Trump files "emergency" stay motion to keep tax returns from Congress - and prosecutors

On the day our former Ukraine Ambassador testified that the Department of State is being hollowed out Donald Trump has filed an "emergency motion for a stay" of the subpoena issued by the House Oversight Committee for his pre-presidential tax returns.  He follows recently appointed Circuit Judge Neomi Rao's road map.  She alleges that the House Committee's quest for Trump's pre-presidency tax returns is either an improper effort to enforce the law, or a sham effort to impeach the President.

Trump's private lawyers lump that together with an assertion that Presidents face the threat of harassment like Gulliver at the hand of the Lilliputians from local prosecutors seeking to wound a sitting president.  It is the sort of slippery slope nightmare scenario that often seduces courts into applying the brakes.

- GWC 11/15/2019

To the  Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the  United States and Circuit Justice for the  District of Columbia  Circuit:

This is a case of firsts. It is the first time Congress has subpoenaed the personal records of a President that predate his time in office. It is the  first time Congress has issued a subpoena, under its legislative powers, to investigate the President for illegal conduct. And, for the  first time, a court has  upheld a congressional  subpoena  to the President for his  personal papers. After the  decision below, however,  any committee of  Congress  can  subpoena  any  personal  information  from  the   President;  all  the committee needs to say is that it's considering legislation that would force Presidents to disclose  that  same information.  Given  the  temptation  to dig  up  dirt  on  political rivals,  intrusive  subpoenas  into  personal  lives  of  Presidents  will  become  our  new normal in times of divided government-no  matter which party is in power. If every committee chairman is going to have this unbounded authority, this Court should be the one to say so.It should be unsurprising, then, that the one thing the district court, the panel, and the  dissenting judges agree upon is that this case raises important  separation­ of-powers  issues.  
Yet  this  Court  will  not  have  the  opportunity  to  decide _for  itself whether  the  decision  warrants  review  unless  a  stay pending certiorari  is granted. That is because the  Oversight Committee, despite voluntarily staying the subpoena for more than six months while this dispute wound its way through the lower courts, is going to enforce the  subpoena when the  D.C. Circuit's mandate issues-i.e., when the  parties' agreement expires-unless this Court issues a stay.