Jeffrey Toobin Calls Judge’s Ruling ‘Another Very Important Win’ For House Dems

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin reacted to a judge’s ruling Wednesday in favor of House Democrats seeking financial information from banks that worked with President Trump, calling it a “win” for Democrats.

“Well, it’s another very important win, because the legal issue, fundamentally, is the same as the one (Monday) regarding the accounting firm that did the President’s taxes,” Toobin told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

“The President’s lawyers have argued in both courts that this is a purely personal matter, it is not related to any sort of legislation, so Congress should not be allowed to get those documents,” Toobin added. “That argument has now been convincingly rejected twice. And that, I think, is among the weakest of arguments that his lawyers will be raising.”

A federal judge on Wednesday rejected Trump’s lawyers’ attempt to quash House Democrats’ subpoena to Deutsche Bank and Capital One, banks that have done business with Trump. House Democrats are seeking financial records. The President sued the banks to try to block their cooperation, but Reuters reported after the ruling that Deutsche Bank said it will comply with the lawmakers’ request.

Watch:

 

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. “That argument has now been convincingly rejected twice. And that, I think, is among the weakest of arguments that his lawyers will be raising.”

    Oh, I think they can find countless weaker arguments, especially since their entire goal is to delay, delay, delay the truth coming out. Weaker arguments are going to be smacked down as quickly as this one, though - tough shit for the abomination and the fascistgop.

  2. No, goddammit. This is not a “win” for Democrats. It isn’t partisan investigation for the fun of dumping on your opponent a la Benghazi. This is some serious shit that demonstrates that a con artist who treasonously worked with an enemy power and collected money from people under the thumb of its dictator cannot evade justice forever.

  3. “That argument has now been convincingly rejected twice. And that, I think, is among the weakest of arguments that his lawyers will be raising.”

    Is the practice to start with your weakest arguments and work your way up?

  4. This must be part of NPelosi’s strategy argument to antsy D’s: ‘we’re going to put this traitor under legal ‘seige’ until more work-a-day Americans can see the plain truth staring them in their faces’

  5. So does denying a stay mean that they have to appeal in a certain period of time? Lawyers?

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

49 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for sonsofares Avatar for lastroth Avatar for rudolphschnaubelt Avatar for cd Avatar for ignoreland Avatar for bboerner Avatar for pine Avatar for darrtown Avatar for pshah Avatar for bkmn Avatar for edhedh Avatar for jsjohnson41 Avatar for castor_troy Avatar for pike_bishop Avatar for demosthenes59 Avatar for euglena4056 Avatar for carolson Avatar for timorwig Avatar for outis Avatar for gilgamesh Avatar for paul_lukasiak Avatar for enceladus Avatar for laparque

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: