The New York federal judge who ruled on Wednesday that the Trump administration must comply with two subpoenas from the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees has donated in the past to a slew of big-name Democrats — including two who currently sit on those committees, according to federal election filings.
After an hour of oral arguments, Barack Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos ruled the subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One have “a legitimate legislative purpose,” and that Trump was unlikely to prevail in a lawsuit to quash the requests. Judges have the option to recuse themselves if there is an appearance of bias.
Federal election records show that, when he was a partner at the law firm Day Pitney LLP and before he was appointed to the bench in 2011, Ramos sent $350 to Connecticut Democrat Rep. Jim Himes from 2007 to 2008, as well as $500 to elect New York Rep. Nydia Velazquez in 2010.
Himes sits on both the Intelligence and Financial Services Committees, while Velazquez sits on Financial Services.
Ramos also contributed $1,000 to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s Senate campaign in 2009, another $1,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and several thousand dollars over several years to Obama for America. His political donations apparently stopped after his elevation to the judgeship, in line with ethical standards.
Trump’s lawyers had asked Ramos to temporarily block Congress from gaining access to the records. They said it was a “safe bet” they would appeal his decision.
Ramos’ ruling came two days after another federal judge in Washington upheld a separate congressional subpoena seeking financial documents dating back to 2011 from Trump accounting firm Mazars USA.
That judge, Obama appointee Amit Mehta, donated to the Obama-Biden campaign in 2012.
More at Fox News
Sounds like grounds for an appeal
And more times than not, we see liberal judges following their own agenda instead of the law.
There is no demonstrated legal need for these crybabies to see Trump’s personal records. NONE.
This should be reason for the case to be overturned and the judge removed from the bench Another of AMERICAS WORST JUDGES
So I guess if any of these cases reach the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch need to recuse themselves since they were actually appointed by Trump.
@Michael: Yeah, that’s how it works.
@Deplorable Me: Since when is appealing judges’ rulings based on donations they made when they were private citizens “how it works”?
Without reading the legal basis of the decision it is impossible to determine bias. The news just reporting the gist of it, is poor reporting.
In one case a judge decided everyone on the planet is covered by our constitution, another based his decision on things the UN decided.
Oh… did I say that? I wasn’t aware.
However, isn’t it odd every time a judges makes a ruling that is more ideological than logical and abiding by the law and Constitution, it turns out they are appointed by liberals and always donate to liberal candidates?
Indeed, so what if Trump appointed Barr and Barr refuses to violate laws simply to appease Democrat tantrums? Does that make him “Trump’s protector”? The fact that he, like millions of others, sees vast improprieties in the way the Hillary “matter” and the coup against Trump was handled makes him “partisan”?
How many ways do you WANT to have your hypocrisies?
It’s the thesis of this post. I thought that if you’d disagreed with it, you might have said something about it.
DO you think that a judge’s campaign donations should preclude his ruling on certain issues?
A judges preference of political party isnt an automatic disqualifier. The article fails to report his legal reasoning. Suspicion of bias isnt proof.
No, but in the cases of liberal judges appointed by liberal Presidents, they make judgments based on ideology, their background is checked and they have always been ardent supporters of liberal candidates. One DOES seem to be associated with the other. Or, do you feel this is just a vast series of odd coincidences?