Trump asks Supreme Court to shield his tax returns from prosecutors

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post

President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to stop a prosecutor’s investigation of his personal finances, a bold assertion of presidential power that seeks a landmark decision from the nation’s highest court.

The filing by the president’s private lawyers represents a historical moment that tests the court’s independence and highlights the Constitution’s separation-of-powers design. It also marks a new phase in the investigations that have dogged Trump throughout his presidency and have culminated in an impeachment inquiry.

The case involves Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.’s attempt to enforce a grand jury subpoena issued to the president’s accountants for eight years of Trump’s tax records. Trump went to court to block the subpoena, making a broad claim that presidents are immune from investigation while in office. A district judge and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled against him, saying the subpoena was proper and the president’s longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, must comply.

Vance’s office agreed to hold off on enforcing the subpoena if Trump’s lawyers quickly asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this term. The justices are not required to review the lower court’s decision. But the chances that the high court will get involved increased Wednesday, when a separate appeals court in a separate case concluded Congress has a right to those same tax records.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-shield-his-tax-returns-from-prosecutors-setting-up-historic-separation-of-power-showdown/2019/11/14/d7b176a0-04dd-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html

---

Full headline: Trump asks Supreme Court to shield his tax returns from prosecutors, setting up historic separation-of-power showdown

This is the OTHER case (state one) from this one (Congressional) - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142394750

[Brainfodder]

1. Is the name of the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll in his tax returns?

SO DODGY, WHY?

[bucolic_frolic]

14. One can only speculate

Maybe the $10 billion man is worth about 92% less.
Maybe the source of his cash flow is shady.
Maybe Trump assets have historical baggage. Historical.
Maybe the numbers don't add up.
Maybe some throughput is in the form of cash.
Maybe there are offshore accounts.
Maybe there is something we don't know about and can't imagine.
Maybe the man who spills government secrets to foreign adversaries and likes political opponents' emails divulged likes his privacy
Maybe there are more divorces, kids, or alimonies

He did promise to release them at one early point in the campaign.
You knew then he'd never do it.

[unblock]

18. i continue to think the returns will be a big letdown.

they might well be massively fraudulent, but mostly they're just numbers. it won't be immediately obvious where the tax evasion or criminal activity is.

if we're talking only his individual tax returns, there might be very little to them indeed. not even sure we'll see the real source of the money. he'll get his money from some of his 500 shell companies.

hard to come to any meaningful conclusion unless we see *all* of the returns.

[bucolic_frolic]

19. Interesting take on it

I'm thinking 2 things. You're right, they could be so convoluted as to tie the public and Congress up in knots for a year or more.

Also, all things are connected in them, and I'd bet Deutsche Bank as a central clearing house

[SKKY]

29. I'll take all of the above.

[cstanleytech]

2. There's nothing in the Constitution that shields him from something he did before he took office.

[unblock]

15. sure there is.

a majority of supreme court justices can decide the case whichever way they want. same brilliant legal logic that gave the presidency to shrub in 2000.

welcome to republican constitutional interpretation. your grade will be determined by how well you can ignore plain language, how hard you can stomp on logic, how many fallacies you can commit, how effectively you can dress up your predetermined conclusions in pseudo-legalese, but mostly by how much money you give me.

[BeyondGeography]

24. Yeah, but there's nothing big riding on this one for the SCJ's on a personal level

Like Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement calendar. or not.

[paleotn]

30. They don't have to accept the case.

My prediction is they don't even take it up and the appeals court ruling stands. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have life time appointments and don't owe shitgibbon anything at this point. And there's not a damn thing he can do about it.

[unblock]

32. true but that's not the way these people think.

you may be right that they'd send donnie up the river if they could at this point, but i suspect they'll be happy to confirm that a president can be thoroughly investigated while in office, expecting that republicans will take advantage of that precedent to smear democratic presidents more than democrats will.

[Progressive Jones]

37. Nothing simply about Trump. Any investigations into Trump,

who is the current puppet president of the "Long Running Right Wing Coup",
will lead to investigations into others. Trump isn't the only one trying to sit on those tax returns.
The big GOP fight against the impeachment inquiry is due to the same reason. It's not completely political.
When Trump crashes and burns, so will others.
They can't have that now, can they?

[onenote]

40. The three judges that would have ordered rehearing of the DC Circuit case have lifetime appointments

but that didn't stop them from taking Trump's side in the case.

