Unexpectedly, Justice Ginsburg rules in Trump’s favor, halts order for financial records

(White House/BBC video screenshot)

President Donald Trump won a brief, unexpected respite from the Democrats’ impeachment efforts Friday when left-wing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a temporary order blocking some of their subpoena requests.

“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg temporarily blocked a lower court ruling ordering two banks to release President Donald Trump’s financial records to House Democrats,” Politico reported.

“Trump had asked Ginsburg to consider the emergency request earlier Friday. The temporary stay sets the issue on hold pending full consideration by the high court, it does not reflect how judges will rule in the underlying case.”

Her unexpected move has left some conservatives wondering whether she’ll soon be “canceled” by the left and accused of being a Russian asset:

The order is reportedly valid until 5:00 pm next Friday, and Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee and House Intelligence Committee have until Dec. 11 to respond to the president’s legal arguments.

“Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, it is ordered that the mandate of the United States Supreme Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Case No. 19-1540, issued December 3, 2019, is hereby recalled and stayed until 5 p.m. on December 13, 2019. It is further ordered that a response be filed on or before December 11, 2019 by 11 a.m,” the order signed by Ginsburg reads:

The surprise ruling came after a federal appeals court in New York “ruled on Tuesday that Deutsche Bank and Capital One should comply with subpoenas from the House Financial Services and House Intelligence committees seeking information about Trump’s finances,” according to Politico.

Democrats have reportedly been seeking access to the bank accounts, transaction details and investment portfolios of not only the president but also of the Trump organization and his three oldest children. Why? To bolster the otherwise-flailing impeachment efforts against him.

In response to Tuesday’s ruling, the president’s legal team reportedly argued Friday that the Democrats’ subpoenas “do not fall within the [House committees’] constitutional or statutory authority.”

“The Court should grant this application to recall and stay the mandate,” they reportedly said. “The Court concluded that a stay is warranted in Mazars and, as House Counsel correctly explained to the Second Circuit, ‘Mazars involves the same legal issues presented here.'”

Mazars is the president’s accounting firm. Back in October, a federal appeals court ruled that the firm must turn over the president’s financial records to House Democrats. In response, the president’s legal team convinced the Supreme Court to institute a temporary stay on the decision up until Dec. 5.

“The application for stay of the mandate presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted,” the high court ruled. “The issuance of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 19-5142, is stayed pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such petition is filed on or before December 5, 2019, by noon.”

In other words, SCOTUS gave Trump’s team until Dec. 5 to file a formal appeal.

In that appeal filed Thursday, his team essentially argued that granting the Democrats their subpoenas would mean granting them the kind of power that no legislator should possess.

“Under the D.C. Circuit’s decision, Congress can subpoena any private records it wishes from the President on the mere assertion that it is considering legislation that might require presidents to disclose that same information,” they wrote.

“Given the obvious temptation to investigate the personal affairs of political rivals, subpoenas concerning the private lives of presidents will become routine in times of divided government. It is unsurprising, then, that the one thing the district court, the panel, and the dissenting judges all agreed upon in this case raises important separation-of-powers issues. At its core, this controversy is about whether — and to what degree — Congress can exercise dominion and control over the Office of the President.”

Read the full writ below:

Congressional Democrats have acted as if their impeachment fantasy lends them the authority to do whatever they please, regardless of ethics and legality.

Last week House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff published the phone records of the committee’s ranking member, of the president’s attorneys and even of a non-establishment journalist. He now faces a possible lawsuit of his own over this.

And prior to the official start of the impeachment hearings, Democrats passed a widely criticized resolution granting Schiff the powers of an independent counsel, when in reality he’s no such thing.

It’s unclear whether even a Supreme Court smackdown would be enough to quell the Democrats’ unrelenting demands for power.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles