SCOTUS rules on subpoenas of Trump financial records (Update: 2d Cir. rules against Trump) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

In the criminal grand jury case (Vance - the New York case), the SCOTUS rules that a sitting president is not immune from a state grand jury request. It is a 7-2 opinion (with Roberts joining the 'liberals' and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh concurring). Case is remanded for resolution based on "defenses available" to any person subject to that kind of subpoena.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Well, I’m shocked
================
NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for a Manhattan prosecutor trying to get President Donald Trump’s tax returns told a judge Monday that it was justified in demanding them because of public reports of “extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization.”...........

Prosecutor seeking Trump's taxes cites probe of his business

NEW YORK (AP) — A New York City prosecutor fighting to get President Donald Trump’s tax returns told a judge Monday he was justified in demanding them because of public reports of “extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization.”

apnews.com

Me too...

/sarcasm

 

[SaintForLife]

I think both of the rulings where good rulings. This court has been better than I thought it would be, in large parts to Roberts.



Thomas and Alito to me seem the most partisan of the justices, honestly. It's always obvious what side of a case they'll rule on. I don't think I've ever been surprised. They're both die in the wool conservatives, but not necessarily textualist the way Gorsuch is. Roberts to me seem to be more into the order and process of the law and also has a long view of the SC rulings in the course of history.

That doesn't seem to be accurate. It appears that the liberal justices are the most partisan.

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times, while the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times. And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals. By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.

That dynamic isn’t something that sprang up in the Trump era or with the court’s newest personnel. In the 2014-15 term, with Kennedy at the height of his “swing vote” power —the last full term before Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and resulting year-long vacancy — the four liberals stuck together in 55 of 66 cases, while the four conservatives (not counting Kennedy) voted as a unit in 39.

Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices

amp-usatoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[superchuck500]

Yesterday:



Today:

 

[Nebaghead]

Yesterday:



Today:

From my understanding the DA and Trumps lawyers agreed to a 7 day waiting period to release any records after a decision is made. Does that mean on 8/27 he has to release the records even if he is appealing the decision?

 

[superchuck500]

From my understanding the DA and Trumps lawyers agreed to a 7 day waiting period to release any records after a decision is made. Does that mean on 8/27 he has to release the records even if he is appealing the decision?

I don't know the details but the Second Circuit is going to hear the motion to stay on 9/1. The subpoena is on Mazars, not Trump, so they're really the ones with the jeopardy of non-compliance. But I doubt there will be any repercussion if they wait until the Second Circuit rules.

 

[superchuck500]

I don't know the details but the Second Circuit is going to hear the motion to stay on 9/1. The subpoena is on Mazars, not Trump, so they're really the ones with the jeopardy of non-compliance. But I doubt there will be any repercussion if they wait until the Second Circuit rules.

Apparently Vance's office has indeed agreed to wait pending the 2d Cir. review. The Hill stating they're "shelving" the matter isn't accurate and poor writing by the Hill.


https://thehill.com/regulation/5133...rees-to-shelve-subpoena-for-trump-tax-returns

 

[efil4]

Looks like Trump's final argument was that it would cause him irrepressible harm.

Huh.

 

[SaintForLife]

Apparently Vance's office has indeed agreed to wait pending the 2d Cir. review. The Hill stating they're "shelving" the matter isn't accurate and poor writing by the Hill.


https://thehill.com/regulation/5133...rees-to-shelve-subpoena-for-trump-tax-returns

Do you think his office will be able to find something illegal on his tax records that Mueller couldn't find?

 

[efil4]

Do you think his office will be able to find something illegal on his tax records that Mueller couldn't find?

You are aware Mueller did not get his tax returns, right?

He was leaving that for SDNY.

So to answer your question, yes. No one fights this hard to have their tax returns kept out of the hands of investigators that has nothing to hide.

What Mazars and Deutsche Bank have will have serious implications.

Trump said as much in his latest court filing. His last effort to keep them from investigators.

I don't know how you continue to assume this guy has played by the rules his entire career.

 

[CoolBrees]

Yeah Mueller never looked at his tax returns.

but again don’t let the truth stop you.

