2
   

To Get Trump’s Tax Returns, N.Y. Democrats Try a New Strategy.

 
 
Reply Mon 8 Apr, 2019 08:32 pm
To Get Trump’s Tax Returns, N.Y. Democrats Try a New Strategy.


Published April 8, 2019
Quote:
ALBANY — In an attempt to work around the White House, Democratic lawmakers in Albany are trying to do what their federal counterparts have so far failed to accomplish: to obtain President Trump’s tax returns.

Albany lawmakers are seeking state tax returns, not the federal ones at the heart of the current standoff in Washington. But a tax return from New York — the president’s home state, and the headquarters of his business empire — could likely contain much of the same financial information as a federal return.

Under a bill that is scheduled to be introduced this week, the commissioner of the New York Department of Taxation and Finance would be permitted to release any state tax return requested by leaders of three congressional committees for any “specific and legitimate legislative purpose.”

The bill is the most recent proposal from New York lawmakers trying to cast light on the president’s personal finances and business dealings, but it could also open the Democratic majorities in the Legislature to charges of politicizing state law to embarrass the president ahead of his expected re-election campaign.

State Senator Brad Hoylman, a Manhattan Democrat who is sponsoring the legislation, defended the bill, saying it is designed to be “a safety valve for any attempt by the White House to block the Congress from doing this at the federal level.”

“We’re creating a parallel track,” Senator Hoylman added.

The bill would amend current state laws that generally prohibit such private tax information from being released, and would cover a broad range of filings, including personal income taxes, corporation taxes and real estate transfer taxes.

The bill’s expected introduction on Monday comes even as the I.R.S. and Treasury Department in Washington are deciding whether to comply with a request last week from the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, for access under a provision of the federal tax code to six years of his federal returns by April 10.

Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer called the effort by Mr. Neal a “gross abuse of power” — an opinion that was seconded by the White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who said on Sunday that Democrats would “never” see the president’s tax returns. It remains unclear if the federal tax collecting agencies will share that view.

But with New York having a Democratic-controlled Legislature, and a Democratic governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, some officials see a route to bypassing such arguments. And Mr. Hoylman said he anticipates broad support for the congressional-request bill among lawmakers in New York, one of the nation’s bluest states.

Mr. Cuomo, a third-term Democrat who has repeatedly criticized Mr. Trump, did not respond to requests for comment about the bills seeking the release of state tax returns. The White House declined to comment on the proposal.

Republican leaders were furious at the idea that New York officials would potentially allow Democrat-led committees to see the returns.

“This is a bill of attainder, aimed at one person,” said Ed Cox, the chairman of the New York State Republican Party, adding that the maneuver was “outrageous politics,” aimed at increasing Mr. Cuomo’s political prospects.

Still, it was not clear whether the leaders of the State Senate or the State Assembly would immediately embrace such a bill; similar measures stalled in the Assembly during the last legislative session.

Mr. Hoylman said he believes the new bill’s narrow focus may ease concerns about the mass release of personal information about political figures that had caused other legislative attempts in Albany to force the release of Mr. Trump’s taxes to be sidelined. Previous efforts had also faced opposition from Republicans in the State Senate, who lost their majority in that chamber after a disastrous 2018 election cycle.

Under the new proposal, the release of tax information would require a formal request by a congressional committee, and would come only after other efforts to obtain federal tax information through the Treasury Department had failed.

Mr. Hoylman’s bill is one of at least three proposed in recent years that seek the release of Mr. Trump’s state tax returns, including legislation that he co-sponsored with Assemblyman David Buchwald, a Westchester County Democrat.

That earlier bill, known as the New York Truth Act, would require the state Department of Taxation and Finance to release five years of income tax returns from eight officials (if they earn income in New York): the president; vice president; New York’s two United States senators; and four statewide elected officials, including the governor and the state attorney general.

Most of those officials currently release or give access to their tax returns, but Mr. Buchwald said the Truth Act bill is the “most tangible, best opportunity to produce the president’s tax return.”

