No, also through common sense and the historical roles of public legislatures.
As Heritage says:
”Congressional oversight, derived from the implied powers in the U.S. Constitution and conducted since the earliest days of our Republic, is an essential tool in maintaining the separation of powers. In the decades since the New Deal, oversight has taken on additional importance as a needed restraint on the ever-expanding administrative state. During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason referred to this authority when he said that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.” This important investigatory role includes the review, monitoring, and close scrutiny of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation, as well as anywhere that federal tax dollars flow, to ensure faithful compliance with congressional intent.”
A position that’s long been upheld by SCOTUS and recognized by all three branches.
Does Congress have oversight authority if an executive declines to comply with their demands, or the demands of the court?
I think we might be about to find out.
If SCOTUS says the accounting firm has to provide the documents they will, or face criminal penalties.
“If SCOTUS says the accounting firm has to provide the documents they will, or face criminal penalties.”
While that would be likely, the penalty would only be incurred if the executive decides to enforce it.
The Executive could also declare “Executive Privilege” and have Treasury, SEC, and every associated regulatory agency issue an order to all to NOT release anything.
If you were the target of such conflicting orders, what would you do? Would you ask yourself, who can hurt me? Knowing that Congress cannot single out any entity, but the executive regularly exercises that discretion.
Of course it’s a safe bet that the USSC will not issue an order to disclose POTUS private financial information.