Posted on May 13 2019
Congressional Subpoenas update...
Spicy found something -interesting-
In the Contempt Of Congress Entry, I attempted to give you an informative, substantive and well sourced discussion on what remedies are available to the US House Of Representatives. Specially Congressional Subpoenas. As previously discussed, there are several case law examples and set forth by previous SCOTUS rulings.
Furthermore last year’s HPSCI Subpoena regarding bank records of Fusion GPS, specifically the transactional action that helped fund the now infamous Dossier. where Judge Leon ruled in favor of then HPSCI Chairman Nunes) and affirmed Congress’ coequal branch of Government & constitutionally mandated oversight, over the Executive Branch.
As previously discussed in Trump v Deutsche Bank the Judicial Branch ruled that the HPSCI subpoena was duly authorized and permissible. The irony is Devin Nunes’ 2018 Subpoena provided the 116th Congress with a “fresh” and almost identical scenario. By now you should know that it’s pretty much SOP for me to take the extra step of providing you with Open Source Court filings as well as highlighted (sometimes über snarky) commentary.
I’m president, so screw your subpoenas
What you may have overlooked on May 3, 2019 the Court granted the U.S. House of Representatives request to intervene. Not that this really matters, I do find it odd that (former) Attorney General Mukasey is in fact using an email address that belongs to Greenberg Traurig (gtlaw)
motion of the proposed intervenor-defendants Committee on Financial Services and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives (Committees) is GRANTED.
Deutsche Bank Response’s
Late on May 10th Deutsche Bank filed the following response:
Deutsche Bank takes no position with respect to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, nor on the legal issues raised by Plaintiffs and Intervenor-Defendants in connection therewith. (emphasis added)
Capital One’s response:
Unsurprisingly Capital One’s response echoes Deutsche Bank but I found the following sentence rather telling. Here the bank acknowledges the “compel” factor and that the Bank is the “owner” of the documents. Hence why I took the time to source the two SCOTUS rulings and explicitly pointed you in the direction of what SCOTUS held as it relates to who “owns” the records.
🚨spoiler alert, it’s not Trump who owns Capital One (or any financial institution he does business with) those records are the property of the Financial Institution)
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Committees from enforcing subpoenas that were issued. The subpoena issued to Capital One, by its terms, compels Capital One to produce certain documents in its possession. Although Capital One is the recipient of a subpoena issued by the Committee on Financial Services, the dispute in this action is between Plaintiffs and the Committees. Accordingly, Capital One takes no position on the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Always READ the Exhibits
Also late on May 10, 2019 the Defendant-Intervenors, filed a 70 page brief in response to Trump et al’s Opposition to the Congressional Subpoenas. The reality is Trump et al continue to obfuscate and stonewall. Congress’ Constitutional power as defined in Article I, as further explained on pages 1 & 2, which reads in part:
Congress’s power to conduct oversight and investigations is firmly rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and is an essential component of Congress’s Article I legislative authority. The Supreme Court has emphasized that “the power to investigate is inherent in the power to make laws because a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change.”
The “fake news/narrative” perpetuated by Trump and his sycophants that “there isn’t a legitimate legislative purpose” is subterfuge. See previous Deutsche Bank entries found here. The Intervenors correctly argue the House’s Financial Services Committee’s role of holding financial institutions accountable. Particularly in terms of Money Laundering...
...Deutsche Bank’s programs are adequate to prevent the types of activities that led regulators to fine the bank for its role in facilitating a $10 billion so-called “mirror trading” scheme involving its Moscow, New York, and London offices and its reported role as a conduit for the laundering of over $20 billion in rubles out of Russia...
Chairwoman Waters has noted, “real estate is frequently used to launder dirty money. Bad actors like Russian oligarchs and kleptocrats often use anonymous shell companies and all-cash schemes to buy and sell commercial and residential real estate to hide and clean their money. Today, these all-cash schemes are exempt from the Bank Secrecy Act.”
With respect to the “valid legislative purpose” in my opinion the House makes numerous valid arguments both in terms of National Security, Election Security...see complete list of “legislation” recited in the House’s May 10th filing:
H.R. 2424, 116th Cong. (2019) requiring federal campaign officials to
notify law enforcement if offered assistance by agents of another government and to report all meetings with foreign agents.
H.R. 1671 116th Cong. (2019) - requiring intelligence assessment of Russian intentions relating to NATO and Western allies;
H.R. 1474, 116th Cong. (2019) requiring intelligence threat assessment prior to every federal general election;
H.R. 1, 116th Cong. (2019) - improving election security and oversight and providing for national strategy and enforcement to combat foreign interference.