“Obviously, when someone fills one of these higher offices, they have to meet a higher standard,” Mr. Buchwald said, adding that such state returns would reveal “worldwide income” as well as potential conflicts of interest.

“I think it’s a good general principle for us to be promoting,” Mr. Buchwald said. The bill, first introduced in 2017, now has enough co-sponsors to pass the Assembly and Senate.

A third bill, also sponsored by Mr. Hoylman, would require candidates for president and vice president to reveal their past tax returns in order to appear on primary and general election ballots. Similar efforts are also being considered in more than a dozen other states, including California and New Jersey.

Daniel Hemel, an assistant professor at the University of Chicago who teaches tax law, said that the New York state Legislature could authorize the release of Mr. Trump’s state returns, but that knotty legal issues are at play as well, particularly because of federal laws protecting tax information. For instance, if New York were to release federal return information that is contained within the state tax return, Mr. Hemel said, the Internal Revenue Service “could conceivably cease cooperation with the state.”

Still, Mr. Hemel added, the I.R.S. would face “legal and practical obstacles if it tried to retaliate against New York,” and that “there is a lot of information on Trump’s state tax return that is not federal return information,” including New York’s adjusted gross income and his state taxes.

Under the bill to be introduced on Monday, the chairperson of three committees — the Senate Finance Committee; the House Ways and Means Committee; and the Joint Committee on Taxation — could request tax returns from the New York tax department.

Each would have to submit written requests for the information, and such requests would also have to follow a request to the United States Department of Treasury.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that Mr. Hoylman’s bill was a way to access the same information that his colleagues in Congress have been seeking.

“The state return, presumably, has to match the federal return,” he said, adding, “It just makes the work of the federal committee, that has a legitimate reason to look into this, a little easier to see the complete picture.”

He added that the bill would be “a pretty quick” workaround to White House opposition to releasing the president’s tax returns. “It would help vindicate the rule of law,” Mr. Nadler said.

Mr. Cuomo, who gives the media access to his annual tax returns every April (though he does not allow reporters to make copies), has expressed support for the increased release of such information by candidates for statewide and legislative office. But a proposal to do just that was not included in the final budget negotiations.

Mr. Hoylman said that the bill to be introduced on Monday was narrowly crafted to prevent “fishing expeditions” by federal lawmakers.

“This would be a very rare, but very important, use of the state’s power,” he said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/to-get-trumps-tax-returns-ny-democrats-try-a-new-strategy/ar-BBVIsLn?ocid=UE13DHP
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 965 • Replies: 21

 
Real Music
 
  0  
Reply Mon 8 Apr, 2019 08:53 pm
Mick Mulvaney is fighting to keep Trump’s tax returns secret.

Published April 8, 2019
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 01:41 pm
NY state Senate passes bill

allowing Congress to get Trump tax returns.



Published May 8, 2019
Quote:
The New York state Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would make it easier for Congress to obtain President Donald Trump's state tax returns, advancing a bill that Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said he will sign if it reached his desk.

The bill, called the TRUST Act, passed by an 39 to 21 vote. The bill would amend state law to permit the state Department of Taxation and Finance commissioner to release any state tax return requested by the leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee or the Joint Committee on Taxation for any "specific and legitimate legislative purpose." Existing laws generally prohibit such a release.

Those congressional committees would have to file a request with the state only after efforts to gain access to federal tax filings through the Treasury Department failed.

The bill would only apply to Trump's state returns and not the federal ones currently at the center of a battle between the House and the Treasury Department. But those returns would provide a trove of information as New York serves as the headquarters of the president's business and which has served as his home.

Though the legislation would only apply to the president's state returns and not the federal ones currently at the center of a Washington battle, the tax filings are likely to contain much of the same information congressional lawmakers are seeking from his federal returns.

