Trump’s Tax Returns Face Judgment Day at U.S. Supreme Court
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump’s Tax Returns Face Judgment Day at U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court will end its term Thursday morning with historic rulings that will probably determine whether the public sees President Donald Trump’s long-hidden financial records before the November election.
House Democrats and a New York state prosecutor are each trying to get Trump’s personal and business records from his accounting firm. Lawmakers are also demanding information from his banks.
The court is expected to issue two rulings: one covering subpoenas issued by House committees and one concerning a subpoena from the New York grand jury.
The court will start issuing opinions at 10 a.m. Washington time Thursday. All three remaining opinions should be out by 10:20 a.m.
Here’s what to know before Thursday’s big decisions:
What is being sought, who’s seeking it and from whom?
There are five subpoenas. Four are from three House committees -- Oversight, Financial Services and Intelligence -- and one is from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, who is conducting a criminal investigation.
The subpoenas are all directed to third parties -- to Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA , and his banks, Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp. The subpoenas seek years of Trump’s personal financial records, as well as those of his family members, plus records from the Trump Organization and his other business entities.
Only Vance’s subpoena to Mazars explicitly asks for Trump’s tax returns, but the broad language of the House subpoena to Mazars would seem to cover those as well.
If Trump loses, will his returns be released this year?
If he loses the House case, most likely. After years of battling for the public release of Trump’s tax forms and other financial documents, Democrats would be reversing themselves if they chose to keep them secret.
The exact timing would depend in part on Mazars and the banks, which aren’t contesting the subpoenas and have said they’ll comply with court rulings. They may wait until the Supreme Court issues its formal judgment, which usually happens about a month after the opinion.
After that, it would be up to the House committees and their Democratic majorities. The panels might hold a formal vote before any public release.
The Vance case is a different story because prosecutors will be bound by grand jury secrecy rules. Unless someone is charged with a crime in the investigation, the records he receives are likely to remain under seal.
Vance is investigating whether the Trump Organization falsified business records to disguise hush payments to two women who claimed they had sex with Trump before he took office.
What are the possible outcomes Thursday?
The two cases present very different legal issues, so there’s no guarantee they will come out the same way.
In each case, the Supreme Court could uphold lower court rulings and require the documents to be turned over.
The justices could also return the cases to the lower courts, saying that the committees and Vance must make a stronger showing that they need the president’s personal records. That type of ruling would mean more litigation and all but ensure that the records stay secret through the election.
And then the court could simply rule for Trump. In the House case, that would render the subpoenas unenforceable and keep the financial records under wraps.
In the Vance case, the practical effect of a Trump victory would depend on the results of the November election. Trump is seeking presidential immunity only while in office. So even if Trump wins at the Supreme Court, a victory for Democrat Joe Biden would mean Vance could try again after the Jan. 20 inauguration.
What are the biggest legal issues?
The congressional case is a classic separation-of-powers dispute. The House says its committees want the information for legislative reasons, including updating presidential ethics laws, fighting money laundering and trying to guard against foreign influence in U.S. elections. House lawyers say Congress’s powers to investigate are broad and deeply rooted.
The president’s lawyers say the committees’ real pursuit is law enforcement and exposing alleged wrongdoing. Trump’s team says those aims are beyond Congress’s constitutional authority, particularly when they involve pursuing a president’s personal records. The case isn’t directly connected to the impeachment inquiry conducted by the House last year.
During arguments in May, Justice Elena Kagan suggested the committees looking into presidential ethics and foreign election meddling -- Oversight and Intelligence -- might have a stronger claim for the material than the Financial Services Committee, which is probing money laundering. Kagan said the issues being investigated by the first two committees “address the president directly.”
In the New York grand jury case, Trump’s personal lawyers contend the president has complete immunity from criminal investigations while in office. He says any inquiry, even one in which the document demand goes to a third party, risks being a distraction from the chief executive’s weighty responsibilities.
The Justice Department, which filed a separate brief, is taking a less absolute position, saying a state grand jury must make a “heightened showing of need.”
Vance says any such shield would undercut the criminal justice system. He contends that presidential immunity is inappropriate in a case that doesn’t involve the president’s official duties and doesn’t require Trump himself to do anything.
— With assistance by Billy House
Tags
Who is online
62 visitors
With Trump self-imploding , this probably isnt the blockbuster political issue it was once thought to be, but it is still interesting to see what will happen.
One thing we know, John, if they should win, either the House or Cy Vance or both, the returns will be immediately leaked and used politically.
So far they just ruled that the President must comply with the Grand Jury subpoena
My crystal ball says 5-4 in trmp's favor
I think there may be a split, since there are two cases. They may say that Congress cannot get the tax returns, but the prosecutors in NY (the second case) can.
Trump lost 7-2 in the NY case. The NY grand jury led by Cyrus Vance will get the tax returns, except in an instance where Trump can show the information is related to his presidency.