Whoa. There. Hold on Cowpoke. You mean that I might have been right ( April 30th entry) when I previously explained how the Courts, specifically SCOTUS held that Congressional Subpoenas greatly assist both in terms of legislatively and oversight. It is enshrined in the Constitution, irrespective of what Trump wants to argue. And that last year, when Nunes issued a Congressional Subpoena to Fusion GPS’ (aka Bean) Bank might have been a reasonable conclusion (on my end) of the challenges Trump’s lawsuit would face.
<insert rolling eye emoji because I’m so sick of the stupor also known as Twitter>
Golly. Gee...it’s almost like I might have known what to expect and which cases would in fact support Congress’ argument as it relates to their subpoenas. Because it’s not that hard to figure out.
See Exhibit A - HPSCI Deutsche Bank Subpoena granted there are multiple redactions but the request for certain Deutsche Bank Employees and records in their possession is, in a word: intriguing. It’s also worth noting that the HPSCI subpoena is incredibly robust both in scope and timeframe of requested documents:
The time period applicable to this subpoena is January 1, 2010 through the present, except for Items 1(i) and 6(1), for which there is no time limitation...any document related to any domestic or international transfer of funds in the amount of $10,000 or more, including, but not limited to, any wire transfer, check, cash letter,
cashier's check, book entry transfer, or other such documents showing the originator, beneficiary, source of funds, and destination of such transfer, including whether any party to such transfer was a foreign individual, entity, or government
Granted there is a persistent and frankly a completely unfounded rumor that former SCOTUS Justice Kennedy’s son approved numerous Deutsche Bank loans for Trump and/or his businesses and/or for his family. I do not understand why this rumor persists.
I’ve spent countless hours reading various state lawsuits in New York, Illinois, Florida, New Jersey, Virginia and the District of Columbia along with each of the Trump owner property tax records. NOTHING and I mean NOTHING in these thousands of pages (court filings, tax records, mortgages etc) would suggest that Kennedy’s son was personally or tangentially involved in Trump-Deutsche Bank related matters.
Whereas the House Financial Services Capital One Subpoena, appears to be far narrower than the HPSCI subpoena. Meaning Chairwoman Waters seeks to obtain financial records for the “time period applicable to this subpoena is July 19, 2016 through the present and limits records to Trump’s businesses.
I will admit, I’m disappointed that neither House Committee subpoenaed Wells Fargo, Citibank or JP Morgan but what I’m most interested in can be found in Donald J Trump’s “so called” Financial Disclosures.
See his 2016 filing specifically page 57, line item # 5
The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company
Fifty-Seventh Street Associates LLC (Trump entity)
Mortgage range of $5m to $25M
LIBOR + 1.75% or Prime minus .75% LIBOR + 1.75% or Prime minus .75%
Now compare Trump’s 2017 Financial Disclosure (page 50, found here), the property hadn’t changed so how did Trump’s $5million to $25million “liability” DECREASE that much from 2016 to 2017. This isn’t me being hyperbolic this is me looking at Trump’s own financial disclosures and noticing what appears to be a unusual financial anomaly. GET IT???
Trump’s 2018 Financial Disclosure, (page 49 respectively), states the 2017 entry was:
Prior year's report reflected a scrivener's error of $500,000 - $1,000,000. Value range should have been shown as $1,000,000 - $5,000,000.
Yet that still does NOT explain how his 2016 Financial Disclosure indicates a >$5M to $25M “loan/liability” on aforementioned property. For the life of me, I do not understand why Congress isn’t zeroing in on Trump’s Financial Disclosure. It took me about 22 minutes to find this peculiar and interesting deviation. This isn’t me rendering an opinion, this is me taking the time to read the Court filings and other publicly available DOCUMENTS.
It’s not like I didn’t give you step by step of how to use PUBLIC databases to find some of Trump’s financial information. Oh wait, yes I did but no those twitter threads are gone...but the blog remains (for now).
At any rate one has to wonder why no one caught this or why aren’t people asking questions about this financial anomaly. Later tonight I’ll cover one other option that Congress has elected to use against Executive Branch Employees who are refusing to comply with various Congressional Investigations and Subpoenas...Spicy Tip - it’s a little unknown PUBLIC LAW that grants Congress the power to withhold said salaries and yes of course I have the GAO, CRS, OIG and GSA & HUD legal opinions but I need a few more hours to read through all of the filings to synthesize into understandable nuggets. At any rate catch you on the flip side in a few hours.
While you're here, throw us a bone.
Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.
Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.