"Donald Trump has broken 40 years of political tradition by not releasing his tax returns," Democratic state Sen. Brad Hoylman, who sponsored the legislation, said in a statement. "Now, his administration is precipitating a constitutional crisis by shielding the president from congressional oversight over those returns. Our system of checks and balances is failing. New York has a special role and responsibility to step into the breach."

"I look forward to seeing the bill pass both houses, and reach the Governor’s desk for a signature," he added. "We must ensure that Congress can’t be blocked in their attempts to hold even the highest elected officials in the land accountable to the American people."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement that the bill "is a workaround to a White House that continues to obstruct and stonewall the legitimate oversight work of Congress."

"The state return should generally match the federal return and obtaining it from New York State will enable us in Congress to perform our oversight function and maintain the rule of law," he added.

Speaking from the Senate floor on Wednesday, Republican state Sen. Frederick Akshar said "everyday taxpayers are not amused" by the legislative efforts.

"If you want to push back on the president, if you want to raise hell with the president, go ahead," he said. "Run for a House seat. Run for the United States Senate."

Both the state Senate and state Assembly, where the bill was advanced too, are under Democratic control, as is the governor's mansion. Last month, in an interview with WAMC, Cuomo said he supported the bill so long as it applies to any official elected in the state.

But Ed Cox, chairman of the New York Republican Party, told NBC News last month that the bill was clearly aimed at the president himself "with the purpose of re-litigating the 2016 campaign in which the people of the United States knew that he had not released his tax returns and they still elected him president of the United States."

The advancement of the bill comes as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Monday rejected House Democrats’ request for Trump's federal returns, again missing a congressional deadline to turn over the documents. House Democrats are now faced with pursuing a legal battle with the Treasury Department to obtain the tax information.

Federal law gives three Congressional tax committees the unqualified right to obtain and review the otherwise confidential federal tax information of any taxpayer from the Treasury Department.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from NBC News.

Additionally, the state Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would allow state prosecutors to pursue charges against individuals pardoned by the president. New York Attorney General Letitia James and Cuomo both endorsed that legislative push.

The bill would create an exception to New York law, which prohibits the state from prosecuting a person who has already been tried for the same crime by the federal government. The exception would make it easier for prosecutors to pursue a case against someone who received a presidential pardon.

"The legislation upholds the standards of fairness & justice at the core of the double jeopardy law, and prevents it from being used as a tool to deny justice altogether," James tweeted. She added, "The bill embodies a central component to the foundation of our democracy: The President — unlike a monarch or authoritarian dictator — is not above the law and our laws should apply to all people of this nation equally, including and especially our leaders."

The state Assembly has not yet scheduled dates for votes on either that bill or the tax legislation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/ny-state-senate-passes-bill-allowing-congress-get-trump-tax-n1003396
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2019 04:47 pm
New York Passes Bill Giving Congress a Way to Get Trump’s State Tax Returns.

Published May 22, 2019
Quote:
ALBANY — New York State lawmakers on Wednesday gave their final approval to a bill that would clear a path for Congress to obtain President Trump’s state tax returns, injecting another element into a tortuous battle over the president’s refusal to release his taxes.

The bill, which is expected to be signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a third-term Democrat and regular critic of Mr. Trump’s policies and behavior, will authorize state tax officials to release the president’s state returns to any one of three congressional committees.

The returns — filed in New York, the president’s home state and business headquarters — would likely contain much of the same information as the contested federal returns, though it remained unclear whether those congressional committees would use such new power in their investigations.

The Legislature’s actions put the state in a bit of unchartered legal territory; Mr. Trump has said that he is ready to take the fight over his federal tax returns to the Supreme Court, and it seems likely that he would seek to contest New York’s maneuver.

Republicans have called the effort in Albany a “bill of attainder” — an unconstitutional piece of legislation aimed at a single person or group — while also decrying the potential invasion of privacy, suggesting that federal officials would conduct improper “fishing expeditions.”

Still, for Democrats for whom the president’s steadfast refusal to release his returns has been a constant frustration, the legislative action was being cast as both a victory for states’ rights and the often unsung power of a state legislature.

“It’s a matter of New York’s prerogative,” said State Senator Brad Hoylman, a Democrat from Manhattan, who sponsored the bill in his chamber. “We have a unique responsibility and role in this constitutional standoff.”

Once signed into law by Mr. Cuomo, the legislation would require the commissioner of the New York Department of Taxation and Finance to release returns to the chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation for any “specified and legitimate legislative purpose.” Such a request would be have to be made it writing, and only after a request for federal returns has been made to the Treasury Department.

In Washington, the House Ways and Means Committee has unsuccessfully sought six years of the president’s personal and business tax returns. The Treasury Department said last week that it would not honor a congressional subpoena to hand over the president’s returns, saying the request lacked a “legitimate legislative purpose,” though a leaked draft memorandum from the I.R.S. suggested that such logic was flawed.

On Wednesday, the Ways and Means Committee said it was focused on pursuing Mr. Trump’s federal tax information, regardless of New York’s action and the potential for getting the president’s state returns.

“Our request to the Internal Revenue Service was in furtherance of an investigation into the mandatory presidential audit program at the I.R.S.,” said Daniel Rubin, a spokesman for the committee, which is led by Representative Richard E. Neal, the Massachusetts Democrat. “State returns would not help us evaluate this program.”

At the same time, Steven M. Rosenthal, a tax lawyer and senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said he would not be surprised if the president fought the state law, though he believed it passed legal muster.

“Of course, the Legislature was motivated by Donald Trump’s current refusals,” Mr. Rosenthal said, but added that he thought the bill was written broadly enough to avoid the “bill of attainder” accusation.

That opinion was echoed by Brian Galle, a law professor at Georgetown University Law School, who said that “bills of attainder have been interpreted really narrowly by the courts,” and noted that legislation often describes targeted industries or municipalities in vague terms. (In New York, for instance, state bills aimed at New York City are typically described as those affecting “a city with a population of one million or more,” as New York is the only such city in the state.)

“The bill doesn’t say you can release Donald Trump’s, and only Donald Trump’s, tax returns,” Mr. Galle said.

Lawmakers took steps to safeguard the bill from legal challenges, amending the wording so that it covered an array of public officials, federal executive branch employees and political party leaders.

The passage of the state tax bill is just the latest action in Albany directed at Mr. Trump, who is deeply unpopular in his home state.

On Tuesday, the Assembly passed a bill that would allow state prosecutors to pursue state charges against any person granted a presidential pardon on similar federal charges, undoing a loophole in the face of concern about Mr. Trump abusing his pardon power to indemnify former associates. The Senate had previously passed the bill to close the so-called double jeopardy loophole, and it, too, has Mr. Cuomo’s support.

Mr. Hoylman said he envisioned the state tax bill as a way to assist congressional oversight at a time of “White House stonewalling.” Indeed, when the bill was first introduced in early April, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said it would make the work of federal committee “a little easier to see the complete picture.”

His office reiterated that support on Wednesday, calling the state’s action an act “for transparency.”

“It’s something we can give Chairman Neal if he decides to exercise it,” Rob Gottheim, a district director for Mr. Nadler, said of the Ways and Means Committee leader.

During his campaign for president in 2016, Mr. Trump broke precedent — and set his own — by refusing to release his tax returns, citing what he said were pending federal audits. There is no law preventing taxpayers from releasing their returns under such circumstances.

David Buchwald, the Assembly sponsor of the state tax bill and a tax lawyer by trade, said that he was confident the state was within its rights to allow federal access to such records, noting that state tax officials commonly share information with the I.R.S. and other states.

“There are no valid constitutional arguments against this legislation,” Mr. Buchwald said on Wednesday. “The state has the authority over the statutes when it shares tax return information.” He noted that local property tax information, for instance, was available to the public.