Looks like my crystal ball needs a good dusting. I just saw that. Two of his own appointees voted against him
Not quite the hacks that some on the left portrayed them.
We can forget that! All pf it still has to go through the courts and we shouldn't hear about it again before the election.
The Supreme Court ruled the president does not have categorical immunity against turning financial records over to legitimate investigators.
They ruled that the Manhattan prosecutor can see his returns.
no they didn't... they punted both cases back down to the lower courts.
both cases go back to lower courts and then in the case of adverse rulings will have to go back to the supreme court again which does not go back into session until oct
neither case will be settled by the nov election
politically, the left is schit out of luck
Is that Schitt or Schiff out of luck? They are pretty much synonymous with each other.
"They ruled that the Manhattan prosecutor can see his returns"
Supreme Court punted on the second case.
Trump's sorry ass will be long gone before this is resolved sometime in 2021.
But they did establish a new threshold for congress:
"Writing for a 7-2 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts took note of the House’s unrestrained behavior, explaining this dispute was “the first of its kind” to reach the high court after “two centuries” in which Congress and the White House were able to work such disagreements out. Yes, the court held, Congress can continue pushing for its subpoenas in lower courts, but henceforth all courts will be required to subject all subpoenas to several tests.
For starters, lawmakers will have to show that they need the president’s papers specifically to fulfill a legislative purpose. “Congress may not rely on the President’s information if other sources could reasonably provide Congress the information it needs,” Chief Justice Roberts writes. Courts must also now insist on a subpoena “no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislative objective.” Those subpoenas must provide “detailed and substantial” evidence of legislative purpose. And finally, courts must from now on specifically assess “the burdens imposed on a President by a subpoena,” because they come from a “rival political branch,” which could use them “for institutional advantage.”
That’s a lot of new hurdles to jump, and the immediate consequence is that the Pelosi subpoena cannon has been replaced with a rifle.".....Kimberly Strassel of The Wall Street Journal
That goes against Federal Law for several House sub-committees.
(5) Reporting requirements. --Within 30 days after the close of each calendar quarter, the President and the head of any agency requesting returns and return information under this subsection shall each file a report with the Joint Committee on Taxation setting forth the taxpayers with respect to whom such requests were made during such quarter under this subsection, the returns or return information involved, and the reasons for such requests.
In other words there must be a valid reason - Not an "I hate Trump" fishing expedition!
I see you ignored the 2nd part of my comment.
Par for the course Ozz, par for the course.
It is amazing the spin they are doing to justify his handling of the pandemic. Trump is more than likely responsible for thousands of American deaths due to his refusal to take any action to deal with COVID.
maybe next time.... LOL
Claire Mc Caskill just predicted that Trump will be a defendant in a criminal case in New York within a year.
There is evidence in those taxes of business fraud by Trump. He has a long history of minimizing the worth of his properties when it comes to taxes, and inflating the worth of his properties when it comes to obtaining loans. The proof of that is in those tax returns.
so what... trump will not be removed from office until he walks away on his own in 2025
We can put prediction right up there with some of the other gems of left wing loon predictions that haven't panned out.
Steele just lost a defamation case in London over the fraudulent Steele dossier. Not that that will dissuade the true believers.
Gosh - maybe even not then if he has to walk down a ramp.
LOL that is a funny joke but the joke will be on you when he is re-elected,
You are getting ahead of yourself JR. He may possibly be a defendant, but that means absolutely nothing if he is not convicted. But you know that already don't you?
Why do you think he wants to remain in office? As long as he does is safe from prosecution. He better get busy finding a country with a non extradition treaty that will take him.
I recommend NK, russia, or turkey. he'll hand over the white house keys on 1/20/21 and do a perp walk right outside the gate. bummer
"I recommend NK, russia, or turkey. he'll hand over the white house keys on 1/20/21 and do a perp walk right outside the gate. bummer"
Not terribly surprising that SCOTUS made a tactical decision to avoid additional turmoil this close to elections.
Strategically - hummmm - not so sure it was a good idea.
Basically they have given the finger to the tri-equal Legislative branch of the government.
Should both the House, Senate, and Executive branch land in the hands of the Democrats - in January I'm pretty sure there will be serious discussion about adding a few more seats at the SCOTUS bench. (Yeap - it's legal as church and SCOTUS can't appeal to itself for a ruling.) Not so much to influence the direction of the Court's decisions, as much as to point out to the Court that, just as they can exert their power to impact the actions of the Legislative branch, the Legislative branch can exercise their own power to physically alter the Court - as many times as it chooses.
[Please return your seat backs to their full upright and locked position and fasten your seat belts - we may experience some flatulence in during the the next few months of our flight.]
That was kind of the way I took it. Basically told them all to stop playing political games.
The good news is they laughed at the idea that a president would have full immunity.