Althouse: "A federal appeals court on Monday rejected President Trump’s effort to block New York prosecutors from accessing his tax records and Trump’s sweeping claims of presidential immunity...."

November 4, 2019

"A federal appeals court on Monday rejected President Trump’s effort to block New York prosecutors from accessing his tax records and Trump’s sweeping claims of presidential immunity...."

"The case is one of several legal clashes testing the limits of presidential power that is expected to reach the Supreme Court as soon as this term. The Manhattan District Attorney is investigating hush-money payments made in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election.... At oral argument last month, Trump’s private attorney William S. Consovoy told the court that the subpoena is a politically-motivated 'fishing expedition.' A sitting president, he said, cannot be investigated — or prosecuted — while in office, even for shooting someone on the streets of Manhattan. His assertion of 'temporary presidential immunity' came in response to a question about Trump’s own hypothetical from 2016, when he said as a candidate his political support was so strong that he could 'stand in the middle of Fifth Aveneu and shoot somebody' and not 'lose any voters.'"

WaPo reports.

So... wait for the Supreme Court.

That shooting business is a distraction. Colorful but meaningless.

43 comments:

rhhardin said...: It can't stand because the income tax relies on not being shared with other agencies in order to avoid falling under requiring self-incrimination by requiring filing.

If Trump's return is released, you no longer have to file income tax.; 11/4/19, 10:32 AM
My name goes here. said...: This is an honest question, if someone wants to post a link I will be happy to read it.

What crime is alleged to have occurred that warrants the tax documents?

If the exchange of funds is somehow illegal, would it be faster to obtain the necessary documents from the receiving party (who might be willing to provide them without a warrant)?

And if the person/people that received the alleged hush money can provide proof, do they even need Trump's tax documents?

Ok, those are three questions, but they are honest questions.; 11/4/19, 10:37 AM
tim maguire said...: How does Cyrus Vance even have jurisdiction, let alone probable cause?

"Hush money" is a scary term, but confidentiality agreements are perfectly legal unless the underlying act is illegal. Since sex with Stormy Daniels is not (yet) illegal, that's not a crime. The IRS has reviewed the filing and accepted it, so there's nothing there. Is the claim violation of campaign finance law? Again, not his jurisdiction.

So what is the theory here, other than that Democrats have been very good lately at judge shopping (not that it's hard, just find an Obama-appointed judge and he'll rule the way you want him to).; 11/4/19, 10:50 AM
cubanbob said...: The only criminal activity is that of the Manhattan DA trying to criminalize something that isn't criminal-prosecutorial misconduct. Perhaps the DoJ ought to look into the Manhattan DA's office. Trump should fight this to the Supreme Court for the reason rhhardin said amongst others.; 11/4/19, 10:55 AM
mccullough said...: It won’t stand because the 9 Robed Ones don’t want to be subject to it either.; 11/4/19, 10:58 AM
Hagar said...: It cannot stand, or every national president from now on will be subject to incessant harassment by dissident state and local governments.; 11/4/19, 11:10 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: The "Get Trump" allies has some allies in the New York State AG and various DA offices. Thankfully, the New York Feds were reigned in, but these disgraceful hacks will try to bird-dog the President with multiple ticky-tack charges.

IRS Tax filings are so complex, that any DA can indict any person for missing some rule here or some deduction there. Of course, if they get Trump's returns, they will leak them to the NYT who will hire 17 blueblood tax accountants and lawyers to probe it to death.

We understand the drill. We just need to grin and bear it 'til Nov 2020.; 11/4/19, 11:11 AM
Hagar said...: At that, how will this read if Cuomo jumps into the race for the Democratic nomination and wins it?
Using his state government to solicit "dirt" on his opponent, etc.?; 11/4/19, 11:13 AM
sunsong said...: donald has never been held accountable in his life, I don't think

this is starting to get fun; 11/4/19, 11:15 AM
stevew said...: Access to tax records other than by the IRS should always be forbidden. Period.; 11/4/19, 11:40 AM
GRW3 said...: If there was something worthwhile, for Democrats, in Trump's taxes, Obama's IRS would have leaked the information out during the election. They wouldn't even punish IRS employees for targeting the Tea Party illegally, what would make anyone think anybody would have been punished for doing such a good deed?; 11/4/19, 11:42 AM
jimbino said...: Amendment V provides:

