant Letitia James is the Attorney General of the State of New York. She is a member of the Democratic Party.
An amazing amount of legal arrogance on Trump’s part. Just another example that this is all not about stopping anything, its all about delaying the inevitable for as long as possible using totally baseless lawsuits.
Some possibly unscrupulous dealings have been revealed involving Trump’s tax returns. On this Rachel Maddow Show and according to this report from Salon.com:
“A federal employee turned over “credible” evidence to House Democrats of possible “inappropriate efforts to influence” the IRS presidential audit process, House lawyers said in a court filing Tuesday.
In July, House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., sued Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin after the latter rejected the panel’s request for six years of Trump’s tax returns. On Tuesday, House lawyers cited the new evidence in a motion asking a federal judge to rule without trial that the Treasury Department is required by law to turn over the president’s tax returns.
The motion included a letter from Neal to Mnuchin revealing that the committee in July received an “unsolicited communication” from a federal employee “setting forth credible allegations of ‘evidence of possible misconduct’ — specifically, potential ‘inappropriate efforts to influence’ the mandatory audit program,” Politico reported.”
Also, a reminder that as mentioned above, the fact that Deutsche Bank has some of Trump’s returns may provide Congress a back door way of getting these returns.
New Developments — On September 6, Trump lawyers asked the judge to dismiss suit for president's tax returns. According to this POLITICO Report:
”President Donald Trump’s lawyers asked a federal judge Friday to dismiss House Democrats’ lawsuit seeking to force him to turn over his federal tax returns.
In a filing this evening, they argued the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over the matter, contending the dispute ought to be settled between Congress and the White House.
“The court should refrain from adjudicating this dispute so the parties can undertake this process of negotiation and mutual accommodation through which the elected branches for more than 200 years have resolved their recurrent disputes over access to information,” they said.
“The exertion of federal judicial power to declare victors in interbranch disputes of this nature would be inconsistent with the limits of [the Constitution's] Article III and the separation-of-powers principles that inform them.”
The move comes after the judge hearing the case, Trevor McFadden, last week rejected House Democrats’ bid to fast track their suit.”
Looks like this route to Trump’s taxes may be a long one.