Trump wants U.S. Supreme Court to block subpoena for his tax returns

[Charlemagne]

U.S. Supreme Court to block subpoena for his tax returns

Manhattan DA seeking records in broader probe that includes Stormy Daniels payment

The Associated Press·Posted: Nov 14, 2019 5:37 PM ET |

U.S. President Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to block a subpoena for his tax returns, in a test of the president's ability to defy investigations.

The filing Thursday sets the stage for a high court showdown over the tax returns Trump has refused to release, unlike every other modern U.S. president. The justices also could weigh in more broadly on Trump's claim that sitting presidents can't be prosecuted or investigated for crimes.

The subpoena from the Manhattan district attorney is seeking Trump's tax returns back to 2011 from his accounting firm as part of a criminal investigation. Trump's lawyers say a criminal probe of the president at the state or local level is unconstitutional and unprecedented in U.S. history.

"Allowing the sitting president to be targeted for criminal investigation — and to be subpoenaed on that basis— would, like an indictment itself, distract him from the numerous and important duties of his office, intrude on and impair Executive Branch operations, and stigmatize the presidency," said the brief signed by Jay Sekulow.

Lower courts have so far rejected Trump's claims of immunity.

Trump loses another bid to block the release of his tax returnsHighlights from Day 1 of the televised Trump impeachment hearings

Trump wants the court to decide the case by late June, under a deal to keep the district attorney from enforcing the subpoena in the meantime. The justices may not decide whether to hear the case for at least another month.

A second, similar case is headed to the court over a House committee subpoena demanding Trump's financial records from the same accounting firm. The president has lost both cases at each step of the judicial system so far.

The Mazars USA firm has said it will comply with the subpoenas, if courts agree.

A ruling against Trump would not require public release of the information. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. is seeking the records back to 2011 in a broader probe that includes payments made to buy the silence of two women, porn star Stormy Daniels and model Karen McDougal, who claim they had affairs with the president before the 2016 presidential election. Trump has denied the claims.

Trump is asking for the Supreme Court's intervention as the impeachment drama plays out elsewhere in Washington. Public impeachment hearings that began Wednesday are examining claims that Trump tried to get Ukraine's leader to investigate political rival Joe Biden.

If the House votes to impeach the president, Chief Justice John Roberts would preside at a Senate trial that is likely to begin in January.

The justices usually fill their term's calendar by late January.

Tax case moving unusually quickly

The New York tax case is moving unusually swiftly through the federal courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled last week that the tax returns can be turned over to New York prosecutors.

The appellate judges emphasized the narrowness of their ruling, deciding only that a state prosecutor can demand Trump's personal financial records from a third party while the president is in office.

Their opinion upholding a trial judge's earlier ruling noted that they did not consider whether the president is immune from indictment and prosecution while in office or whether the president himself may be ordered to produce documents in a state criminal proceeding.

The subpoena does "not implicate, in any way, the performance of his official duties," 2nd Circuit Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann wrote.

During arguments in a New York courtroom, Trump's lawyer told the 2nd Circuit that Trump is immune from state criminal law, even if he shoots someone, because he's president. The exchange stemmed from Trump's campaign trail comment in 2016 that he "could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

Trump's lawyers have said the probe by Vance, a Democrat, is politically motivated.

The Justice Department, which intervened on Trump's behalf in New York, has taken a narrower approach, saying Vance must prove "particularized need" for the records before they are released to a grand jury.

In the Washington case, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed records from Mazars in April. They include documents from 2011 to 2018 that the House wants for investigation into the president's reporting of his finances and potential conflicts of interest. The list of documents makes no mention of Trump's tax returns.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted Wednesday not to reconsider an earlier panel opinion ordering Mazars to comply with the subpoena.

Trump's two appointees to the Washington court said the full court should have reheard the case. Judge Greg Katsas called the subpoena a "threat to presidential autonomy and independence."

There are two Trump appointees on the nine-member Supreme Court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-supreme-court-taxes-subpoena-1.5360120

 

[onthebottom]

This is a separation of powers issue.

Dems should be careful here. With so many new conservative judges on the courts and most of the country with GOP legislatures and Governors the next Dem POTUS could find themself under constant legal hassle, which is what this is.

 

[Frankfooter]

This is a separation of powers issue.

Dems should be careful here. With so many new conservative judges on the courts and most of the country with GOP legislatures and Governors the next Dem POTUS could find themself under constant legal hassle, which is what this is.