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Impeachment is NOT a criminal case.; 11/4/19, 11:48 AM
JohnAnnArbor said...: I bet his return is complex but ultimately innocuous. And that he simply realized that hiding it--causing all this fuss--would be more to his benefit than releasing them. They get out, the other side claims victory, pointing at a few items that really aren't anything of consequence, they look silly, Trump gains more support.; 11/4/19, 12:02 PM
Kevin said...: WAPO reports Trump must be removed from office before he begins shooting people on Fifth Avenue.; 11/4/19, 12:04 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: Trump better step up and shoot someone on Fifth Avenue before election day or he'll lose my vote. I take campaign promises seriously.; 11/4/19, 12:11 PM
Christy said...: What's this, on Fox, about RBG deciding whether to stay the decision? Or course it will be appealed, so a stay determines the timing - where it falls out in the election cycle. Asking because I didn't understand the RBG aspect. Also how does it affect matters that they are going after the accountant for the records, not PDJT himself?; 11/4/19, 12:30 PM
Operaman said...: “That shooting business is a distraction. Colorful but meaningless.”

It is meaningless in the context of determining the scope of executive privilege. In and of itself, however, it was and is a reflection of what Trump thinks of his supporters. And as far as I can tell, it remains accurate.; 11/4/19, 12:34 PM
Who me? said...: Why "wait for the Supreme Court?"

This decision is not in conflict with the decision of other circuits and entirely consistent with Supreme Court precedent applied to Presidents Republican (Nixon) and Democratic (Clinton) over the course of multiple decades.

Why do you think this possibly merits Supreme Court review?; 11/4/19, 12:36 PM
brylun said...: Aren't you just sick and tired of political court decisions?

Trial judge Victor Marrero was appointed by Bill Clinton. Guess how he decided?

But let's look at the makeup of the 3 judge 2nd Circuit panel: Oh, no, the linked WaPo article doesn't report on the panel makeup. Why is that?

Well, we have to go back to an October 23 WaPo article: "Katzmann, Chin and Christopher F. Droney." Who appointed them: Katzmann - Clinton, Chin - Obama, and Droney - Obama.

But in the first WaPo article link inside the featured WaPo story, lots of background on Trump's attorney William S. Consovoy: "The son of two state government workers" who "took a class from Kenneth W. Starr."

How interesting! All four judges assigned by the Second Circuit to handle the Trump tax return subpoena case are Democrats. And who controls the Second Circuit now? Democrats, of course! And how did they rule? As you would expect from Democrats!

Political court decisions!; 11/4/19, 12:45 PM
Gospace said...: rhhardin has a very good point. Law enforcement and other agencies other than revenue service have never been allowed to rummage around in tax returns.

From what I understand, if law enforcement goes to the IRS and says: "This guy has a $20K a year job, doesn't appear to have any other income, and just bought a half million dollar house!" the IRS will check. If he reported under the miscellaneous line $1 million, the IRS doesn't care- he's not living beyond his reported means. OTOH, if his reported income is $20K, then the IRS cooperates with law enforcement because they didn't get their share...

The IRS is supposed to be concerned only with getting their share.; 11/4/19, 12:49 PM
brylun said...: Looking back at the D.C. Circuit case, the Democrats control the D.C. Circuit, and the assigned judges for the Trump case were Millett (Obama appointment), Tatel (Clinton appointment) and Rao (Trump appointment). Guess how they voted? Millet and Tatel against Trump, and Rao in dissent.

Every Democrat judge votes the political line first! And all assignments of political cases are made to ensure the Dems control!

There is something seriously wrong with the federal judiciary when all court decisions are political!; 11/4/19, 12:53 PM
gilbar said...: Christy said...
What's this, on Fox, about RBG deciding whether to stay the decision?

I think each justice is responsible for certain judicial districts; and this one (the 2nd?) is hers. If she doesn't decide to stay it, then 4 justices would have to agree, or something.

Question for Who Me?
you said Supreme Court precedent applied to Presidents Republican (Nixon) and Democratic (Clinton) over the course of multiple decades.

The Supreme Court told Nixon and Clinton, that the DoJ could look at their tax returns? citations?
I'm not calling you a moronic liar; i'm just implying it; 11/4/19, 1:05 PM
readering said...: Not a forgone conclusion that the Supreme Court takes the case. It's the denial of a preliminary injunction, not a final decision, now that the Second Circuit has reversed the decision, on abstention grounds, to dismiss.; 11/4/19, 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...: When did the supreme court ever rule on Nixon or Clinton’s tax returns? I’ll hang up and listen.; 11/4/19, 1:13 PM
Jim at said...: I don't think - Sunsinga

Truer words have never been written.; 11/4/19, 1:22 PM
brylun said...: The current loyal progressive federal judges doing their best to thwart by any means necessary ("BAMN") the duly elected President Trump and his agenda.

