Sr. Newsweek writer Kurt Eichenwald joins Chris Matthews to discuss his new report about how Donald Trump’s companies have destroyed or hidden thousands of emails and documents. </s> Donald Trump's History of Shredding Documents and Destroying Emails When He's Under Subpoena Is Shocking

Today Newsweek published an explosive story about Donald Trump's legal dealings—or at least it should be explosive, because it shows what a hypocrite he is on Hillary Clinton deleting 33,000 personal emails. But explosive stories about Trump's legal dealings never really explode. Have you noticed that? The Trump Foundation? Not paying taxes? Not releasing tax returns? Being sued by the Justice Department? Somehow none of those stories stick, not the way that "grab 'em by the pussy" stuck.

Or at least it ought to be shocking.

The first example is the Justice Department lawsuit in the early 1970s. In that case, "the Trumps ignored the government’s discovery demands, even though court procedure in a civil or criminal case requires each side to produce relevant documents in a timely manner." The Trumps stonewalled, delayed, and refused to hand over anything.

Finally, under subpoena, Trump appeared for a short deposition. When asked about the missing documents, he made a shocking admission: The Trumps had been destroying their corporate records for the previous six months and had no document-retention program. They had conducted no inspections to determine which files might have been sought in the discovery requests or might otherwise be related to the case. Instead, in order to “save space,” Trump testified, officials with his company had been tossing documents into the shredder and garbage.

The reason this is shocking is because Trump goes around saying that Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting a subpoena and that if she did that in the private sector she would be in jail. He even said that at debates—here's one example (start at the 3:16 mark):

So this is one more example of Trump the master projectionist: Whatever he accuses his opponent of is typically something he does himself.

The Newsweek story has a number of other examples, too, some more recent. It's worth a read.

Meanwhile, Clinton's email saga has been blowing up in a weird new way since Friday's strange move by FBI director James Comey. That day, it seemed as if Clinton might be in new trouble for not turning over emails. Then, on Saturday, it was clear that none of the emails Comey was referencing were to or from Clinton.

Yesterday, Eric Holder published an editorial in the Washington Post saying that Comey had seriously screwed up:

Holder went on to say:

Quick interruption here to show you how some journalists are responding to the "not commenting on ongoing investigations" part of this:

Also over the weekend, Richard W. Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007, "filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics," about Comey's perceived intrusion into the presidential race. In an op-ed for the New York Times, Painter wrote:

The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election. Such acts could also be prohibited under the Hatch Act, which bars the use of an official position to influence an election. That is why the F.B.I. presumably would keep those aspects of an investigation confidential until after the election. The usual penalty for a violation is termination of federal employment.

In case you're not familiar, the Hatch Act "is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch, from engaging in some forms of political activity."

And who's Painter supporting for president? In case you're interested in his biases, he discloses them. Get out your sad trombone: "I have supported Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton for president, in that order."

For what it's worth, President Obama is trying to throw some water on this Comey business:

And Clinton? What does she have to say today about all of the above? </s> Over the course of decades, Donald Trump's companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders. These tactics—exposed by a Newsweek review of thousands of pages of court filings, judicial orders and affidavits from an array of court cases—have enraged judges, prosecutors, opposing lawyers and the many ordinary citizens entangled in litigation with Trump. In each instance, Trump and entities he controlled also erected numerous hurdles that made lawsuits drag on for years, forcing courtroom opponents to spend huge sums of money in legal fees as they struggled—sometimes in vain—to obtain records.

This behavior is of particular import given Trump's frequent condemnations of Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent, for having deleted more than 30,000 emails from a server she used during her time as secretary of state. While Clinton and her lawyers have said all of those emails were personal, Trump has suggested repeatedly on the campaign trail that they were government documents Clinton was trying to hide and that destroying them constituted a crime. The allegation—which the FBI concluded was not supported by any evidence—is a crowd-pleaser at Trump rallies, often greeted by supporters chanting, "Lock her up!"

Trump's use of deception and untruthful affidavits, as well as the hiding or improper destruction of documents, dates back to at least 1973, when the Republican nominee, his father and their real estate company battled the federal government over civil charges that they refused to rent apartments to African-Americans. The Trump strategy was simple: deny, impede and delay, while destroying documents the court had ordered them to hand over.