Mr. Galle seconded this, saying “there is no constitutional right to have privacy in your tax returns,” though federal law offers some protections of such information, as well as exceptions.

While New York is a profoundly blue state, the support was not unanimous in the Democratic-led Assembly. Michael Benedetto, a Bronx Democrat, voted no, saying the bill troubled him.

“We are traveling down a path we should not be traveling down,” Mr. Benedetto said, calling the bill political in nature and meant to “get a few people.”

On Wednesday, the state’s top Republican in the Senate, John J. Flanagan, was also outraged that Democrats had “wasted weeks on their singular obsession with getting a peek at President Trump’s taxes,” while other issues languished.

“It’s time for Democrats in Albany to stop seeking cheap headlines,” Mr. Flanagan said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/nyregion/trump-state-tax-returns.html
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 10:33 am
Judge dismisses Trump request to keep taxes secret in New York
By Erica Orden

Updated 11:24 AM ET, Mon October 7, 2019

New York (CNN)A federal judge on Monday dismissed President Donald Trump's effort to prevent his tax returns from being turned over to a New York grand jury.

The ruling raises the likelihood that Trump's tax returns will be provided in response to the subpoena, although any material obtained through a grand jury subpoena is covered by grand jury secrecy rules, meaning it would likely become public only if it were used as evidence at a trial.

Dismissing Trump's "extraordinary" claim that any occupant of the White House enjoys "absolute immunity from criminal process of any kind," US District Court Judge Victor Marrero said in a 75-page opinion that such a position "would constitute an overreach of executive power."

An attorney for Trump filed an emergency notice of appeal to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals minutes after the district court judge filed his decision, and the appeals court immediately ordered a temporary stay of the subpoena.

In a tweet Monday, Trump criticized the legal effort.

"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. A thing like this has never happened to any President before. Not even close!" Trump tweeted.

Prosecutors are looking at whether the Trump Organization violated any New York state laws -- including potentially filing false business records -- in its effort to reimburse Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney, who paid some of the hush money on Trump's behalf. Cohen is serving a prison sentence after pleading guilty in a federal case concerning the payments.
As part of its probe, the DA's office sent Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, a grand jury subpoena seeking tax returns and related documents going back to 2011. On Monday, a spokeswoman for the company said, "Mazars USA will respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations."

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, led by Cyrus Vance, Jr., is examining hush money paid during the 2016 presidential campaign to two women who alleged having affairs with Trump a decade ago. Trump has denied the affairs.

Ability to challenge the President

In his opinion, Marrero allowed that some aspects of the criminal process could impede a President's ability to perform his duties. "Certainly lengthy imprisonment upon conviction would produce that result," he wrote.

But, Marrero added, "that consequence would not necessarily follow every stage of every criminal proceeding," and in particular, he said, doesn't extend to a president's compliance with a grand jury subpoena for records the president controls.

The judge wrote that the issues at hand stretched back to questions addressed by the Founding Fathers.

"Shunning the concept of the inviolability of the person of the King of England and the bounds of the monarch's protective screen covering the Crown's actions from legal scrutiny, the Founders disclaimed any notion that the Constitution generally conferred similarly all-encompassing immunity upon the President," Marrero wrote.

Courts have ruled that a president can be subjected to a civil suit concerning conduct that took place before he took office and must comply with subpoenas regarding third parties, Marrero pointed out. "The notion of federal supremacy and presidential immunity from judicial process that the President here invokes, unqualified and boundless in its reach as described above, cuts across the grain of these constitutional precedents," he wrote.
The ruling is also a setback for the US Justice Department, which had asked last week to temporarily block the subpoena, to allow time for "appropriate briefing of the weighty constitutional issues involved."

"The President's complaint raises a number of significant constitutional issues that potentially implicate important interests of the United States," DOJ officials wrote in a court filing.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 8 Oct, 2019 06:45 am
@Real Music,
Could you imagine what would happen if every DA in the country was able to investigate the President?