 

[MT15]

Its been pointed out numerous times that Mueller didn’t obtain Trump’s taxes.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Looks like Trump's final argument was that it would cause him irrepressible harm.

Huh.

That's like a murder suspect arguing that admitting the murder weapon into evidence would cause him irrepressible harm.

 

[superchuck500]

Looks like Trump's final argument was that it would cause him irrepressible harm.

Huh.

He has to argue that - it's one of the four elements bases upon which an injunction/stay is granted. Any brief in support of a request for injunction or stay that doesn't argue irreparable harm is incomplete.

 

[efil4]

He has to argue that - it's one of the four elements bases upon which an injunction/stay is granted. Any brief in support of a request for injunction or stay that doesn't argue irreparable harm is incomplete.

Interesting. Do they expand on that in the brief? What I mean is like what would the harm be??

Seems like if you argue that, you are basically admitting that whatever the govt is attempting to get would be incriminating. Kinda odd to have to argue that facet.

Law is odd lolol

 

[superchuck500]

You are aware Mueller did not get his tax returns, right?

He was leaving that for SDNY.

So to answer your question, yes. No one fights this hard to have their tax returns kept out of the hands of investigators that has nothing to hide.

What Mazars and Deutsche Bank have will have serious implications.

Trump said as much in his latest court filing. His last effort to keep them from investigators.

I don't know how you continue to assume this guy has played by the rules his entire career.

Perhaps Vance's team of investigators for the District Attorney of New York County can find something, I don't know - but I'm dubious of this idea that tax returns hold the key to Trump's criminal conduct. They're official sworn documents that he has filed with the IRS over the years, and criminal investigations launched from tax return information are not uncommon, the IRS has its own investigators and it works with the FBI. If there is evidence of criminality in Trump's tax returns, I don't suspect that it's particularly obvious - though perhaps it contains what would amount to admissions about relationships that could then be tied to other, more incriminating evidence beyond those returns.

But even that might be unrealistic, I don't know. I have always thought the real reason Trump fights so hard to keep his tax returns from the public is because they show that he reports very little taxable income and pays minimum tax. I think a lot of that is due to special tax treatment for real estate losses, but Trump has basically admitted that he uses those rules ("why wouldn't you?" he asks) and I think the result is that his numbers are very low and he's concerned about how that will play with voters.

 

[coldseat]

But even that might be unrealistic, I don't know. I have always thought the real reason Trump fights so hard to keep his tax returns from the public is because they show that he reports very little taxable income and pays minimum tax. I think a lot of that is due to special tax treatment for real estate losses, but Trump has basically admitted that he uses those rules ("why wouldn't you?" he asks) and I think the result is that his numbers are very low and he's concerned about how that will play with voters.

That explanation may have made sense 4 years ago, but it doesn't really make any sense now. He, of all people, knows that not one of his supporters would ever leave him because of his taxes. Regardless of what he paid. They'd call him a stable genius for skirting and manpulating tax law to pay as little as possible.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I still think that the big bombshell is he’s worth a fraction of what he’s been claiming he is

 

[superchuck500]

Interesting. Do they expand on that in the brief? What I mean is like what would the harm be??

Seems like if you argue that, you are basically admitting that whatever the govt is attempting to get would be incriminating. Kinda odd to have to argue that facet.

Law is odd lolol

The irreparable harm argument is in support of a stay of the district court's ruling that the subpoena is valid and may be enforced against Mazars, Trump's accounting firm. So he's not making these arguments about the tax return subpoena itself, he's making them to try to get the Second Circuit to stay the district court's decision pending additional appellate review.

The argument about irreparable harm is that if the district court's order is not stayed and Vance executes on it (by requiring Mazars to produce the returns or face criminal action for violating a subpoena) while appellate review remains pending, the appellate review process will be effectively rendered moot because the horse will already be out of the barn, so to speak.

This is a very common argument in this context (trying to get a stay pending appellate review) - and it's generally persuasive on its face. That doesn't mean there aren't other aspects that can be more persuasive or even compelling, but the idea that a party has a legal right to seek higher review that will be extinguished if the lower court order isn't stayed is a correct one, in and of itself.