Shortly after the government filed its case in October, Trump attacked: He falsely declared to reporters that the feds had no evidence he and his father discriminated against minorities, but instead were attempting to force them to lease to welfare recipients who couldn't pay their rent.

The family's attempts to slow down the federal case were at times nonsensical. Trump submitted an affidavit contending that the government had engaged in some unspecified wrongdoing by releasing statements to the press on the day it brought the case without first having any "formal communications" with him; he contended that he'd learned of the complaint only while listening to his car radio that morning. But Trump's sworn statement was a lie. Court records show that the government had filed its complaint at 10 a.m. and phoned him almost immediately afterward. The government later notified the media with a press release.

Prosecutors responded to Trump's affidavit by showing he had fudged his claim by using the term "formal communication"—an acknowledgment, they said, that he had received what only he would characterize as an informal notification—which they described as an intentional effort to mislead the court and the public. But the allegation slowed the case; it required government lawyers to appear in court to shoot down Trump's false charge.

The Trumps had more delaying tactics. Trump announced in a press conference that his family and their company were bringing a $100 million countersuit against the government for libel; anonymous tenants and community leaders, he said, had been calling and writing letters expressing shock at the government's "outrageous lies." Once again, motions, replies and hearings followed. Once again, the court threw out the Trump allegations.

For months, the Trumps ignored the government's discovery demands, even though court procedure in a civil or criminal case requires each side to produce relevant documents in a timely manner. This allows for the plaintiffs or prosecutors to develop more evidence in support of their claims, as well as for the defense to gather proof to fight the case against them. When litigation is filed or even contemplated, scrupulous lawyers and corporations immediately impose document-retention programs or require that any shredding or disposing of records be halted. Courts have handed down severe sanctions or even criminal charges of obstruction of justice against executives and companies that destroyed records because they knew they were going to be sued.

Yet when the government filed its standard discovery requests, the Trumps reacted as though seeking that information was outrageous. They argued in court that prosecutors had no case and wanted to riffle through corporate files on a fishing expedition. Once again, this led to more delays, more replies, more hearings...and another specious argument thrown out of court.

Six months after the original filing, the case was nowhere because the Trumps had repeatedly ignored the deadlines to produce records and answers to questions, known as interrogatories. When a government attorney finally telephoned a Trump lawyer to find out why, he was told the Trumps had not even begun preparing their answers and had no plans to do so. The Trumps also postponed and blocked depositions, refused to provide a description of their records, as required, and would not turn over any documents.

Finally, under subpoena, Trump appeared for a short deposition. When asked about the missing documents, he made a shocking admission: The Trumps had been destroying their corporate records for the previous six months and had no document-retention program. They had conducted no inspections to determine which files might have been sought in the discovery requests or might otherwise be related to the case. Instead, in order to "save space," Trump testified, officials with his company had been tossing documents into the shredder and garbage.

The government dashed to court, seeking sanctions against the Trumps. Prosecutors asked the judge to allow them to search through the corporate files or simply declare the Trumps in default and enter a judgment against them. The judge opted to allow the government access to the company offices so they could find the records themselves.

In three letters and three phone calls, the government notified the Trumps that this inspection would take place on June 12, 1974. When they arrived at the Trump offices, Trump was there, but he and everyone else were "surprised" that prosecutors had come and refused to allow them access to documents without their defense lawyers present. A prosecutor called those lawyers, but they were not in their offices. The frustrated prosecutors then gave up and headed back to court.

The Trump strategy was simple: deny, impede and delay, while destroying documents the court had ordered them to hand over.

They were then hit with a new delaying tactic. The Trumps submitted a filing based on statements by Trump that radically misrepresented what had occurred that day. He claimed a prosecutor, Donna Goldstein, had arrived at the company without notifying the Trumps' counsel, refused to telephone their lawyer and demanded access to Trump's office. The prosecutor—accompanied, the Trumps claimed, by five "stormtroopers"—then banged on doors throughout the office, insisting she and her team be allowed to "swarm haphazardly through all the Trump files and to totally disrupt their daily business routine."