[Dennis Donovan]

3. Didn't SCOTUS already rule that it was up to a State court?

...or something to the effect it wasn't their jurisdiction?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. That was yesterday or two days ago, a District Court in DC.

Some guy named Dennis Donovan had a thread about it:

Federal judge has dismissed a Trump lawsuit re: tax returns and House Ways & Means

That's the House Ways & Means Committee. Meanwhile, in the SDNY, Cyrus Vance is trying to get Mazars, Trump's accounting firm, to cough up the returns it has. The petition right here, right now, is about Cyrus Vance's request for the tax returns. Cyrus Vance is a prosecutor. The House W&M Committee is not a group of prosecutors.

I think I have that right.

[Dennis Donovan]

9. Ah - not SCOTUS

Thanks!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. I posted earlier today in Editorials & Other Articles.

Re: those subpoenas for Trump's financial records likely to make their way to #SCOTUS in 36 hours

NotOutlandishHat Retweeted

1. With two of the subpoenas for @realDonaldTrump's financial records likely to make their way to #SCOTUS in the next 36 hours, I wanted to put together a detailed #thread walking through where we are and what happens next.

Apologies in advance, but this is going to get nerdy.

Link to tweet

.
.
.

12. But as I've documented in a brand-new @HarvLRev essay, the Trump administration has asked for _far_ more stays from #SCOTUS than its predecessors (the next request will be the 22nd in less than three years)—and has received relief far more often:

http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/123-163_Online.pdf …

Link to tweet

13. And an application for a stay tends to be resolved much faster than a cert. petition. So even though we may not know until January whether the Court will take the Vance case, we may know by Thanksgiving whether there are five votes to freeze the status quo for the time being.

Link to tweet

[unblock]

4. he'll lose, but they'll establish a precedent they'll abuse to harass the next democratic president.

[smb]

33. You Think The Next Democratic President Won't Release Tax Returns Normally? nt

[unblock]

35. Of course they will. I'm thinking the precedent, at least as abused by republicans, will be

rather more broad. They'll get "payback" by investigating the crap out of the next democratic president, coming up with fake scandals just like they investigated the crap out of Hillary.

But after this Supreme Court decision, they'll seek all kinds of personal records.

I agree that all other candidates, probably including republicans, will release tax returns as a matter of course.

[RobinA]

36. That, And

you can pretty much bank on them impeaching the next Dem président if and when they get the House back.

[cstanleytech]

38. They already do that. Look at the investigations into Clinton or the one into Hillary they did to

deliberately sabotage her and they never found a single thing she did that was criminal.
If anything Mitch and the other Repugnants behind that belong in prison for abuse of power.

[unblock]

42. indeed, but they'll amp it up with more legal intrusion to get personal documents, etc.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. Thanks for the thread, BRDS. Here's a thread that will help explain the process:

Re: those subpoenas for Trump's financial records likely to make their way to #SCOTUS in 36 hours

NotOutlandishHat Retweeted

1. With two of the subpoenas for @realDonaldTrump's financial records likely to make their way to #SCOTUS in the next 36 hours, I wanted to put together a detailed #thread walking through where we are and what happens next.

Apologies in advance, but this is going to get nerdy.

Link to tweet

.
.
.

12. But as I've documented in a brand-new @HarvLRev essay, the Trump administration has asked for _far_ more stays from #SCOTUS than its predecessors (the next request will be the 22nd in less than three years)—and has received relief far more often:

http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/123-163_Online.pdf …

Link to tweet

13. And an application for a stay tends to be resolved much faster than a cert. petition. So even though we may not know until January whether the Court will take the Vance case, we may know by Thanksgiving whether there are five votes to freeze the status quo for the time being.

Link to tweet

[BumRushDaShow]

16. Thanks for those updates

I would hope that they won't even bother to hear the state case at all, regardless of the request for a stay, which should be rejected anyway, given it's a "state" issue, and at least let one of these cases prevail.

[Newest Reality]

7. The GLARING, FLASHING...

The glaring, flashing, red neon sign says:

WHAT IS IN THOSE RETURNS THAT YOU DON'T WANT ANYONE TO SEE, TRUMP?

Oh, you don't have anything to hide, so it's no problem, right? Just give a guy a little privacy, see.

[Girard442]

8. Hate to be the Debby Downer here, but they're going to rule in Trump's favor.

If they rule against Trump, the whole house of cards comes down and they won't be a part of that.

[crimycarny]

23. I'm not so sure

I think that Justice Roberts will vote along with Kagan, Ginsberg, Bryer, Sotomayer, at a minimum. No idea how the conservative justices feel but I can't help but wonder if some of them are disgusted by Trump.

[Thomas Hurt]

10. His tax returns have exactly d*ck to do with the executive powers.

Particularly if they are tax returns from before he took office.

OTOH, the Congress' oversight and impeachment powers are in play here.

This is yet again the argument that Trump should be protected under some bee ess divine right of kings theory.

[olddad65]

11. We know his Supreme Rapist will be on his side.

[RandySF]

12. I think Barr's on his way out

He rigged the Mueller report, but staying away from impeachment.

[sakabatou]

17. He has something to hide

[C Moon]

20. These tax returns are NOW a must see. He's taken this as far as he can.

They will most likely be his end.

[Evolve Dammit]

21. Gee, I thought as soon as the "audits" were over, he was happy to release. Lie #15, in 15,928.

[CaptainTruth]

22. What's Trump's legal argument for Mazars defying the subpoena?

Sorry, but I'm buried with customers wanting work done before Thanksgiving & I haven't been able to keep up with all the details of Trump trials.

Arguing Mazars should defy the subpeana "because I'm president" has zero legal merit, it doesn't matter.

The only possible argument I can see is that Trump gave his financial information to Mazars under a contract that says Mazars will not supply the information to any 3rd party without the express written consent of the client (Trump), so if they comply with the subpoena it constitutes breach of contract. However, I believe there are thousands of cases, specifically criminal investigations, where that argument also has zero legal merit.

So ... what is Trump's argument? "I'll be sad" doesn't cut it in a court of law.

[getagrip_already]

25. one of his arguments

is that the president can't be investigated while in office.

Period.

[TNNurse]

26. The enormity of what he has to hide is impressive.

It is also probably a felony.

[bluestarone]

27. I'm sure he won't like their answer

I will love it when they refuse it!

[SCVDem]

28. Then we have to file an order against SCOTUS

for aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise!

Is tRump really worth all this?

Fuck NO!

[CanonRay]

31. Well here's a real test for the Robert's court.

This will define them.

[VarryOn]

45. Especially if these returns are as devestating as we're lead to believe. Nt

[johndaly]

34. I see several reasons

the SC would refuse this. Firstly, the Court has no compelling reason in the form of judicial review, ie; no prior court ruling is being contested on the basis of faulty application or interpretation of the law. Secondly, the prior rulings have all been consistent with case law and established precedent. Thirdly, the White House is asserting that the president is immune from investigation, indictment or any form of oversight because of a ruse they call "the unitary executive", which is an unsupported assertion, not backed by case law or precedent and puts the executive branch "above the law" as long as the president is in office.
I want to suggest that the danger for the court lies in issuing a favorable ruling which creates the unsupported condition of being "above the law". The danger specifically is that in creating such a preposterous condition for the executive branch, the other branches of government, all co-equal, become subject to the executive and are no longer independent and co-equal. This invalidates law. It provides the avenue for legalized criminality. Under such a ruling, the executive could do what Trump did with Ukraine, even extorting money and real estate deals for himself and family and cronies at the expense of American security and he could use any bogus intelligence against his enemies, etc.
For these reasons and in consideration of Chief Justice Roberts' concern to maintain the Court's vaunted non-partisanship and protect the domain of law and jurisprudence from undue political influence, I believe the Court will refuse to take the case and will use the first two points of my argument to justify refusal. I hope I am correct. Peace.

[jgmiller]

39. They don't even need to rule

The court can just choose to grant cert which means the lower court ruling would stand. Even if they want to protect executive powers this is a state court matter they will bypass it. They will however take up the other tax case since that is based on a federal law. So basically they will split the baby.

[onenote]

41. That is not what granting cert means.

Granting a petition for writ of certiorari is the step the Court takes when it decides to hear a case, not when it decides to let a lower court decision stand. To do that, they deny cert. In other words, you have it backwards.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

43. Here's a link to the document, if no one has made one already:

“Politically motivated subpoenas like this one are a perfect illustration of why a sitting president should be categorically immune from state criminal process.” read petition:

Link to tweet

National Context
Read the petition: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. Cyrus R. Vance Jr., in his official capacity as District Attorney of the County of New York; MAZARS USA, LLP.
Updated Nov 14, 2019 at 5:20 PM

[BumRushDaShow]

44. Thanks for that update & link to the petition!