[ad_1]
Donald Trump is the first president of the United States since Richard Nixon in the 1970s who declined to publish his statements, fueling speculation about possible financial irregularities.
Both democratically controlled committees in Congress and a district attorney in New York’s former hometown of the president have requested the documents, and several court decisions have ruled that Trump must make them public. But Trump has stubbornly refused, and his lawyers have appealed against all the rulings the president has opposed.
The problem has reached The last legal body when the Supreme Court discussed the case on Tuesday, at a distance, to reduce the spread of the infection.
President Trump’s attorney, Patrick Strawbridge, was pressured if he felt that a president was protected from having to reveal private documents. Court President John Roberts, who is conservative, asked if the lawyer could see any opportunity when the United States House of Representatives could demand the documents.
“It’s hard for me to imagine,” Strawbridge replied.
The intentions of the House of Representatives to push the issue of Trump’s remarks were also questioned in the Supreme Court.
– Should we investigate the mental process of legislators? In case House of Representatives committee members are forced to state why they would like to see these documents, Roberts asked the Department of Justice, Jeffrey Wall.
Several seem to be upfront Circumstances speak for Trump, reports the AFP news agency.
The fact that the Supreme Court has granted a trial permit is considered to indicate that it is considering going against the lower courts. Furthermore, during his time in the White House, Trump has been able to appoint two new justices, which means that the court today has a conservative majority.
But of course it is not, says Dag Blanck, professor of American studies at Uppsala University.
– The idea of the Supreme Court is that it must interpret the Constitution and face political conflicts, the appointed judges must be respected and not be included in current politics. For a long time, many nominations went through the Senate with large majorities, but since the 1990s, that process has become more party political, he says.
Court President John Roberts, however, pointed to Trump when he questioned the impartiality of judges nominated by Democratic presidents.
– It should not be assumed that conservative judges will automatically support Trump in all situations. The situation is so extremely polarized in the United States that they may be even more eager to maintain their independence, says Dag Blanck.
The case is politically charged and both sides call the question in principle. The Democratic Party argues that the case is about congressional oversight of the presidential office. Trump’s advocates, in turn, argue that the president must have full immunity to be able to carry out his office effectively, otherwise opponents can put a deadlock at the wheel by launching endless investigations.
“That question is at the bottom, how much power should the presidential office have,” says Dag Blanck.
The Supreme Court is also aware of the weight of the case. In late April, the court surprisingly asked the parties to submit letters on the political significance of the issue, writes AFP.
The unusual feature in the United States has led to speculation that the court may declare that the problem is primarily political, rather than legal. Such a decision would invalidate previous judicial decisions requiring the publication of the documents.
The Supreme Court is expected will announce its ruling before the end of June, approximately four months before the November 3 presidential election.
– If the result follows Trump’s path, you will see it as a confirmation that he was right and it will be a big part of his electoral campaign. If it goes against it, it should be very interesting to see what happens. If the engraving information appears on your self-declarations, it can become explosive, says Dag Blanck.
