Trump's Tax Documents: USSC Rules (7-2) — Must be Provided to Manhattan DA

Long ago he pledged to release them after IRS audit

(Public will see them after criminal case in time)

THIS UPDATE COMES AFTER ORIGINAL STORY POSTED:

This just in:  Here is my introduction to this fine analysis of Trump and that 7-2 ruling against him vis-à-vis releasing this taxes in this Washington Post opinion piece (via MSN) here. 

Want follows are key highlights (boxed off parts) about Trump to date, in case you forgot or didn’t know. 

From this update:

No one knows precisely what kind of misdeeds they (his taxes) would reveal, but we all know it’s very bad. If all they showed was that he is a shrewd businessman who operates ethically and is worth many billions of dollars, he would have mailed every American household a copy by now.

But, we already have plenty of evidence of his financial misdeeds:

The New York Times reported that in the 1980s and 1990s the Trump family executed a multi-year conspiracy that defrauded the federal government of half a billion dollars in tax revenue.

ProPublica reported that he routinely inflated the value of his properties when seeking loans, then deflated the value to tax authorities — potentially committing tax and bank fraud. 

Trump ran scams that stole people’s life savings, stiffed small businesses, created a fraudulent “foundation” and employed 
numerous undocumented workers.

The idea that there isn’t anything in his tax returns showing misconduct or even outright crimes is so preposterous that no one even pretends to believe it.

Even if the returns do become public one day, unraveling them will take time. Trump employs a small army of accountants and lawyers whose job it is to conceal, obfuscate, and obscure. The Trump Organization is an amalgamation of approximately 500 separate entities, a kind of financial rat king.

Each one is its own mystery that must be investigated in order to determine what it does, what nefarious characters might be involved and where the money comes from.

But we must conduct that investigation even if Trump loses in November. 

It will be absolutely vital for the public, and for history, to understand just how corrupt the man we gave the most powerful office in the world truly was.

The full story of Trump’s finances may reveal not only what kind of safeguards we want to install for future presidents (a requirement that they release their tax returns is the bare minimum), but also the ways in which the rich avoid paying taxes and manipulate the financial system to their advantage.

And if a former president turns out to be a money launderer or a tax cheat or a criminal of some other sort, we need to know. 

Not only so he can be prosecuted for whatever crimes are still within the statute of limitations, but so the record of this appalling era is complete.

That will be one of the dangers we will have to guard against in the future. Some will try to convince us that Trump wasn’t so bad, or that the problem was just his tweets, or that he was a wacky showman but not a malignant cancer on our democracy.

THE ORIGINAL POST FOLLOWS FROM HERE:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court was to rule on Trump's bid to block his financial records from being obtained by the Manhattan NY DA and to several Congressional committees.  

That ruling is out and says in a 7-2 ruling against Trump that he lost part of the case (e.g., House DEM request was put on hold) the Mazars part goes forward.

Interesting to recall this from him on January 22, 2018 as reported on here by Business Insider with this headline:

Trump claims Article 2 of the Constitution gives him the right “To do whatever I want as president”

This Case: TRUMP v. VANCE (MANHATTAN DA’S SUBPOENA FOR TRUMP TAX RECORDS). 

HIGHLIGHTS FOLLOW (the full case can be seen here – 68 pages in .pdf)

STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 19–635. (Argued May 12, 2020 — Decided July 9, 2020); 7-2 against Trump. 

(Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined 4 Liberals in the decision).

THE CASE:  In 2019, the New York County District Attorney’s Office — acting on behalf of a grand jury — served a subpoena duces tecum on Mazars USA, LLP, the personal accounting firm of President Donald J. Trump (and two connected banks: Deutsche Bank and Capital One records) for financial records relating to the President and his businesses. 

The President, acting in his personal capacity, sued the district attorney and Mazars in Federal District Court to enjoin enforcement of the subpoena, arguing that a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process under Article II and the Supremacy Clause.

The District Court dismissed the case under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris 401 U. S. 37, and, in the alternative, held that the President was not entitled to injunctive relief. 

The Second Circuit rejected the District Court’s dismissal under Younger but agreed with the court’s denial of injunctive relief, concluding that presidential immunity did not bar enforcement of the subpoena and rejecting the argument of the United States as amicus curiae that a state grand jury subpoena seeking the President’s documents must satisfy a heightened showing of need.

Held: Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.

Historical Basis: In 1807, John Marshall, presiding as Circuit Justice for Virginia over the treason trial of Aaron Burr, granted Burr’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum directed at President Thomas Jefferson. 

In rejecting the prosecution’s argument that a President was not subject to such a subpoena, Marshall held that a President does not “stand exempt” from the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that the accused have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses for their defense. 

The sole argument for an exemption was that a President’s “duties as chief magistrate demand his whole time for national objects.”

But, in Marshall’s assessment, those duties were “not unremitting,” and any conflict could be addressed by the court upon return of the subpoena. 

Marshall also concluded that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee extended to the production of papers, explaining: “The propriety of introducing any papers would depend on the character of the paper, not the character of the person who holds it, and that would have due consideration upon the return of the subpoena.”

I ALWAYS NOTE AND SAY: That is the purpose of any investigation is to seek and gather all evidence and prove (or not) that the charges against someone is true or not.

President Jefferson agreed to furnish whatever justice required, subject to the prerogative to decide whether particular executive communications should be withheld

In the two centuries since Burr, successive Presidents from Monroe to Clinton have accepted Marshall’s ruling that the Chief Executive is subject to subpoena and have uniformly agreed to testify when called in criminal proceedings. 

In 1974, to compel the disclosure of official communications to the Watergate Special Prosecutor secured a subpoena that the court ordered directed Nixon to produce, among other things, those oval office tape recordings.

The Court rejected Nixon’s claim of an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all presidential communications. 

Recognizing that “compulsory process” was imperative for both the prosecution and the defense, the Court held that the President’s “generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three cases focus on Trump's efforts to block subpoenas issued to third parties – not to him personally – to hand over his financial records, which he has fought hard to keep secret through his entire presidency. 

Two of the cases involve subpoenas issued by Democratic lawmakers seeking the president's financial records from his longtime accounting firm (1) Mazars LLP, and two banks: (2) Deutsche Bank and (3) Capital One. 

The third involves subpoenas issued to Mazars for financial records including nearly a decade of Trump's tax returns to be turned over to a grand jury in NYC as part of a criminal investigation by the Manhattan DA: Cyrus Vance, a Democrat. 

It is part of a criminal investigation that began in 2018 into Trump and the Trump Organization spurred by disclosures of hush payments made to two women who said they had past sexual relationships with him (pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal). 

Trump and his aides have denied the relationships.

My 2 cents: “Stay out of my private life and business…” okay fine, but if any documents are found to be tied to a crime of any kind, then let the legal minds investigate and figure it out.

Speculation or opinion or view of the law in that regard is not proof enough in a criminal investigation and this one is, e.g., fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion just to name three – may not be, but that is the purpose of any investigation to find out if there is any there, there (to coin an old cliché).

The high court has ruled against Trump on this as they should have and yes, it’s a loss for Trump, but a gain for the people and “rule of law” and “Equal justice under Law” vs. the opposite “lawlessness” based on corruption, fraud, money laundering, deceit and tons of lies and hiding evidence to prove one way or the other).

Certainly not as Trump loyalists and sycophants shout – “just want him out of office” yes, if a criminal case proves that which is what our legal justice is about, and not wild, Wild West law that used to say: “Bring the guilty bastard in, give him a fair trial and then hang him.”

This is a lot like the high court told Nixon to turn over the tapes involved in the Watergate investigation and we know how that turned out. Similar case here – we shall see.

Thanks for stopping by.