At the same time, in a move that caused another huge delay, the Trumps claimed that Goldstein had been threatening Trump employees who were potential witnesses. In several instances, the employees signed affidavits stating they had been subjected to abuse by Goldstein, then denied it when they were forced to testify. Even one of the government's key witnesses, Thomas Miranda—who told the government the Trumps instructed managers to flag applications from minorities and that he was afraid the family would physically harm him—suddenly announced that prosecutors had threatened him and that he had never provided any evidence against the Trumps.

These allegations of misconduct, which demanded sanctions against the government for abusing its power, required more hearings. Once again, the Trump claims went nowhere.

In June 1975, more than 18 months after the government filed the case and with the Trumps still withholding potentially relevant records, the two sides struck a settlement. The agreement—which, like all civil settlements, did not contain an admission of guilt—compelled the Trumps to comply with federal housing regulations against discrimination, adopt specific policies to advance that goal, to notify the community that apartments would be rented to anyone, regardless of race, and meet other requirements.

The Trumps ignored these requirements and still refused to rent apartments to minorities, something the government proved by sending African-Americans and non-Hispanic Caucasians to pose as applicants. The government brought another complaint against the Trumps in 1978, who then agreed to a new settlement.

In that case, the government had the financial wherewithal to fight back against abuses of the courts and the discovery process by the Trump family. But many private litigants, who have to spend their own money and hire their own lawyers, have been ground down by Trump's litigation-as-warfare-without-rules approach.

Courts are loath to impose sanctions when litigants fail to comply with discovery demands; in order to hurry cases along, judges frequently issue new orders setting deadlines and requirements on parties that fail to produce documents. But Trump and his companies did get sanctioned for lying about the existence of a crucial document to avoid losing a suit.

In 2009, a group of plaintiffs claimed Trump duped them into buying apartments in a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, development by portraying it as one of his projects. The fine print of the dense and legalistic purchase contracts, however, revealed that Trump had agreed only to license his name to the developers, and when the project hit financial snags, he walked away from it.

In their initial disclosures in 2011, Trump and his company said they had no insurance to cover any of their liability in this case. That was important because an insurance policy lets the plaintiffs calculate how much money a defendant can pay in a settlement without suffering any direct financial consequences. In other words, that insurance lets the plaintiff know how aggressively to pursue a settlement, knowing the defendant will have some losses covered by the policy.

At the time, a settlement in the then-prominent case could have been disastrous for Trump; he faced an array of similar lawsuits because he had licensed his name to developers around the world for projects that later collapsed. In each case, Trump had marketed the developments as his own, a claim contradicted by the sales contracts. A settlement in any of these cases might have encouraged other people who had lost deposits in a Trump-marketed development to file lawsuits against him.

Two years after denying that Trump had insurance that could have been used to settle the Fort Lauderdale litigation, one of his lawyers made a startling admission: Trump and his company had been insured all along for up to $5 million. But no more—the policy had recently "dried up," the lawyer said. Stunned, the apartment buyers filed a motion seeking sanctions against Trump and his company, arguing that the case "may very well have settled long ago had the plaintiffs been provided with the policy in a timely manner," according to a court filing.

Alan Garten, General Counsel at the Trump Organization for the past decade, said that at the time of the original disclosure, the company's lawyers did not believe that the policy covered any potential liability in the lawsuit, which he said was an error on his part. "This solely fell on me, and if anyone is to blame for that, it's me,'' he said. "It was completely an innocent oversight. And it was my innocent oversight.'' Garten said the other cases in this article preceded his time at the company and he did not know the facts surrounding them. In the Ft. Lauderdale case, Federal Judge Kathleen Williams ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered Trump to pay limited legal fees for failing to disclose the policy, then held in reserve the possibility of imposing additional sanctions. The case subsequently settled.

Perhaps the worst legal case involving Trump and his companies hiding and destroying emails and other records involved real estate developer Cordish Cos., which, through an affiliate called Power Plant Entertainment LLC, built two American Indian casinos in Florida. In January 2005, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts sued in a state court almost immediately after the opening of the casinos, which both operate under the Hard Rock brand. In his lawsuit, Trump claimed that the companies had unlawfully conspired with one of his former associates to cheat him out of the deal; he argued that the projects should be turned over to him.

Negotiations with the tribe and construction of the casinos had taken many years, raising the possibility that the state's four-year statute of limitations had passed before Trump finally got around to filing his lawsuit. If Power Plant could prove Trump knew in early 2000 that his former associate was working on the Hard Rock deal, the case would be thrown out of court. The clock here for the statute of limitations starts ticking down when plaintiffs learn they have been swindled.

Trump claimed he learned about the deal in January 2001, about the time of the groundbreaking and more than three years before he filed suit. However, the defendants contended he had been informed of the projects in 1999. Trump offered no evidence in support of his contention except his word, so the opposing lawyers filed extensive discovery demands, seeking emails, computer files, calendars and other records that might prove he knew about the casino deal before 2000.

A full year into the case, Trump and his company, Trump Hotels, had produced only a single box of documents, many of which were not relevant—and no emails, digital files, phone records, calendars or even documents Trump lawyers had promised to turn over. Interrogatories were still unanswered. Lawyers for Power Plant obtained a court order compelling Trump and his company to comply with the discovery demands and hand over the relevant information and documents.

In a March 2006 response, Trump's lawyers argued that the emails and other electronic documents had not been produced because the company didn't have them. They claimed it had no servers until 2001—the year Trump claimed he had learned of the Power Plant project. They also claimed Trump Hotels had no policy regarding retaining documents until 2003. In other words, they hadn't turned over any emails because no emails had been saved on a Trump server.

Judge Jeffrey Streitfeld reacted with near disbelief. "I don't have the patience for this," he said. "This has been going on too long to have to listen—and I don't mean to be disrespectful—to this double-talk. There has to be an attitude adjustment from the plaintiff."

Streitfeld ordered Trump executives to file sworn statements attesting to how their email systems had worked from 1996 onward. In response, Trump Hotels filed an affidavit from one of its information technology managers stating that it had had no servers prior to 2001.

That was false and by deposing numerous IT specialists with two Trump companies—the Trump Organization and Trump Hotels—lawyers for Power Plant gradually chipped away at it. Finally, during a deposition nine months after he had signed the deceptive affidavit, the same Trump executive admitted his assertions in it were untrue. In fact, an IBM Domino server for emails and other files had been installed in 1999, the same year witnesses for Power Plant contended that Trump had learned of the casino deal. Prior to that, as early as 1997, the Trump corporations used servers off-site operated by a company called Jersey Cape, according to sworn testimony by one of the Trump IT experts; the following year, the Trump Organization and Trump Hotels moved to another email provider, Technology 21.

These startling revelations changed nothing, however, because there was no trove of documents. The Trump records had been destroyed. Despite knowing back in 2001 that Trump might want to file a lawsuit, his companies had deleted emails and other records without checking if they might be evidence in his case. Beginning around 2003, the company wiped clear the data from everyone's computers every year. Lawyers for Trump Hotels had never sent out the usual communication issued during litigation instructing employees to stop destroying records that might be related to this case. The deletions continued, and backup tapes were reused—thus erasing the data they held. Power Plant lawyers also discovered that after the lawsuit was filed, Trump Hotels disposed of a key witness's computer without preserving the data on it.

Data from everyone's computers at Trump's company was wiped clear every year.

In subsequent filings, Power Plant maintained that Trump Hotels had intentionally deceived the court in its March 2006 filing when it claimed it had located no emails relevant to the case because, at that point, it had not yet conducted any searches of its computer system. Trump Hotels executives did not instruct their IT department to examine backup computer tapes until 2007, and even then the job wasn't done, depositions show. And when computer specialists finally attempted to electronically locate any relevant documents that had survived the flurry of deletions, the procedures were absurdly inadequate. While looking for relevant documents, the technology team was told to use only two search terms—the name of the tribe and the last name of the former Trump associate. So even if there was an email that stated, "Donald Trump learned the full details of the Hard Rock casino deal in Florida in 1999," it would not have been found by this search.

With all this proof that Trump Hotels had ignored every court order and filed false documents, Power Plant asked the judge either to impose sanctions or allow its own expert to search for relevant digital records. Trump Hotels argued it had done nothing improper, although its lawyers acknowledged having made some mistakes. Still, Streitfeld ordered Trump Hotels to make its servers and computer systems available for inspection by a computer forensics consulting firm. That review showed there was no digital data in the computers, servers or backup tapes prior to January 2001—the very month Trump claimed to have learned of the Florida casino deal.

With the likelihood of sanctions growing, Trump Hotels dropped the suit a few months later, in part because of the company's financial troubles. A company involved in the Power Plant case agreed to purchase one of Trump's struggling casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and included as part of the deal a requirement that the litigation be ended.

This review of Trump's many decades of abusing the judicial system, ignoring judges, disregarding rules, destroying documents and lying about it is not simply a sordid history lesson. Rather, it helps explain his behavior since he declared his candidacy. He promised to turn over his tax returns and his health records—just as he promised to comply with document discovery requirements in so many lawsuits—then reneged. As a result, he has left a sparse evidentiary trail that can be used to assess his wealth, his qualifications for the presidency or even his fitness. Should voters choose him to be the next U.S. president, he will enter the Oval Office as a mystery, a man who has repeatedly flouted the rules. He has solemnly told the country to trust him while refusing to produce any records to prove whether he speaks the truth or has utter contempt for it. </s> WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats began issuing dozens of subpoenas Monday for financial records and other documents from President Donald Trump's private entities as part of an ongoing lawsuit alleging that his businesses violate the Constitution's ban on gifts or payments from foreign governments.

The demands for detailed information about the president's closely held finances came on the same day the Trump administration asked an appeals court in Washington to halt the lawsuit and block the subpoenas, saying the case is based on "novel and flawed constitutional premises."

Brought by more than 200 Democrats in Congress, the emoluments lawsuit is one of several legal battles over access to the inner workings of Trump's businesses and, more broadly, the balance of power between lawmakers and the president.

"We are seeking a targeted set of documents to obtain the information that we need to ensure that the President can no longer shirk his constitutional responsibility," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said in a statement.

The 37 subpoenas target information from a wide array of Trump's businesses, including Trump Tower, his hotels in New York and Washington, and his Mar-a-Lago Club in south Florida, according to the Constitutional Accountability Center, the legal group representing the Democrats in the case.

The plaintiffs also are seeking information about trademarks granted to Trump's companies by foreign governments since he entered office and any pending applications for foreign trademarks. Additional subpoenas seek information on tax returns from the president's companies and the trust where he keeps his businesses while in office.

The Trump Organization did not respond to requests for comment regarding the subpoenas.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in late June rejected Trump's request to stop the lawsuit and ordered the two parties to begin the process of requesting records and other information as part of a three-month discovery period ending Sept. 27.

In its court filing Monday, the Trump administration officially asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue an order to dismiss the case or at least to put the lawsuit and subpoenas on hold pending review. Justice Department lawyers said Sullivan had treated the case "as a run-of-the-mill commercial dispute" and "ignored the unique separation-of-powers concerns posed by discovery in a case against the President in his official capacity."

In a separate "emoluments" case brought by the attorneys general of D.C. and Maryland, Justice Department lawyers have succeeded in temporarily blocking subpoenas for financial records and other documents related to Trump's D.C. hotel.

The congressional emoluments case, led by Blumenthal and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., extends beyond the hotel and provides a potential new avenue for investigators to gain access to a broader array of Trump's finances.

Unlike past presidents, Trump has retained ownership of his private businesses and refused to release his tax returns.

The emoluments provision - barring payments or gifts from foreign governments without prior approval from Congress - was designed to prevent undue influence over the nation's leaders. Attorneys for the lawmakers say Trump is violating the ban when his businesses accept payments and other benefits from foreign governments.

Democrats are seeking information related to not only the president's hotels but to office buildings, trademarks and the trust in which Trump is storing his business interests while he is in office.

Three properties - the two hotels and Mar-a-Lago - have hosted foreign governments or large foreign delegations since Trump entered office. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has booked blocks of rooms at both hotels, and the D.C. hotel has hosted the governments of Kuwait, Bahrain and Malaysia, among others.

Trump Organization officials say that to avoid benefiting from any impropriety, they do not market the hotels to foreign governments and that when embassies or delegations book space, the company donates the profits to the U.S. treasury.

For example, after an Iraqi sheikh urging the U.S. to overthrow Iran's government stayed 26 nights at the D.C. hotel, the company says it donated the profits from his stay. In total, the company donated $191,538 at the end of last year and $151,470 for the previous year, though it did not break down those amounts.

There is less known about foreign governments' involvement in the four office properties that are subject of the plaintiffs' subpoenas.

Dating to before Trump's presidency, foreign diplomats have leased space in Trump World Tower, near the United Nations Nations headquarters in New York.

The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a state-owned Chinese bank, has leased space on the 20th floor of Trump Tower in Manhattan since 2008. The bank's lease is worth close to $2 million annually, according to industry estimates and a bank filing.

Trump owns a minority stake in two other office buildings, in San Francisco and New York, that are not named for him and are managed by a non-Trump company.

The Chinese government has also granted approvals to Trump family trademarks, including preliminary approval for 38 new trademarks for hotels, golf courses and other businesses, according to The Associated Press. The plaintiffs' group issued a statement Monday saying that in addition to those approvals, "there are almost certainly many more that are not yet known about."

In court filings, the nonprofit Constitutional Accountability Center has stressed how difficult it is for Congress or the public to understand the president's business dealings without the court allowing its case to proceed.

"While it is well known that (the president's) business empire is vast and global, the exact nature of his holdings and the benefits he receives from them remain unclear," the nonprofit said in filings. Because the president has not released his tax returns, "the complicated interconnection between the hundreds of discrete business entities and shell companies in which he owns an interest makes it impossible to determine the full scope of the benefits he is currently accepting from foreign states." </s> A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled Deutsche Bank and Capital One can comply with subpoena requests made by congressional Democrats to turn over President Trump’s financial and business records, despite objections from the Trump family.

Lawyers representing Trump, his family and his organization were asking for the subpoenas to be nullified and had sued the financial institutions to block them from handing over the documents, but U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos said Congress has the authority to investigate.

"The power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process," Ramos, who was appointed during President Barack Obama's tenure, said. He added that while the requests are broad," they are also "clearly pertinent."

Lawyers for President Trump said it is a "safe bet" they would appeal.

A spokesperson for Deutsche Bank said the company would "abide by a court order" regarding the investigation.

House Democrats are looking to obtain more information about Trump’s financial affairs, potential dealings with Russia, and to look into possible connections to interference in U.S. elections.

A couple of congressional committees subpoenaed Deutsche Bank, and other financial institutions, last month as they sought to procure Trump’s financial records. Lawyers representing the president and his family claim that the requests violate the Trump’s privacy and serve no legislative purpose – arguments that were struck down on Wednesday.

Earlier this week, the president was dealt a blow in a D.C. court, after a federal district judge ruled that his former accounting firm – Mazars – will be required to turn over his financial records and documents.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX BUSINESS APP

Democrats are also asking for Trump’s financial records from the IRS. The Treasury Department, under Secretary Steven Mnuchin, has so far failed to comply.

In a press conference in the Rose Garden earlier on Wednesday, Trump told reporters that it was not possible to work with Democrats on policy while these investigative issues lingered.

FOX Business reached out to Capital One for comment and will post an update if the company replies. </s> A federal judge ruled against President Donald Trump on Monday in a financial records dispute with Congress and said lawmakers should get the documents they have subpoenaed. Trump called it a "crazy" decision that his lawyers would appeal.The ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta comes amid a widespread effort by the White House and Trump's attorneys to refuse to cooperate with congressional requests for information and records. Earlier Monday, Trump directed former White House counsel Don McGahn to defy a congressional subpoena that had compelled McGahn, a pivotal figure in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.In ruling that Trump cannot block the financial records subpoena, Mehta said the Democratic-led House Oversight and Reform Committee had "valid legislative purposes" for its request and that it was not for him "to question whether the Committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations." The committee has said the records will help it consider whether to strengthen ethics and disclosure laws, among other things, said Mehta, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama.Trump pointed to his Democratic predecessor when he told reporters before leaving the White House for a Monday night rally in Pennsylvania that "we think it's totally the wrong decision by, obviously, an Obama-appointed judge."To the committee chairman, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the judge's decision was a "resounding victory for the rule of law and our constitutional system of checks and balances."Trump's lawyers, in cases from Washington and New York challenging the Democrats' demands, argued that congressional investigations are legitimate only if there is legislation that might result from them. "There is no possible legislation at the end of this tunnel," his legal team said.The White House made the same argument Friday when Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he would not comply with a congressional subpoena for six years of Trump's tax returns.In the New York case, Trump, his business and family want to prevent Deutsche Bank and Capital One from complying with House subpoenas for banking and financial records. A Wednesday court hearing is planned.In the Washington case, Trump and his business organization are trying to block the subpoena issued in April to Mazars USA, which has provided accounting services to Trump.Even before the ruling, legal scholars had said Trump's argument had little merit and that Congress has broad powers to investigate.Mehta said in his 41-page opinion that there are limits on Congress's authority to investigate, but those limits "do not substantially constrain Congress." He said that as long as "Congress investigates on a subject matter on which 'legislation could be had,'" it is following the Constitution.Mehta said that was true in this case, pointing to the committee's memo outlining four areas of investigation, each of which he said Congress could legislate on.The judge cited the Watergate investigation involving President Richard Nixon and the Whitewater investigation involving President Bill Clinton. He said Congress "plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a President, before and after taking office.""This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history," he said. </s> A federal judge dealt a blow to President Donald Trump on Wednesday, ruling that two banks can hand over his financial documents in response to congressional subpoenas.

