Manhattan prosecutor agrees to shelve subpoena for Trump tax returns

[budkin]

Source: The Hill

Manhattan's top prosecutor on Monday agreed to delay enforcement of a subpoena for eight years of President Trump's tax returns.

Cyrus Vance Jr., the Democratic district attorney for Manhattan, had the legal right as of this Friday to enforce a New York grand jury subpoena to obtain a lengthy financial paper trail that includes Trump's corporate and personal tax records.

But Vance has agreed to temporarily shelve the subpoena against Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA. The delay allows for another round of litigation, extending the nearly yearlong court battle over the subpoena in which Trump has lost every bout, including a landmark decision last month at the Supreme Court.

Read more: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/regulation/513370-manhattan-prosecutor-agrees-to-shelve-subpoena-for-trump-tax-returns%3famp

---

WTAF! Why is Vance agreeing to this??

[jorgevlorgan]

1. How does this make sense??

[budkin]

2. It doesn't. At all.

Anyone got an answer as to why?

[SledDriver]

11. Perhaps related?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-ivanka-trump-and-donald-trump-jr-avoided-a-criminal-indictment/amp

[BComplex]

44. That article is damning of Cy Vance AND the trump kids, and ties back in with organized crime

The whole family is slimey, and the slime sticks to them and everyone around them.

[onenote]

54. See post 51

[woodsprite]

3. One of the 3 "P"s -- Payoff, Putin, or Polonium. nt

[lagomorph777]

41. +1 Assuming Vance is well-intentioned, I'd guess Polonium

But in any case, something is terribly wrong here.

[SunSeeker]

4. Why??? Did he get a concession in return?? This makes no sense!

[NBachers]

5. Is there some strategic benefit to this, or is Vance going all Cyrus Vance Jr. again?

From The New Yorker, October 13, 2017:

Why Didn’t the Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance Prosecute the Trumps or Harvey Weinstein?

It was reported here last week that, in 2012, Vance ordered his prosecutors to drop a promising criminal-fraud investigation against Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., who were suspected of misleading potential buyers of condos in the Trump SoHo building; the order came after their father’s attorney, Marc Kasowitz, paid Vance a visit. Soon after Vance’s office dropped the investigation, Kasowitz donated and raised a combined total of more than fifty thousand dollars for Vance’s reëlection campaign.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-didnt-manhattan-da-cyrus-vance-prosecute-the-trumps-or-harvey-weinstein

I had reservations about this guy, due to past conduct, but I was hoping he wouldn't cave again.

[cstanleytech]

12. Well he either caved or he accepted one hell of a bribe. nt

[dalton99a]

35. +1. There is plenty of reason for low expectations

because of him

[zentrum]

39. He's going all Vance again.

He will not prosecute Trumps. He let Ivanka and Jarad skate years ago.

Some journalist needs to investigate Vance. Who donates to his campaigns? What favors is he fulfilling to NY Real Estate? What is it?

[crickets]

42. Interesting. /monotone that conveys it's not interesting but predictably annoying 😕

[onecaliberal]

6. For fucks sake. What was the point of litigating for them to begin with?

[SledDriver]

8. Vance has given Trump and his family a lot of leniency in the past

Another 25k donation to his reelection campaign perhaps?

[fierywoman]

9. What dirt does donnie dimwit have on him?!?

[Nexus2]

20. I know, right?

Fucking top secret classified documents have gotten out faster than them damn tax returns. Is one of them the deal with Satan he made, signed in blood!?

[dalton99a]

36. Excellent question.

[the_sly_pig]

10. When Biden wins...

They might be going for a bigger case. Let’s hope this isn’t another Mueller. Or maybe Eric flipped.

[bringthePaine]

13. agrees? with whom? maybe the threat worked? are we played on a gambit?...?...

[CousinIT]

14. Who threatened and/or paid him off? n/t

[BigmanPigman]

15. I had reservations about him weeks ago

when his name came up and I did some reading about him. Now I can see my instincts were right. I didn't trust this guy....
"From August 2017, allegations appeared across various news media outlets concerning Vance's associations, and certain contributions made to his office in relation to past cases. Under scrutiny are the Manhattan DA's handling of allegations of sexual assault against film producer Harvey Weinstein, and allegations of his handling of improper conduct by members of the Trump family around the Trump SoHo development. Critics have suggested that contributions to the DA around these times were directly linked to Vance not prosecuting these cases. Vance has defended the actions of his office, citing insufficient evidence to prosecute in each case."

[dalton99a]

34. +1

[mr_lebowski]

16. WTAF indeed ... Hopefully one of the more legally informed DU'ers will drop by and give us some

plausible explanation that doesn't involve Vance being compromised.

Until then, I'm freaking

What about NY DA Leticia James claims on the taxes though? Still intact, right?

