Lawyers for President Trump will appear before a Manhattan judge Wednesday to argue that House Democrats shouldn’t be allowed to get their hands on the commander in chief’s financial records through a subpoena — a position that failed to win over a Washington, DC, judge earlier this week.
Trump is suing Deutsche Bank and Capital One to stop them from complying with congressional subpoenas issued to obtain the president’s financial records, a move that the president’s lawyers have likened to a fishing expedition to dig up dirt on him.
Trump’s lawyers will appear before District Judge Edgardo Ramos in Manhattan federal court to argue for an injunction on the banks.
The hearing will come just two days after District Judge Amit Mehta of the DC federal court found that a House committee has the authority to issue a subpoena to accounting firm Mazars, which has provided services to Trump, to hand over the president’s financial statements dating back to 2011.
“Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a president, before and after taking office,” Mehta said. “This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.”
The House Oversight Committee issued the subpoena for the records after Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer who is now serving a three-year sentence in federal prison for campaign-finance-law violations and other offenses, testified to the committee that Trump would routinely alter the value of his assets.
Trump is appealing Mehta’s ruling.
Lawyers from the House Office of the General Counsel wasted no time letting Ramos know how his counterpart in DC ruled. Just after Mehta issued the decision, they sent a letter to Ramos stating that Mehta rejected a “substantially similar challenge.”
For their part, Deutsche Bank and Capital One have taken no position on Trump’s motion to prevent them from complying with the congressional subpoenas, which were issued by the House Intelligence and Financial Services committees.
Lawyers representing Trump and his companies in the case did not respond to requests for comment.