DOJ: Dems appear to be trying to harass Trump by seeking personal finances

The Justice Department urged a federal appeals court on Tuesday to overturn a ruling requiring President Donald Trump's accounting firm to turn over years' worth of the president's financial records to Congress, suggesting Democrats are attempting to "harass" Trump rather than legislate.

In a 30-page filing submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Justice Department lawyers argued that efforts by congressional Democrats to access Trump's financial information — from accounting firm Mazars USA — were impermissible because they lacked a clear "legislative purpose." It's the first time the Trump administration has waded into the delicate dispute. Trump's personal attorneys previously made similar arguments.

"A congressional demand for the President’s personal records raises the specter that members of the Legislative Branch are impermissibly attempting to interfere with or harass the Head of the Executive Branch, or at least that the subpoena will have that effect, especially given the possibility of a multitude of such subpoenas," DOJ lawyers wrote in a brief signed by Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt, his deputy Hashim Mooppan and attorneys from DOJ's civil division. "This risk requires a commensurately searching evaluation by the Judicial Branch."

The input from the Justice Department is a significant escalation in the confrontation between the Trump administration and House Oversight Committee Democrats investigating whether Trump lied about his assets and net worth — an allegation based in part on testimony provided by his former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen. Democrats say their investigation is aimed at rooting out potential conflicts of interest and corruption, but Trump's personal attorneys — now with the backing of the Justice Department — have claimed it's really an effort to indiscriminately cast about for potential illegal conduct by the president.

Responding to such inquiries, DOJ lawyers wrote, tramples on the separation of powers and unfairly burdens the president.

"Even if Congress does not intend its subpoenas to burden the President, there is a serious risk they will, especially where there are myriad simultaneous inquiries," the attorneys wrote. "Unlike investigations in criminal and civil proceedings, which are confined to discrete controversies and subject to various protective measures, congressional committees may issue successive subpoenas in waves, making far-reaching demands that harry the President and distract his attention."

The Oversight Committee already won the first round of its legal battle with Trump in June: a resounding District Court ruling from Judge Amit Mehta that rejected Trump lawyers' arguments and determined Congress has wide latitude to investigate a president.

“Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a president, before and after taking office,” Mehta wrote. “This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.”

Mehta also rejected the notion that Congress must divine its true intent when it launches an investigation.

It "is not the court’s role to decipher whether Congress’s true purpose in pursuing an investigation is to aid legislation or something more sinister such as exacting political retribution,” wrote Mehta, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

The three-judge appeals court panel seemed sympathetic to Congress' arguments as well, though the one Trump-appointed judge — Neomi Rao — questioned why the full House hadn't voted to endorse the Oversight Committee's investigation. House counsel Douglas Letter argued Rao's question was out of bounds for a court to consider, that the courts have no role in how the House chooses to delegate its power internally. Still, to guard against her concerns, the House passed a resolution last month retroactively approving all Trump-related subpoenas issued by its investigative committees.

During the initial appeals court hearing, Rao also wondered why the Justice Department hadn't been a party to the matter "to protect the office of the president." The court then invited DOJ to submit a brief by Tuesday afternoon.

DOJ lawyers, like Trump's own legal team, argued that this resolution is insufficient to justify the subpoena because it wasn't specific enough about its intent. They also argued, like Trump's lawyers, that the House's inquiries "bear some of the hallmarks" of a law enforcement effort, rather than an effort to craft legislation.

Notably, the Justice Department argues that congressional subpoenas connected to an impeachment process would be permissible without identifying specific legislation — but that the Oversight Committee is not involved in impeachment matters.

"The House’s impeachment power is an express authority whose exercise does not require a connection to valid legislation," DOJ lawyers note. "But the Committee has asserted neither jurisdiction over, nor an objective of pursuing, impeachment, and its counsel expressly disavowed that end."

Article originally published on POLITICO Magazine