President is a federal office subject to federal laws and not subject to the whims of the states.
Quote:
Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.


If this gets to the Supreme Court it will go in Trumps favor. Sorry.
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Oct, 2019 07:28 am
@McGentrix,
Wasn't this already settled with Bill Clinton and the Paula Jones lawsuit?
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Oct, 2019 02:34 pm
@revelette1,
A federal judge has already said the president isent above the law. But the republican supreme court could reverse this decision and establish a kingship.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Oct, 2019 03:27 pm
@RABEL222,
If there is a law requiring presidential candidates to reveal tax returns, he should darn well do it. Is there such a law? I always thought tax returns were more confidential that medical records.

Seriously, do you or does anyone else know if there is such a law, or is just some kind of tradition.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 12:59 pm
A federal court ordered Trump's accounting firm to turn over 8 years of his taxes to Congress.


Published October 11, 2019


Quote:
1. A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump's accounting firm Mazars USA must turn over eight years of his tax returns to the House Oversight Committee.

2. The ruling is a significant blow to Trump's efforts to stonewall Congress' investigations into his businesses, financial dealings, campaign, administration, and personal life.

3. House Democrats subpoenaed Mazars USA earlier this year, and Trump's lawyers sought to block the subpoena, claiming Congress did not have a legitimate legislative purpose in seeking the president's taxes.

4. "Contrary to the president's arguments, the committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply," Friday's ruling said.

5. Friday's development comes days after a federal judge ordered Mazars USA to turn Trump's tax returns over to New York state prosecutors investigating whether the Trump Organization broke state laws.

https://www.businessinsider.com/appeals-court-orders-trump-accounting-firm-congress-taxes-2019-10
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 07:57 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
1. Could you imagine what would happen if every DA in the country was able to investigate the President?

2. President is a federal office subject to federal laws and not subject to the whims of the states.

3. If this gets to the Supreme Court it will go in Trumps favor. Sorry.


Published July 9, 2020


Supreme Court rejects Trump claim of immunity from subpoena for tax returns


In a history-making decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled President Donald Trump cannot claim "absolute immunity" from criminal investigation while in office and may need to comply with a New York grand jury subpoena seeking his personal financial records.

The decision is a major legal defeat for Trump, although it remains highly unlikely the public will see the president's tax returns or financial records before Election Day. If the records are turned over in the grand jury probe, by law they must remain secret.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the [7-2] majority opinion, concluded that "no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding."

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance is seeking 10 years of tax returns for Trump and his businesses as part of a probe into possible state tax fraud.

"The President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need," Roberts said.

But in a nod to the unique position of the presidency, Roberts returned the case to a lower court to allow Trump to "raise further arguments as appropriate," such as claims about the subpoenas' burden on his official duties.

"The court today unanimously concludes that a president does not possess absolute immunity from a state criminal subpoena, but also unanimously agrees that this case should be remanded to the district court, where the president may raise constitutional and legal objections to the subpoena as appropriate," wrote Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, the president's two appointees to the high court, in a concurring opinion.

Given the further proceedings, it was not immediately clear how soon the New York grand jury could potentially receive the documents.

“This is a tremendous victory for our nation’s system of justice and its founding principle that no one – not even a president – is above the law," Vance said in a statement. "Our investigation, which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit, will resume, guided as always by the grand jury’s solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both filed dissenting opinions, suggesting President Trump deserves greater deference from subpoenas given the nature of his job.

"The court's decision threatens to impair the functioning of the presidency and provides no real protection against the use of the subpoena power by the nation's 2,300+ local prosecutors," Alito wrote.

Trump tweeted shortly after the decision was revealed that the matter is a "political prosecution."

But the president's attorneys said they were "pleased."

"We are pleased that in the decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the President’s tax records. We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts," Counsel to the President Jay Sekulow said in a statement on the New York case and on a second case in which the court blocked four congressional subpoenas, also sending the matter back to a lower court.