That's only a problem if they keep breaking the law as much as Trump does.

 

[oldjones]

This is a separation of powers issue.
…

If his taxes had been simply filed and paid — like the taxes of most American million and billion -aires (not to mention every previous President) instead of endlessly audited, disputed, and hidden there would be no subpoena to dispute, and certainly no whisper of "separation of powers". How is a President free from the ordinary lawful obligation of every other citizen?

What colour was that Kool-ade, otb?

 

[danmand]

If his taxes had been simply filed and paid — like the taxes of most American million and billion -aires (not to mention every previous President) instead of endlessly audited, disputed, and hidden there would be no subpoena to dispute, and certainly no whisper of "separation of powers". How is a President free from the ordinary lawful obligation of every other citizen?

What colour was that Kool-ade, otb?

I dunno why he not just release his tax files. They will undoubtedly show that he committed serious tax evasion, but that will just be applauded by his base of billionaires, that does the same, and the poor sops that does not pay taxes anyway.

 

[onthebottom]

If his taxes had been simply filed and paid — like the taxes of most American million and billion -aires (not to mention every previous President) instead of endlessly audited, disputed, and hidden there would be no subpoena to dispute, and certainly no whisper of "separation of powers". How is a President free from the ordinary lawful obligation of every other citizen?

What colour was that Kool-ade, otb?

He’s filed his taxes.

 

[oldjones]

He’s filed his taxes.

The operative words there were "and paid".

His excuse for not simply showing the people his honest dealings and tax-paid status is that he and the IRS have yet to settle their disputes over what he owes. So he hasn't paid. As a coupla f'rinstances, I've heard there's been some disagreement about the charitable and edcational status of a Foundation and a University, not to mention a half-dozen or so "smart" bankruptcies which he says have not reduced his billionaire status a bit.

I think you should focus on the principle: If his taxes were done and dusted like other Americans, billionaires included, there would be no subpoenas. Not to mention the additional principled duty of disclosure previous Presidents have established and upheld. Leave Donny to work the technicalities to get off. It's always been his thing.

As for separation of powers, I think the Founder's principle was that Presidents would do the right thing — like pay proper taxes — on their own. There'd be no need to use the force of law to compel them to proper conduct by threat of punishment.

Which is why that awful power was left to the whole Congress. Meantime, he could just do as most of us would, and honour the subpoenas. Surely he has nothing to hide.

 

[Gooseifur]

The operative words there were "and paid".

His excuse for not simply showing the people his honest dealings and tax-paid status is that he and the IRS have yet to settle their disputes over what he owes. So he hasn't paid. As a coupla f'rinstances, I've heard there's been some disagreement about the charitable and edcational status of a Foundation and a University, not to mention a half-dozen or so "smart" bankruptcies which he says have not reduced his billionaire status a bit.

I think you should focus on the principle: If his taxes were done and dusted like other Americans, billionaires included, there would be no subpoenas. Not to mention the additional principled duty of disclosure previous Presidents have established and upheld. Leave Donny to work the technicalities to get off. It's always been his thing.

As for separation of powers, I think the Founder's principle was that Presidents would do the right thing — like pay proper taxes — on their own. There'd be no need to use the force of law to compel them to proper conduct by threat of punishment.

Which is why that awful power was left to the whole Congress. Meantime, he could just do as most of us would, and honour the subpoenas. Surely he has nothing to hide.

I don't think paid is an issue. The one year we have he showed a tremendous loss. I don't think he wants them to get out for 2 reasons. He showed more years of loses than gains and he's not worth as much as he says he is.

 

[onthebottom]

The operative words there were "and paid".

His excuse for not simply showing the people his honest dealings and tax-paid status is that he and the IRS have yet to settle their disputes over what he owes. So he hasn't paid. As a coupla f'rinstances, I've heard there's been some disagreement about the charitable and edcational status of a Foundation and a University, not to mention a half-dozen or so "smart" bankruptcies which he says have not reduced his billionaire status a bit.

I think you should focus on the principle: If his taxes were done and dusted like other Americans, billionaires included, there would be no subpoenas. Not to mention the additional principled duty of disclosure previous Presidents have established and upheld. Leave Donny to work the technicalities to get off. It's always been his thing.

As for separation of powers, I think the Founder's principle was that Presidents would do the right thing — like pay proper taxes — on their own. There'd be no need to use the force of law to compel them to proper conduct by threat of punishment.

