The first case that we will argue stay is down from versus the usa. Mr. Chief justice, the subpoenas at issue here are unprecedented in every sense. No court hadcases, ever upheld the use of Congress Passed subpoena power. Had toittee of congress the records of a sitting president with a broad swath of the president s personal papers to the let alone purpose of the a potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a set has attempted such a gambit. Because, grist has subpoena power, it is subordinate and when that power is deployed against the president , it must yield absent any longstanding tradition or compelling showing of need. The committees consent is neither condition and that should decide this case. The committees contend the subpoenas satisfy the limits this court has always applied to congressional subpoenas. But the arguments would render those limits meaningless. But the arguments would render those limits meaningless. They claim congress can you subpoenas
Authority the da has under state law as to the president , the Second Circuit is wrong and should be reversed. If not reversed the decision weapon isis 2300 local das, overwhelming number of them elected to office and thereby accountable to local constituencies. The decision would allow any da to distract and interfere with a sitting president , subjects the president a local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions and the grand jury can be utilized issue compulsory criminal process in the form of subpoenas targeting the president. This is not mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in this case with the subpoena we challenge. In the argument just concluded we asserted the subpoenas did not serve a legitimate legislative purpose and were burdensome. Yet the da copy almost verbatim the House Oversight Committee Subpoena with an additional 13 words which seek the president s tax returns without revealing the exact same language utilized by two congressional co
God save the United States and this honorable court. Chief Justice Roberts the first case we will argue today is case 19715, donald trump v. Mazars usa. Mr. Strawbridge . Mr. Strawbridge before these cases, mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, the subpoenas at issue here are unprecedented in every sense. Before these cases, no court had ever upheld the use of congres subpoena powers to the records of a sitting president , and no one had tried with a broad swath of the president s personal let alone purpose of a potential legislation. There is a reason this is the First Time Congress has attempted such a gambit. Because congress has subpoena power, it is subordinate, and when that power is deployed against the president , it must yield absent any longstanding tradition or particular compelling showing of need. They show neither here. Satisfied, butas thoseguments would limit meaningless. For example, as long as they could tack on a potential for broad legislation. They claim c
To President Trumps financial records. This is an hour and a half. The honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States give their attention, god save the United States and this honorable court. The first case we will argue today is case 19715, donald trump versus masers usa. Mr. Strawbridge. May appease the court, the subpoenas here are unprecedented in every tenth before these cases no court upheld the use of congress subpoena power to demand the personal records of a sitting president , no kitty to committee had tried to tell of the personal papers, let alone to the purpose of considering potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a Congressional Committee has attested a gambit. It is long been understood since congress and subpoena power is applied, it is auxiliary ends subordinates, when that power is deployed against the president , and must yield any longstanding traditi
Mr. Espaillat i rise in support of this bill, one month ago george floyd was murdered. As i said in the days following, his daughter said daddy changed the world. And there is a manifest to, the harlem advocates for a ban on chokeholds and ends qualified immunity. The harlem manifesto includes a provision that Police Officers can be held accountable for excessive force. The standard should not be willful intent but reckness intent. We must pass this bill. The best anticrime policies are antipoverty policies. We must continue this fight. Black lives matter. Thank you, mr. Chair. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from north dakota. Mr. Armstrong we reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady from california is recognized. Ms. Bass i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. Green. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Green thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. For those who are not sure as