The Independent View: Federal Judge Says Trump’s Accountants Must Turn Over Tax Records to House Panel

A Federal Judge has Ruled that Trump’s Accountants must Turn-Over Two Years’ worth of his Tax and Financial Records to a House Committee Investigating whether Trump and his Businesses Profited from his Service in the White House.

U.S. District Court, Judge Amit Mehta, Approved a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Subpoena for Trump’s Records covering 2017 and 2018, but turned Down Most of the Panel’s Request for Similar Information Dating back to 2011.

The Decision is likely to be Appealed by Trump’s Lawyers and could also be Challenged by the House Panel for their Full Request.

Mehta said in his 53-page Decision that he still has some Protections from Congressional Inquiries under the Supreme Court's Mazars Decision.

"Although the Committee’s explanation might validate the Maloney Subpoena were it directed at the personal papers of an ordinary citizen, this case is different," the Judge wrote.

But Mehta Ruled that Trump's Lease with the GSA for his Trump International Hotel in D.C. is Fair Game for Congressional Oversight, and his Decision to Contract with the Federal Government before, during, and after, his time in Office leaves him Without the Protections that might otherwise be afforded to a Former President in a Congressional Investigation.

When Trump was a citizen, he got the Lease for the building that became his Hotel. But after he became President, as the Majority Owner of the Comapny, he Violated the Lease that states: the Lease can Not be Owned by a Federal Officer.

"By freely contracting with GSA for his own private economic gain, and by not divesting upon taking office, President Trump opened himself up to potential scrutiny from the very Committee whose jurisdiction includes the 'management of government operations and activities, including Federal procurement,'" Mehta wrote.

Trump's Ownership of the Hotel has been under Scrutiny for years, with Critics and Democratic Lawmakers saying it was a Flagrant Conflict of Interest and possibly Unconstitutional for the President to Run a Business frequented by Corporate Executives and Foreign Diplomats.