I’ve read the Supreme Court decision regarding the release of President Trump’s financial records. You most likely won’t hear about the quotes of dissenting justices I have included.

SAY WHAT YOU WILL, BUT IT’S A WIN for President Trump in the Supreme Court case regarding the effort to gain access to his financial records.  It’s a win for his supporters, too, who backed his decision not to cave to political pressure.  I always supported his refusal to turn over those documents.

As the Court sent its opinion down to lower courts, the cynical among us will suspect that the case could still go before a grand jury, or documents could be leaked before Election Day.

Democrats play dirty, and I wouldn’t be surprised after witnessing three years of their disgraceful attempts to end the Trump presidency.

The first president to do so, President Nixon, didn’t do voluntarily; it followed the leaking of the information by someone in the IRS. All succeeding presidents provided returns or summary versions.

TRUMP et al v. MAZARS USA, LLP, et al – the official title – was clearly a case of more harassment against the president.  There is no law that requires a presidential candidate or president to supply his tax returns.

In April 2019, not one, but three committees of the House, issued four subpoenas seeking information about the finances of the president alone, his children, and affiliated businesses, including any document related to account activity, due diligence, foreign transactions, business statements, debt schedules, statements of net worth, tax returns, and suspicious activity.

Although each of the committees sought overlapping sets of financial documents, each supplied different justifications for the requests.

The Financial Services Committee concocted its purpose was an effort to review “banking regulation and examine the implementation, effectiveness, and enforcement of laws, designed to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism.”  Pure fabrication.

Adam Schiff and his Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was still examining alleged attempts by Russia to influence the 2016 election; potential links between Russia and the President’s campaign, and whether the President and his associates had been compromised by foreign actors or interests.

After reading the Court’s opinion, I thought I would share with you a few excerpts that I found interesting.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could ‘exert an imperious controul’(sic) over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President’s expense, just as the framers feared,” opined Chief Justice Roberts, quoting Federalist No. 71.

“The House and the courts below suggest that these separation of powers concerns are not fully implicated by the particular subpoenas here, but we disagree.  We would have to be ‘blind’ not to see “all others can see and understand;” that the subpoenas do not represent a run-of-the-mill legislative effort but rather a clash between rival branches of government over records of intense political interest for all involved.”

JUSTICE THOMAS: “Congress’ legislative powers do not authorize it to engage in a nationwide inquisition with whatever resources it chooses to appropriate for itself,” said Justice Thomas in his dissent.

“If the Committees wish to investigate alleged wrongdoing by the President and obtain documents from him,” wrote Justice Thomas, “the Constitution provides Congress with a special mechanism for doing so; impeachment.  The Constitution grants the House ‘sole power of Impeachment.’”

JUSTICE ALITO: “Legislative subpoenas for a President’s personal documents are inherently suspicious.  Such documents are seldom of any special value in considering potential legislation, and subpoenas for such documents can easily be used for improper non-legislative purposes,” opined Justice Alito.

“Whenever such a subpoena comes before a court, Congress should be required to make more than a perfunctory showing that it is seeking the documents for a legitimate legislative purpose and not for the purpose of exposing supposed Presidential wrongdoing.

“Instead, they claim that the subpoenas were issued to gather information that is relevant to legislative issues, but there is disturbing evidence of an improper law enforcement purpose.”

This decision has been a setback for the left, but don’t imagine for a moment that it ends their effort to keep President Trump from reelection.  There remains 100 days for the Alinskyites to regroup.

Stay strong.

May God continue to bless the United States of America.