Which is why that awful power was left to the whole Congress. Meantime, he could just do as most of us would, and honour the subpoenas. Surely he has nothing to hide.

Do you have a reliable source for this?

 

[oldjones]

Do you have a reliable source for this?

Perhaps you could point out which specific one among the various opinions and statements I offered, is the one you want to trace back to a source. Perhaps when you do, you could offer the authority you're relying on for your own pronouncement that the separation of powers of government means Citizen Trump should not comply with a simple court order to provide tax returns that you suggest are entirely in good order.

 

[onthebottom]

Perhaps you could point out which specific one among the various opinions and statements I offered, is the one you want to trace back to a source. Perhaps when you do, you could offer the authority you're relying on for your own pronouncement that the separation of powers of government means Citizen Trump should not comply with a simple court order to provide tax returns that you suggest are entirely in good order.

You said the POTUS hasn’t paid his taxes, this surprises me. This is what I’d like a source for.

This is the core of the argument

According to Justice Department legal opinions, sitting presidents cannot be charged by federal prosecutors. Trump’s lawyers have taken that a step further, saying the president cannot be investigated by any prosecutor. But Vance, an elected district attorney, is not bound by the federal guidelines and has discretion to bring charges in New York state courts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...491346-ef6e-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html

 

[bver_hunter]

No wonder he is the biggest liar of a President. Only his cult followers refuse to believe it:

In a 2014 interview, Trump said he would release the returns, without any qualifications.

“If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely,” he told “Ireland AM.” “And I would love to do that.”

But once he was actually running, he added some caveats, first saying that he would not to have “everything all approved” by his accountants, then claiming — falsely — that he could not release them because he was under audit.

“Obviously if I’m being audited, I’m not going to release a return,” he told CNN.

https://time.com/5571077/donald-trump-tax-returns-arguments/

 

[Frankfooter]

You said the POTUS hasn’t paid his taxes, this surprises me. This is what I’d like a source for.

This is the core of the argument

According to Justice Department legal opinions, sitting presidents cannot be charged by federal prosecutors. Trump’s lawyers have taken that a step further, saying the president cannot be investigated by any prosecutor. But Vance, an elected district attorney, is not bound by the federal guidelines and has discretion to bring charges in New York state courts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...491346-ef6e-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html

Well, there is this:

The 2nd Trump whistleblower is an IRS official who alleges a Treasury Department political appointee tried to interfere with Trump's tax audit
https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...employee-treasury-political-appointee-2019-10

Trump has been at the center of several financial scandals. The New York Times reported last year that Trump used a series of dubious tax schemes to shield a $400 million inheritance from the IRS.

And in September, Mother Jones published an investigation that found Trump might have fabricated a loan to avoid paying $50 million in income taxes.

 

[onthebottom]

Well, there is this:

The 2nd Trump whistleblower is an IRS official who alleges a Treasury Department political appointee tried to interfere with Trump's tax audit
https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...employee-treasury-political-appointee-2019-10

You should assume I wouldn’t consider mother jones a reputable source. If Trump has not paid his taxes certainly a reliable source would say so.

 

[Frankfooter]

You should assume I wouldn’t consider mother jones a reputable source. If Trump has not paid his taxes certainly a reliable source would say so.

I would assume as a Trumptard you will deny reality until it comes crashing down on you.

 

[onthebottom]

I would assume as a Trumptard you will deny reality until it comes crashing down on you.

It’s a fact, either he’s paid his taxes or he’s hasn’t. Oldjones has made a claim he’s not yet substantiated. I have no way of knowing.

 

[Frankfooter]

It’s a fact, either he’s paid his taxes or he’s hasn’t. Oldjones has made a claim he’s not yet substantiated. I have no way of knowing.

There have been multiple articles suggesting Trump has committed tax fraud in the past.
Given the fraud at Trump U and the Trump Foundation and what we know about Trump's payments to Stormy Daniels, chances are he's hiding tax fraud.
Not to mention who is bankrolling his debt.

So most likely he hasn't paid what he really owes.

 

[onthebottom]

There have been multiple articles suggesting Trump has committed tax fraud in the past.
Given the fraud at Trump U and the Trump Foundation and what we know about Trump's payments to Stormy Daniels, chances are he's hiding tax fraud.
Not to mention who is bankrolling his debt.

So most likely he hasn't paid what he really owes.

In other words you have fuckall....

 

[oldjones]

You said the POTUS hasn’t paid his taxes, this surprises me. This is what I’d like a source for.

This is the core of the argument

According to Justice Department legal opinions, sitting presidents cannot be charged by federal prosecutors. Trump’s lawyers have taken that a step further, saying the president cannot be investigated by any prosecutor. But Vance, an elected district attorney, is not bound by the federal guidelines and has discretion to bring charges in New York state courts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...491346-ef6e-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html

So would I; that's why I keep asking, "Has he paid his taxes yet?"

If, like other Presidents, he had actually showed he had nothing to hide, and released his returns, we would already know for sure. Meantime what we know is: That he said during the campaign that he was being audited, that his returns were being "worked on" and that he would release them when his people and the IRS settled the audit. We know he hasn't yet. Neither has he said his dispute with the IRS has been concluded. All this comes up when you Google Trump tax returns, and the Wikipedia article is current to this month. As I understand tax audits, until they are settled, the tax man's version is that you still owe. And you haven't actually paid in full until both sides agree, or a judge decides for you both.

As for the Justice Department's opinion*, we must remember who hires and fires the Head of that Department and who it answers to. But that sure sounds like the old Divine Right of Kings. The Founders — some of whom who were alive when King CharlesI discovered it wasn't a useful defence against the axe — went to some lengths to preserve their republic from such notions of privilege. It's rather surprising they never thought to mention such an exemption in their Constitution. T'ain't there nowhere. But what they did make clear was the absolute power of Congress to investigate, and if necessary, to charge, to try and to convict a President of whatever crimes or misdemeanours they judge the evidence has proven.

If he won't or can't establish his innocence and good conduct any other way, in any other venue, he'll just have to wait for that tedious and painful process to unfold. So will we.

Certainly seems like it woulda been easier to just release the returns like so many other Presidents before him. Especially if they show he's all paid up like millions of his fellow citizens. When Nixon tried the Presidential privilege dodge in the third branch of American democracy it failed. You could even say blew up on him. This guy's done a better job of Court packing, but I suspect even Clarence, Neil and Bert aren't unaware it's the judgment of history that really counts.

Presidential privilege? Over tax returns? That he wants us to believe are paid and without problems? There's no high principle there, just a belated and mebbe desperate attempt to cover an over-exposed ass.
------
*There are others that differ. In any case, whether or not a President can be charged, has nothing to do with their obligation to obey the laws of the land, and the lawful demands of the officials that administer those laws. In our democracies under the rule of our just laws, we charge only the bad people. The good people 'assist the authorities in their enquiries'.

 

[onthebottom]

So would I; that'
s why I keep asking, "Has he paid his taxes yet?" If, like other Presidents, he actually showed he had nothing to hide, and released his returns, we would know for sure. Meantime what we know is that he said during the campaign that he was being audited, that his returns were being "worked on" and that he'd release them when his people and the IRS settled the audit. He hasn't. Neither has he said his dispute with the IRS has been concluded. All this comes up when you Google Trump tax returns, and the Wikipedia article is current to this month. As I understand tax audits, until they are settled, the tax man's version is that you still owe.

As for the Justice Department's opinion, we must remember who hires and fires the Head of that Department and who it answers to. But that sure sounds like the old Divine Right of Kings. The Founders — some of whom who were alive when King CharlesIdiscovered it wasn't a useful defence against the axe — went to some lengths to preserve their republic from such notions of privilege. It's rather surprising they never thought to mention such an exemption in their Constitution. In any case, what they did make clear was the absolute power of Congress to investigate and to if necessary to charge, to try and to convict a President of whatever crimes or misdemeanours as they judge the evidence has proven.

If he won't or can't establish his innocence and good conduct any other way, in any other venue, he'll just have to wait for that tedious and painful process to unfold.

Certainly seems like it woulda been easier to just release the returns like so many other Presidents before him. Especially if they show he's all paid up like millions of his fellow citizens. When Nixon tried the Presidential privilege dodge in the third branch of American democracy it fail. You could even say blew up on him. This guy's done a better job of Court packing, but I suspect even Clarence, Neil and Bert aren't unaware it's the judgment of history that really counts.

Presidential privilege? Over tax returns? That he claims are paid and without problems?

He would have been charged or under investigation long before he ran for POTUS had he not filed and paid his taxes. The burden of proof is on you. The IRS does not fuck around, especially with people who pay millions in taxes.

We know for instance he paid $30m+ in 2005 based on a Rachel Maddow reenactment of Geraldo Rivera’s opening of a vault :rofl: