Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

Deutsche Bank Says It Has Has Trump Tax Returns In Redacted Letter To 2d Circuit

By Matthew Russell Lee, thread, Patreon here

SDNY COURTHOUSE, August 27 – Lawyers for Deutsche Bank and Capital One resisted saying whether or not they have Donald J. Trump's tax returned while repeatedly questioned by Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Jon O. Newman and Peter W. Hall on August 23. Now on August 27, Deutsche Bank under partial seal has said Yes, it has returns:

Deutsche Bank's lawyer tried to evade by saying he'd be happy to have that conversation with the judges not in open court. Judge Newman asked, Where would that be? After the Deutsche Bank lawyer said he would only "explore" whether to answer, and Capital One's lawyer said he took the same position, Judge Hall directed the two banks to file a letter in 48 hours with the answer.

  On August 27 Deutsche Bank through Akin Gump made a filing, including: "Defendant-Appellee Deutsche Bank AG ("Deutsche Bank" or the "Bank") submits this letter in response to the Court's order directing the Bank to inform the Court "whether it has in its possession any tax returns of any of the individuals or entities named or referred to (directly or indirectly) in paragraph 1 of the subpoenas" served on the Bank on April 15, 2019 by the House Committee on Financial Services and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (the "Subpoenas"). ECF No. 156 (Aug. 26, 2019). Based on Deutsche Bank's current knowledge and the results of the extensive searches that have already been conducted, the Bank has in its possession tax returns in either draft or as- filed form) responsive to the Subpoenas for [Redacted  - Redacted]. In addition, the Bank has such documents related to parties not named in the Subpoenas but who may constitute "immediate family" within the definition provided in the Subpoenas. The Bank does not believe it possesses tax returns responsive to the Subpoenas for individuals named in the Subpoenas other than those identified above. The Bank files this letter under seal only for the limited purpose of redacting the name(s) of the specific individual(s) for whom the Bank has disclosed it has responsive tax returns per this Court's order. The Court has asked us to explain why the Bank seeks to treat that limited portion of the response as confidential. The following statutory, contractual, and privacy concerns have informed the Bank's reluctance to publicly identify tax-return-related information related to specific individuals. The Court may wish to take these concerns into account in determining what portions of our response letter should be made publicly available. First, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLBA"), financial institutions are generally not permitted to disclose nonpublic personal information of their customers to a third party without the consent of the customer..." We'll have more on this.

  Earlier in the oral argument on Trump's appeal of Judge Edgardo Ramos' denial of a preliminary injuction against the House Financial Services Committee's subpoenas to the banks, Trump's lawyer Patrick Strawbridge said the purpose of the subpoenas is to distract the President.

  House General Counsel Douglas Letter cites as precedent Richard Nixon voluntarily giving Congress some of his tax returns, and Bill and Hillary Clinton's Whitewater development information going to Congress, albeit to a special Whitewater Committee.

  Judge Debra Ann Livingston inquired about the Intelligence Committee subpoenas. While that Committee might not make whatever documents it gets public, Letter made it clear that the Financial Services Committee probably would make the documents public. Watch this site. More on Patreon here.

Back on March 22 while the lawyers on Donald Trump's bid for a preliminary injunction after two House of Representatives committees' subpoenas argued and failed before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Edgardo Ramos, sitting silent to the side of the courtroom were the lawyers for the two banks that got the subpoenas: Deutsche Bank and Capital One.

 Judge Ramos asked the two banks' four lawyers if they wanted to speak. They did not. This even as House counsel Patrick Strawbridge detailed Deutsche Bank's long history with money laundering (and theft during the Holocaust, which didn't come up). Capital One is a rough, too, on predatory auto lending and the Community Reinvestment Act. But the banks lay low.

  Now under Judge Ramos' 25-page ruling, which he read out over the course of 40 minutes in his courtroom 618 at 40 Foley Square, the banks become required to respond to the subpoenas in seven days, on May 29. That's the time during which the House has agreed not to enforce the subpoena, and the time during which Trump's lawyers seem certain to file an appeal and ask again for a stay from the Second Circuit Count of Appeals higher up, in both senses, in 40 Foley Square.

 After Judge Ramos' ruling Inner City Press sought left the cramped jury box and found itself in the elevator with Patrick Strawbridge and his colleagues. They quickly got off, but not uncivilly when compared, for example, to a recent organized crime scion leaving the SDNY Magistrates Court on the fifth floor of 500 Pearl Street.

  Later still on the steps outside the courthouse, Inner City Press asked Strawbridge how fast he would appeal. It's hard to say with these things, he replied. But an appeal seemed certain.

  During the proceeding, three protesters stood up holding signs like "Congress Has A Right To Know." This happened in the Second Circuit on August 23 as well. More on Patreon here.


Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at]

Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] for