Obama Judge Supports Democrats’ Subpoena for Trump’s Financial Records

There is nothing in the Constitution nor is there any federal law that requires a presidential candidate or sitting president to reveal his personal financial records or tax returns.

However, there are state and federal requirements that all political candidates provide evidence of their eligibility to run for or hold the office they are running for.

Barack Obama never did provide verifiable evidence of his eligibility to run for the White House and Democrats fully supported his election violations.

Yet, the same Democrats are now acting that it is a constitutional requirement that a president divulge his personal financial records.

Trending: Emails Prove Obama’s State Department Involved in Anti-Trump Coup

And to no surprise, when Democrats subpoenaed Trump for his financial records, an Obama appointed judge upheld the subpoena.

Fox News – Federal judge sides with House Democrats over subpoena for Trump’s financial records – A Washington, D.C.-based federal judge has sided with House Oversight Committee Democrats seeking to enforce their subpoena of Trump accounting firm Mazars USA, in a major ruling that breathes new life into Democrats’ ongoing efforts to probe the president’s financial dealings.

The subpoena seeks access to a slew of Trump financial documents dating back to 2011, including personal records and records of various affiliated business and entities. Democrats pursued the subpoena after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress in February that the president’s accountants routinely and improperly altered his financial statements — including some signed by Mazars — to misrepresent his assets and liabilities.

Barack Obama-appointed judge Amit P. Mehta’s 41-page opinion began by comparing President Trump’s concerns about congressional overreach to those of President James Buchanan, asserting that Trump “has taken up the fight of his predecessor.” …

Trump’s legal team is already planning to appeal Mehta’s ruling.

They should be counting on the fact that there is no law that requires Trump to divulge his personal information.

Chances are, this will go all the way to the Supreme Court, who, at this point in time, may or may not rule in Trump’s favor, as we know that there are 4 votes against him to begin with and there is no telling how Chief Roberts will vote.




The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.