[The Daily Irishman]

17. His dad, Cyrus Vance Sr, was Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State

He resigned in the spring of 1980 because Carter had had the temerity to send military forces (gasp) to attempt a rescue of our hostages in Iran. I guess standing up for America is not in the family bloodline!

[atreides1]

18. The last time

Vance got $25,000...wonder what he got this time?

[FBaggins]

19. Not at all unusual

The circuit declined to issue an emergency stay... but did agree to hear the case a few weeks from now. Vance is just keeping things clean until then. He appears confident that he will win the appeal... but it could be messier if he were to lose the appeal after getting the taxes OR if a future/higher appeal were to further delay things.

[Chemisse]

25. Ty. I figured there was a logical explanation. n/t

[DeminPennswoods]

38. Thanks

The Appeals Court is moving pretty quickly. Given the Supreme Court's ruling, they'll likely uphold the lower court's ruling. If it goes to the Supreme Court, seems doubtful they'd overturn their own ruling of just a month ago.

This is a step in the process. When the USSC ruled against Trump, they also said that Trump/lawyers could appeal using standard arguments.

[crickets]

43. Thanks for the clarification. nt

[Sherman A1]

21. Sorry to hear this

I hope that there’s some reasoning behind it that eventually makes the case go forward.

[beachbumbob]

22. how much was DA payed off?

[ouija]

23. My guess

It’s an easier path. If he gets them now and Trump were to somehow win the appeal, that could be a problem moving forward, so be patient and wait is the prudent move.

[hellno45]

24. the rule of law doesn't apply if you are rich or "connected". nt

[getagrip_already]

27. most people drop appeals of a lost cause due to mounting legal expenses....

Even at pedestrian rates, a lawyer burning through hundreds of hours of work is going to hurt. But trump isn't paying his lawyers; we are. Or his campaign is. Or kickbacks are.

He has a free ride to pay lawyers an unlimited amount to spin legal wheels going nowhere but in the future.

[bucolic_frolic]

26. There may well be a new compelling case for Trump's impeachment after the election

tax returns would seal the deal.

[getagrip_already]

28. the senate woldnt even hold hearings this time.....

They would just vote to dismiss outright. A lame duck session, especially one where they lose the majority, will be in no mood to hand a political victory to us dirty libs.

[Hotler]

29. Shit!

[onenote]

30. How many of the commenters slamming Vance are lawyers?

Because most lawyers would probably tell you that this isn't a particularly unexpected move given where the case stands.

If Vance really was "bought off" as some here think, he could have killed the case a long time ago.

[dware]

33. I know, right?

It never ceases to amaze me at how many immediately jump to the conclusion that there is a nefarious purpose involved in this based on.....................what?

I wish people would just calm down and wait for the explanation, but rarely does that happen.

It seems that to certain people, just because it isn't going the way they want it to go, then there MUST be corruption involved.

[reACTIONary]

47. You are right. nt

[hamsterjill]

37. Why is this not a particularly unexpected move?

How can giving Trump more time be a good thing? I’m interested in your perspective.

Thanks.

[budkin]

45. This. Someone explain please.

All this does is further ensure we will never see the taxes before the election, or maybe ever.

[reACTIONary]

46. See above post...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2568797

It's only a few weeks delay.

[onenote]

51. Explanation:

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/appeals-court-refuses-to-block-order-enforcing-subpoena-for-trumps-tax-returns-putting-spotlight-back-on-scotus

Note the date: this was forecast back on August 21.

[old guy]

31. Surprise,surprise,surprise.

Not.

[onenote]

52. Not a surprise, but not for the reasons I you probably are imagining.

This move was predicted by legal experts back on August 21, immediately after the Court of Appeals set the date for argument on the stay request.

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/appeals-court-refuses-to-block-order-enforcing-subpoena-for-trumps-tax-returns-putting-spotlight-back-on-scotus/

[hamsterjill]

32. This is the part when the Dems piss me off.

I say again - disagree if you like but don’t expect me to change my mind - “Democrat’s are going to have to learn to fight Republicans the way Republicans fight Democrats.”

No quarter.

[tavernier]

40. Watch the old film "The Untouchables "

I see a lot of similarities.

[sarcasmo]

48. We will never see Trump's fraudulent tax returns.

[LudwigPastorius]

49. Just spitballing...

Perhaps Vance wants Trump to completely exhaust the appeals process before building his case.

Say that Vance gets the returns and begins building his case, only to have the returns declared out of bounds by the court on appeal.

It seems like Trump's lawyers might be able to later argue that the information in the returns "tainted" other evidence that Vance might have....calling into question whether the prosecution would have come up with certain information independently of its knowledge of what is in the returns.

I dunno. I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.

[onenote]

53. See post 51.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

50. Oh FFS - why?? What a lame article, couldnt be bothered to find out "why." nt