DayTrader

Judge Orders Trump To Release Tax Returns

Recommended Posts

(edited)

NEW YORK (Reuters)  -  A federal judge on Monday said eight years of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tax returns must be provided to Manhattan prosecutors, forcefully rejecting the president’s argument that he was immune from criminal investigations. Trump’s returns will not be turned over immediately, after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan granted the president’s request to temporarily block the order, handed down by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.

The Manhattan judge had called the immunity claim “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values,” and said he could not “square a vision of presidential immunity that would place the President above the law.” His 75-page decision complicates Trump’s battle to keep his finances under wraps, despite having promised during his 2016 White House run that he would disclose his tax returns.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat, had subpoenaed personal and corporate tax returns from 2011 to 2018 and other records from Trump’s longtime accounting firm Mazars USA. The subpoena was part of Vance’s criminal probe into the Republican president and his family business. Marrero’s decision would have forced Mazars to start turning over documents on Monday afternoon, but the appeals court said the case had “unique issues,” justifying a delay.

An appeal could be heard as soon as this month. Trump has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing. Two committees of the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives have separately subpoenaed Deutsche Bank AG for Trump’s financial records, which include tax returns.

“The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts, so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump,” Trump tweeted after Marrero’s decision. “A thing like this has never happened to any President before. Not even close!” In suing Vance last month to block his subpoena, Trump said he was immune from criminal probes while in the White House and that the U.S. Constitution required Vance to wait.

HOUSE PROBE   The Constitution does not say whether sitting presidents can be indicted, and the Supreme Court has not decided the issue. Federal prosecutors cannot charge sitting presidents because presidents have temporary immunity, according to the Department of Justice, but that does not block criminal probes by state-level prosecutors like Vance or even federal prosecutors.

“It’s uncharted legal terrain,” Jens David Ohlin, vice dean at Cornell Law School, said in an interview.”If the framers of the Constitution desired a president who was completely immune from all forms of criminal prosecution, they would have said so,” he added. “The counterargument is that the Constitution would prohibit it because it would infringe on the president’s ability to govern the country.”

Vance issued the subpoena four weeks after issuing another subpoena to the Trump Organization for records of hush money payments, including to two women prior to the 2016 election who said they had sexual relationships with Trump, which he denies. Those payments were made to Stormy Daniels, a porn star whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, with the involvement of Trump’s now-imprisoned former lawyer Michael Cohen. Trump is also trying to block the House subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and is awaiting a ruling from the 2nd Circuit.

The House probes are separate from the debate over whether Trump should be impeached because of his dealings with Ukraine. Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Trump, said he was pleased the Vance subpoena was put on hold. Danny Frost, a spokesman for Vance, declined to comment. The Justice Department, which opposed dismissing Trump’s challenge to the subpoena, declined to comment. Mazars did not respond to requests for comment, but has said it would comply with its legal obligations. 

‘OVERREACH OF EXECUTIVE POWER’    In his decision, Marrero, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, declined to assert jurisdiction over the Vance subpoena, saying Trump should have brought his case in a New York state court. But the judge made clear that if the appeals court disagreed with that finding, Trump should lose. Marrero said the president failed to show that enforcing the subpoena would interfere with his presidential duties, cause irreparable harm or be against the public interest. He also rejected as too broad the idea of shielding Trump, his family and his businesses from criminal process.

“The expansive notion of constitutional immunity invoked here to shield the President from judicial process would constitute an overreach of executive power,” Marrero wrote. Marrero said even President Richard Nixon conceded during the Watergate scandal that he would be required to produce documents in response to a judicial subpoena. Trump’s lawyers said the case raised “momentous” questions about the president’s immunity and complying with the subpoena would cause irreversible damage.

“There will be no way to unscramble the egg scrambled by the disclosure,” the lawyers said in a court filing. Trump is running for re-election. His current term ends on Jan. 20, 2021.

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, Democrats hate the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Apparently, Democrats hate the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

You support someone hiding from law. This is a Judge, not some lunatic.

trump will probably start firing investigators and replace them with corrupt yes-men.

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Apparently, Democrats hate the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

Judges are a better determinator of that than you or I - you know with all that training and years of experience.

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

you know with all that training and years of experience.

Haha this thread was for you buddy, knew you'd jump on it in seconds  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Haha this thread was for you buddy, knew you'd jump on it in seconds  :) 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

You support someone hiding from law. This is a Judge, not some lunatic.

trump will probably start firing investigators and replace them with corrupt yes-men.

This would NEVER, EVER happen to a democrat president. Even Clinton was impeached, not prosecuted, although he committed 8 felonies. 

Trump meanwhile has committed no crime. He's refused to release his taxes WHILE THEY ARE BEING AUDITED. That's just intelligent, because 50,000,000 democrats will be going through every line with a fine toothed comb. No human can withstand that scrutiny and I guarantee 50 million lawsuits by those same ticked off democrats, furious they aren't in power and hating that they can't just remove a duly elected president by fiat. 

As for firing investigators, you said the same thing about Mueller, and were dead wrong then. How long till you just admit you're letting your emotions get ahead of your judgement?   ;)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

 

As for firing investigators, you said the same thing about Mueller, and were dead wrong then. How long till you just admit you're letting your emotions get ahead of your judgement?   ;)

It is no secret I dislike trump; but the distaste largely comes from logic not emotion.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you say, ‘Continued obstruction’? Sure you can!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you say, ‘Continued obstruction’? Sure you can!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was Trump’s team I would put this whole issue in front of the Supreme Court immediately.

This is once again a case of a State or Circuit court exceeding their bounds. At this level I would assume that the Supreme Court could not avoid hearing the case.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.