The Trump family and company sued Deutsche Bank and Capital One last month in an effort to block them from turning over financial documents sought by Congress. The House Intelligence and Financial Services committees had issued subpoenas to several banks as part of their investigations of alleged foreign influence on U.S. elections.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos said he disagrees with the arguments from the Trump family attorneys that the subpoenas don’t have a legitimate legislative purpose.

Ramos described the subpoenas as “undeniably broad” but “clearly pertinent.”

Ramos issued his ruling after hearing arguments from lawyers representing the Trump and the Democratic-controlled congressional committees.

The Trump family lawyers signaled that they will appeal the ruling, but they did not comment after the hearing.

Deutsche Bank has lent Trump’s real estate company millions of dollars over the years. Capitol One is among the banks that houses Trump’s personal accounts.

In a statement released after the ruling, Deutsche Bank said it won’t fight the judge’s order.

“We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations and will abide by a court order regarding such investigations,” the statement read.

Capital One did not immediately return a request for comment.

Trump wrote a $35,000 check to his former personal attorney Michael Cohen from his Capital One checking account in August 2017. The money was tied to the effort to pay off porn star Stormy Daniels, who alleged that she had an affair with Trump before he took office.

Cohen submitted the check to Congress ahead of his testimony in March.

In the lawsuit, Trump’s attorneys argued that the subpoenas were politically motivated and unwarranted.

“The subpoenas were issued to harass President Donald J. Trump; to rummage through every aspect of his personal finances, his businesses and the private information of the president and his family; and to ferret about for any material that might be used to cause him political damage,” said the suit, filed on behalf of Trump, his company and three eldest children — Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka. </s> WASHINGTON -- The House sued the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service on Tuesday, demanding access to President Donald Trump's tax returns and escalating a fight with an administration that has repeatedly dismissed as illegitimate its attempt to obtain the financial records.

The lawsuit moves the dispute into the federal courts after months of sniping between the Democratic-led House Ways and Means Committee, which requested and then subpoenaed the returns, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The case may ultimately go to the Supreme Court, and its outcome is likely to determine whether financial information that Trump has kept closely guarded despite long-standing presidential tradition will be viewed by Congress and, ultimately, the public.

"In refusing to comply with the statute, defendants have mounted an extraordinary attack on the authority of Congress to obtain information needed to conduct oversight of Treasury, the IRS, and the tax laws on behalf of the American people who participate in the nation's voluntary tax system," the complaint said. It asked a judge to order the defendants to comply.

House Democrats are facing similar resistance on a broad range of investigations that include inquiries into Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference and the profits gleaned from Trump's continuing business ventures.

In almost every instance, the Trump administration has argued that Congress' power to gain access to those materials is inherently limited to information that would serve "legitimate" legislative purposes -- defined by the executive branch to be limited to materials needed to help draft new laws and to exclude uncovering potential wrongdoing.

Congress retorts that its powers to compel information are far more sweeping than that and encompass oversight of important matters in general -- and that its decisions about what information it wants to subpoena are not to be second-guessed by the White House.

The same dispute is at the center of a pair of lawsuits over subpoenas to accounting and banking firms for other financial records involving the Trump Organization. Trump's lawyers have twice tried and failed to win court orders blocking subpoenas seeking records from Trump's bankers and accountants. His attorneys are appealing those rulings. A federal judge in May said U.S. lawmakers have the power to demand Trump's financial records from his accounting firm, Mazars USA LLP.

