Federal district court rejects Trump's challenge to NYC DA's tax return subpoena (Update: 2d Circuit upholds the ruling)(MERGED) (1 Viewer)

OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

guarding the potatoes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
55,351
Reaction score
82,414
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Trump's attorneys (not DOJ keep in mind) have filed notice of emergency appeal at the 2nd Circuit.

 
Last edited:
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

guarding the potatoes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
55,351
Reaction score
82,414
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Do you think this will go all the way to SCOTUS?
Yep.

The only way it doesn't would be if the Second Circuit affirms and folks over at DOJ spot some risk to the president and convince him not to take it there. But that seems unlikely based on both the president and the current posture of his DOJ.
 

coldseat

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
9,115
Reaction score
15,239
Age
44
Offline
Yep.

The only way it doesn't would be if the Second Circuit affirms and folks over at DOJ spot some risk to the president and convince him not to take it there. But that seems unlikely based on both the president and the current posture of his DOJ.
Will Trump win when it gets to SCOTUS? Or will he have to turn over his taxes?
 
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

guarding the potatoes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
55,351
Reaction score
82,414
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Will Trump win when it gets to SCOTUS? Or will he have to turn over his taxes?
I really don't know. He's got a nice cadre of justices that have endorsed a strong, almost unchecked executive - but this is different than what those views have involved. This is a criminal proceeding in state court relating to activity of the president before taking office . . . and we're talking about financial records. Not a deposition. Not a trial. Just a records subpoena on records kept in the ordinary course by the accounting firm, and records that are routinely obtained when investigating financial crimes.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
I think it is helpful to remove Trump from the equation and consider whether we want to allow State AGs and local DAs the ability to criminally investigate and indict sitting U.S. Presidents.

I think from a practical point of view that is very troublesome.
To be fair, it's troublesome to say a President cannot be criminally indicted while in office - but I think, at least on its face, that is less troublesome.
 

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
31,471
Reaction score
16,321
Age
47
Location
Houston
Online
I think it is helpful to remove Trump from the equation and consider whether we want to allow State AGs and local DAs the ability to criminally investigate and indict sitting U.S. Presidents.

I think from a practical point of view that is very troublesome.
To be fair, it's troublesome to say a President cannot be criminally indicted while in office - but I think, at least on its face, that is less troublesome.
Jim, what are your thoughts on investigating with the intent to issue a sealed indictment for after a President leaves office?

My issue in all of this is I don't like criminal investigations for political purposes, and all of the tax return hunting feels purely political to me. People keep coming up with excuses for why, but the goal is very clearly to do political harm to Trump.

I'm not naive, I know justice is often politicized. I'm still not happy about it, even when the target is Trump.

To me, this doesn't apply to Congress as they have a legit oversight responsibility and are the only body that can actually hold a President accountable.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
24,851
Reaction score
63,292
Age
51
Location
GBTR
Offline
I think it is helpful to remove Trump from the equation and consider whether we want to allow State AGs and local DAs the ability to criminally investigate and indict sitting U.S. Presidents.

I think from a practical point of view that is very troublesome.
To be fair, it's troublesome to say a President cannot be criminally indicted while in office - but I think, at least on its face, that is less troublesome.
I disagree. I think it's more troublesome that the PoTUS is untouchable in that he can stack the Fed etc. There needs to be a way to bring wrong doing into the light.
 
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

guarding the potatoes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
55,351
Reaction score
82,414
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
I think it is helpful to remove Trump from the equation and consider whether we want to allow State AGs and local DAs the ability to criminally investigate and indict sitting U.S. Presidents.

I think from a practical point of view that is very troublesome.
To be fair, it's troublesome to say a President cannot be criminally indicted while in office - but I think, at least on its face, that is less troublesome.
I knew you would have an opinion on this - and you're right that it raises some challenging questions, but I think you have framed the question far too narrowly and, at this stage, somewhat erroneously.

The NYC grand jury investigation relates to activities of the Trump Organization and several private individuals (including Cohen and Daniels) relating to transactions that occurred before Trump was inaugurated. The subpoena is for business records.

Does the fact that the records subpoena, issued by a grand jury investigating an organization and a host of individuals, includes financial records associated with the president mean that the investigation must be shut down? Does presidential immunity mean that the president's pre-inaugural associates become effectively immune as well? That is such an expansive view of presidential immunity that I'm not sure it can hold up to real scrutiny.

They haven't indicted the president. They haven't asked for an interview or deposition with the president.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
Jim, what are your thoughts on investigating with the intent to issue a sealed indictment for after a President leaves office?

My issue in all of this is I don't like criminal investigations for political purposes, and all of the tax return hunting feels purely political to me. People keep coming up with excuses for why, but the goal is very clearly to do political harm to Trump.

I'm not naive, I know justice is often politicized. I'm still not happy about it, even when the target is Trump.

To me, this doesn't apply to Congress as they have a legit oversight responsibility and are the only body that can actually hold a President accountable.
I was thinking something along those lines.
Not sure, of course, on details. But something that wouldn't interfere with the President's duties but evidence could still be collected and sent to a Grand Jury.

Also, I have no problem with local DAs and whoever turning evidence over to Congressional members in order to start or help with a Congressional investigation/impeachment.
 

coldseat

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
9,115
Reaction score
15,239
Age
44
Offline
I think it is helpful to remove Trump from the equation and consider whether we want to allow State AGs and local DAs the ability to criminally investigate and indict sitting U.S. Presidents.

I think from a practical point of view that is very troublesome.
To be fair, it's troublesome to say a President cannot be criminally indicted while in office - but I think, at least on its face, that is less troublesome.
Why is it troubling to investigate and indict a sitting president if said president committed acts that where illegal?
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
I knew you would have an opinion on this - and you're right that it raises some challenging questions, but I think you have framed the question far too narrowly and, at this stage, somewhat erroneously.

The NYC grand jury investigation relates to activities of the Trump Organization and several private individuals (including Cohen and Daniels) relating to transactions that occurred before Trump was inaugurated. The subpoena is for business records.

Does the fact that the records subpoena, issued by a grand jury investigating an organization and a host of individuals, includes financial records associated with the president mean that the investigation must be shut down? Does presidential immunity mean that the president's pre-inaugural associates become effectively immune as well? That is such an expansive view of presidential immunity that I'm not sure it can hold up to real scrutiny.

They haven't indicted the president. They haven't asked for an interview or deposition with the president.
You are right - I do not know the details of this investigation - I think I read about it a while back but really do not remember.

I will try to look more into the details.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
Why is it troubling to investigate and indict a sitting president if said president committed acts that where illegal?
That is putting the cart before the horse. You don;t know if a person did something illegal until there is an investigation.

Investigations of Presidents are fraught with political shenanigans and can/will be used for political purposes. It partly explains the reason we have the impeachment procedure that we do.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom