Supreme Court Deals Impeachment Psychos Serious Setback – Signals Intention to Rule Hands Off Trump’s Tax Returns

Chief Justice John Roberts has upheld a ruling by a lower court blocking House Democrats from gaining access to President Trump’s tax returns pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari:

“The issuance of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, case No. 19-1542, is stayed…”

The House case has serious defects that will be exploited during oral arguments.  

Perhaps the most glaring defect for a layperson to understand, is that the House has failed to establish an underlying crime to justify such an egregious violation of President Trump’s Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure.

“… no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause… ”

There are a number of other defects that attorney Ristvan posted online:

House Oversight is one of three committees that 26USC§6103(f) requires the IRS to turn over individual returns upon request. They requested (PDJT for 6 years 2013-2018) long before Pelosi announced her impeachment inquiry, way before the House vote on same, to which Pelosi said Sunday, (paraphrased) “We haven’t decided to impeach. We are only inquiring about it.’

The ‘upon request’ is not as absolute as it seems. The request must still be predicated on a legitimate legislative purpose. SCOTUS has held (I skip the rulings, since previously commented on here many months ago) that there are only two valid purposes, both constrained to legislative powers expressly granted by A1§8.

  1. An inquiry into making, repealing, or amending an A1§8 law.
  2. Oversight of executive administration of an existing law.

With respect to (1), a legitimate legislative purpose would be reviewing real estate tax law for possible changes. BUT then, the request should have come from Ways and Means (Neal) where tax laws originate. AND, it should have included requests for tax returns from other big real estate developers also. Singling out only PDJT is a fatal defect to this purpose.

With respect to (2), after Nixon/Agnew the tax code was amended to require a special IRS audit of annual POTUS and VPOTUS returns, with the results held in the National Archive. Reviewing those special audits by IRS would be a proper Oversight and Reform legislative purpose, BUT ONLY for 2017-2018 after PDJT was inaugurated. The earlier 4 years demanded are a fatal defect to this purpose.

Both these valid points were raised by PDJT and were already on their way to SCOTUS. Now the committee is trying to ‘cure’ these fatal request defects by claiming the returns are necessary for impeachment. This raises four new issues where PDJT can also win.

  1. Impeachment is not a legislative purpose within A1§8.
  2. Articles of Impeachment have historically been the province of Judiciary, NOT Oversight.
  3. The demand was made BEFORE the impeachment inquiry unofficially started and cannot be retrospectively cured.
  4. No tax ‘high crimes of misdemeanors’ have even been alleged. Impeachment fishing expeditions are unconstitutional.

IMO this case has the potential to set a major constitutional precedent about POTUS harassment via political impeachment. The constitutional convention minutes and Federalist #65 both make it clear why ‘maladministration’ (the original third test after treason and bribery, and which WOULD allow for political impeachment) was replaced by ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’. The phrase was borrowed from prior British law, has a specific set of meanings, and DOES NOT allow political impeachment.

SCOTUS should take the case on an expedited basis and use it to break the backs of Pelosi and Schiff over political impeachment. Another great MAGA gift from PDJT.