Trump was the first major presidential candidate in decades not to voluntarily release his tax returns. He has said the returns were under audit by the IRS, but that does not actually preclude him from releasing them to the public.

The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., initially requested six years of Trump's personal and business returns in early April using a provision of the federal tax code that grants the chairmen of Congress' tax-writing committees the power to request tax information on any filer. The provision in question -- Section 6103 -- dates to the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s and says merely that the Treasury secretary "shall" furnish the requested material.

Neal said he needed the returns, as well as audit information from the IRS, for a study of the efficacy of the agency's mandatory presidential audit program that could potentially result in legislative changes.

Mnuchin rejected the request anyway, prompting Neal to shift tactics and counter in May by issuing subpoenas for the same material. That led to another rejection by Mnuchin. Both times, he said the requests lacked any "legitimate legislative purpose."

The House suit asks a federal judge to enforce both approaches, validating the committee's use of Section 6103 and Neal's subpoenas. It says that "numerous investigative reports have revealed that President Trump, through the complex arrangements of his personal and business finances, has engaged in multiple aggressive tax strategies and decades-long tax avoidance schemes."

The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel last month endorsed Mnuchin's rationale with a 33-page memo. The department pointed to it again Tuesday, while otherwise declining to comment on the case. The Treasury Department did not respond to a request for comment.

In the memo, Steven Engel, the head of the office, cited comments by Neal and other Democrats that suggested, among other things, that they wanted to obtain and disclose Trump's tax returns to "'honor tradition,' show 'what the Russians have on Donald Trump,' reveal a potential 'Chinese connection,' inform tax reform legislation, provide the 'clearest picture of his financial health,'" and expose any hidden business dealings that may run afoul of the Constitution's ban on receiving "emoluments" from foreign governments.

Against that backdrop, Engel dismissed Neal's stated official rationale for seeking the returns -- that Congress needs them for an investigation into how the IRS audits and enforces federal tax laws against presidents -- as "pretextual," saying lawmakers instead wanted them for the political purpose of disclosing them. That purpose, he said, was not within Congress' legitimate constitutional authority.

The Trump administration and the president's personal lawyers have raised the "legitimate purpose" argument repeatedly as they have sought to parry Democratic demands for information related to not just Trump's finances but also issues ranging from the special counsel's Trump-Russia investigation to the granting of security clearances to close Trump associates.

Last month, the House passed a resolution that cleared the way for committees to file lawsuits asking a court to order the executive branch to comply with their subpoenas without further action on the full House floor. The Ways and Means Committee lawsuit for Trump's tax returns is the first exercise of that authority.

Some legal experts believe the battle could last well past the 2020 presidential election.

The case is Committee on Ways and Means v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, 19-cv-1974, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).

Information for this article was contributed by Nicholas Fandos and Charlie Savage of The New York Times; and by Joe Light, Andrew Harris and Laura Davison of Bloomberg News. </s> A federal judge in Washington ruled Monday against President Trump in a financial records dispute with Congress.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, said Trump cannot block a House subpoena of financial records. He said the Democratic-led House committee seeking the information has said it believes the documents would help lawmakers consider strengthening ethics and disclosure laws, among other things.

The committee's reasons were "valid legislative purposes," Mehta said, and it was not for him "to question whether the Committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations."

The decision comes amid a widespread effort by the White House and the president's lawyers to refuse to cooperate with congressional requests for information and records.

In the case before Mehta, Trump and his business organization sued to block the subpoena issued in April to Mazars USA, an accountant for the president and Trump Organization. Trump's lawyers accused Democrats of harassing Trump and said the subpoena "has no legitimate legislative purpose."

Trump's lawyers, in suing in both Washington and New York in attempt to beat back congressional subpoenas, said congressional investigations are legitimate only if there is legislation that might result from them.

In the New York case, Trump, his business and family have sued Deutsche Bank and Capital One to prevent the financial companies from complying with subpoenas from the House Financial Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee for banking and financial records. A Wednesday hearing is planned in that case.

Even before the ruling, scholars had said Trump's legal argument had little merit and that Congress has broad powers to investigate.
Kurt Eichenwald claims that Donald Trump and his businesses have been destroying documents, even in ongoing court cases and under subpoena, during the last decades.