Although the House panel was granted access to some records from Mazars' accounting firm, it could be seen as a defeat for lawmakers. Mehta's 53 page ruling which examined the need for the information and ruled that the subpoena wasn’t properly tailored for those purposes was 53 pages long.Mehta stated that the committee's efforts to obtain information about Trump's finances from 2011 appeared to be beyond its legitimate needs and threatened presidential power. Mehta specifically dismissed the claims of the panel that it needed this data to determine if Trump had complied with a financial disclosure law and if that law should be amended.The judge was appointed by President Barack Obama. It is easy to see how Congress could threaten or influence the president in the current political climate. A similarly strong subpoena would be issued after the President leaves office to "aggrandize itself at Presidents expense According to the courts, this not-insignificant threat to the institution of presidency outweighs any incremental legislative need by the Committee for the material subpoenaed form Mazars.Mehta was more open to the claims of the committee that it needed access Trump's financial information to determine whether he violated Constitution's emoluments provisions by accepting payments from foreign or state governments. The panel also needed to audit the lease that the General Services Administration granted in 2013 to one Trump's business to build and run the Trump International Hotel at Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington.Judge said that the transactions related to the hotel were more similar to business transactions. He was hardpressed to understand why Trump's ties should be under investigation because he served as president.Mehta stated that Trump had opened himself to scrutiny by the Committee, whose jurisdiction includes the "management of government operations, activities, and Federal procurement." "The fact that he occupied the presidency for a portion of his still-in effect lease does not change this fact.Mehta's Wednesday ruling has already been sent to the Supreme Court. The Justice Department and Trump's lawyers argued that courts can not rule on subpoena disputes between the executive and legislative branches. Last year, however, the justices rejected their arguments. The ruling directed lower courts to examine the Congress's need for the information, and determine if the subpoena met those objectives.Due to Trump's loss, and a parallel grand jury subpoena that was obtained by Manhattan District Attorney's prosecutors, the congressional demand has lost its significance. Eight years worth of tax information were turned over to the Supreme Court in February after the Supreme Court upheld enforcement of the subpoena. This information led to an indictment against the Trump Organization and its Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg for a range of tax and fraud offenses.Both parties have not pleaded guilty.Although the House panel will receive a small subset of the New York prosecutors' records, Mehta's decision would leave the rest open to the public. The committee would have few restrictions on the release of the information. Grand jury secrecy limits public disclosure of records that were turned over in New York, but Congress is not bound by these rules.Judge Trevor McFadden, in a separate case, is considering whether Richard Neal, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee should have access to six years' worth of Trumps returns. Neal claims he requires them to help the committee determine whether the IRS does an adequate job of auditing presidents. This is something the IRS has done for years as a matter policy.Neal cites an obscure law which allows tax committee heads to inspect confidential tax information. Trump's lawyers argue that Neal must have a valid legislative reason to obtain the returns. He doesn't have one, and Democrats want to harm Trump politically.The case is moving at a glacial speed through the court, with preliminary legal wrangling set to drag into November.