Later Thursday, Trump, speaking at a White House event, said he is partly satisfied with the rulings, calling them "purely political," part of a "political witch hunt" and a "hoax."

"Well, the court rulings were basically starting all over again, sending everything back down to the lower courts and to start all over again, and so, from a certain point, I’m satisfied," Trump said during a roundtable with Hispanic leaders. "From another point, I’m not satisfied because frankly, this is a political witch hunt, the likes of which nobody’s ever seen before. It’s a pure witch hunt. It’s a hoax. Just like the Mueller investigation was a hoax that I won. And this is another hoax. This is purely political."

In the case of Trump v. Mazars USA LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG & Capital One, House committees subpoenaed a sweeping array of Trump personal and business records predating his time in the White House, including bank statements, engagement letters, personal checks, loan applications and tax returns. They say the information is critical to drafting of federal ethics laws, anti-corruption legislation and campaign finance rules involving presidents.

When Trump's personal accounting firm and three financial institutions used by him and his business were initially subpoenaed for the information, in both cases, Trump intervened to block the third parties from complying. He has lost at every level in lower federal courts.

Trump is the only modern American president to have not publicly released tax returns or divest from major business interests while in office.

“The Supreme Court today confirmed that the president is not above the law. The court ruled that President Trump must follow the law, like the rest of us. And that includes responding to subpoenas for his tax records," said ACLU national legal director David Cole.

“There’s a lot of play left in these cases," said Philip Hackney, an associate professor in the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

"SCOTUS ruled in favor in the Vance case, but we may never see Trump’s tax records anytime soon. Trump still has defenses he can raise," Hackney said.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-claim-of-absolute-immunity-from-ny-grand-jury-subpoena/ar-BB16xlew
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 08:27 pm
@McGentrix,
Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch voted against Trump in tax records case.


Published: July 9, 2020


President Trump lashed out at the Supreme Court and claimed that he is being treated unfairly after losing a landmark ruling about his taxes

even though the two justices he appointed, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, voted against him.

Ben Tracy reports.


https://sports.yahoo.com/justices-kavanaugh-gorsuch-voted-against-010845100.html?src=rss
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 09:27 pm
@Real Music,
I don't think you actually read and if you did read it, you failed to understand the ruling. This was not a "win" for Congressional Dem's.

Your end zone dance is premature.
neptuneblue
 
  4  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 09:43 pm
@McGentrix,
It's a win for the Rule of Law, transcending party loyalty.

Maybe YOU need to read it again.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 10:24 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
I don't think you actually read and if you did read it, you failed to understand the ruling. This was not a "win" for Congressional Dem's.

Your end zone dance is premature.




1. I think you are the one who did not read.

2. There were two rulings regarding Trump and his tax returns.

3. One ruling was regarding to Congress seeking Trump personal financial records.

4. The other ruling was regarding New York grand jury subpoena seeking his personal financial records.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 10:28 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
1. Could you imagine what would happen if every DA in the country was able to investigate the President?

2. President is a federal office subject to federal laws and not subject to the whims of the states.

3. If this gets to the Supreme Court it will go in Trumps favor. Sorry.


Above are your own words.

That is was I was responding to.

So, yes I know what the ruling says.

I also know that there were two different rulings for two different cases.

Are you or are you acknowledging that there were two different cases that were rule on?
McGentrix
 
  4  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 10:31 pm
@Real Music,
Ok, you're correct and looks like I was incorrect.
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 10:36 pm
@McGentrix,
No problem.

It was just a misunderstanding.

It happens.

I have made that mistake myself.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 11:14 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

I don't think you actually read and if you did read it, you failed to understand the ruling. This was not a "win" for Congressional Dem's.

Your end zone dance is premature.


This was not a win for Democrats or republicans..... It was a win for the rule of law.
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 11:46 pm
@glitterbag,

Agreed.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » To Get Trump’s Tax Returns, N.Y. Democrats Try a New Strategy.
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2020 at 01:15:47