Let's take another case as an example. Heard about the nationwide injunction issued over the weekend by Federal Judge Michael Simon blocking immigrants who don't have health insurance? Guess who appointed Judge Simon? Obama, of course!

More examples? There are so many!!!; 11/4/19, 1:25 PM
brylun said...: Nearly 40 nationwide injunctions have been issued by district courts against the Trump administration. https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/nationwide-injunctions-from-district-courts

All of them by Democrat judges! (Well, I didn't actually check all of them, so please fact-check me with the details...)

Isn't there something wrong with this?; 11/4/19, 1:34 PM
Francisco D said...: If there was something worthwhile, for Democrats, in Trump's taxes, Obama's IRS would have leaked the information out during the election.

Very true. The point is not to find something to prosecute. That is in the purview of the IRS and they declined.

The point is to embarrass Trump because he is not as wealthy as he has stated. Or he used tax write-offs that people do not like or that he owns very little of Trump properties; he simply licenses his name.

Or all of the above.; 11/4/19, 1:41 PM
Patrick said...: Won't the Circuit Court of Appeals hear the case en banc?; 11/4/19, 1:42 PM
James K said...: My name goes here: Ok, those are three questions, but they are honest questions.

Bwa-ha-ha, you don't seriously think this is about any specific alleged crime, do you? Or any need for Trump's taxes to investigate said crime?

It's so transparently a fishing expedition, and so transparently illegal, that only 3 Democrat judges could pretend to think otherwise.; 11/4/19, 2:21 PM
Herb said...: are they going to get his NY State returns? how can the NY DA get his federal taxes?; 11/4/19, 2:22 PM
readering said...: I think Trump's lawyers have indicated that they're skipping en banc and going straight to the Supremes.; 11/4/19, 2:28 PM
narciso said...: his name 'is a killing word' how did samuels put it 'the demon emperor' in his interview with codevilla,; 11/4/19, 3:01 PM
Michael K said...: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Impeachment is NOT a criminal case.

So Vance is trying to get the tax returns for impeachmant ? When was he elected to the House ?; 11/4/19, 3:14 PM
readering said...: Vance pursuing a state criminal investigation. Trump Organization has not invoked a Fifth Amendment defense to production.; 11/4/19, 3:45 PM
rhhardin said...: Vance pursuing a state criminal investigation. Trump Organization has not invoked a Fifth Amendment defense to production.

The problem isn't what defense they're trying - it's that the income tax could only pass constitutional muster if it were forbidden for the IRS to share the information with anybody, owing to compelling self-incrimination under penalty. The amendment necessary to adopt it was passed only under that condition.

It was an argument at the time of adoption.; 11/4/19, 4:38 PM
Michael K said...: Vance pursuing a state criminal investigation

Amazing how the IRS ,misses all those tax frauds.

Have you been audited readering ?; 11/4/19, 5:24 PM
Original Mike said...: "The problem isn't what defense they're trying - it's that the income tax could only pass constitutional muster if it were forbidden for the IRS to share the information with anybody, owing to compelling self-incrimination under penalty. The amendment necessary to adopt it was passed only under that condition."

readering doesn't care.; 11/4/19, 5:42 PM
narciso said...: and schumer and Morgenthau seem to have missed Madoff, vance missed Weinstein and Epstein for years,; 11/4/19, 5:45 PM
Bobb said...: Many recent ruling, particularly by Obama appointees, do not seem justified by the law. I wonder if they were paid off. I think the Justice Department or attorney generals of affected states should subpoena the tax records of the judges, or ask the IRS to supply them.; 11/4/19, 8:08 PM
Earnest Prole said...: The shooting business is a deadly serious question of Constitutional law, as Bill Clinton will attest: What is the Constitutional remedy for potential crimes committed by a President that have nothing to do with his Executive role?; 11/4/19, 9:26 PM
OldManRick said...: Why does this even matter? Trump doesn't sit down with TurboTax and fill out his taxes, he has a well paid group of tax attorneys that work his taxes all year long. They know the ends and outs of the tax laws and meet with the IRS every year to go over his form. He and his professional tax preparer sign the taxes but, if there is an error, he pays the difference and the penalty.

Despite the resistance fantasies, he's not going to jail for tax evasion. This is just harassment and probably an attempt to find his associates so they can be harassed.; 11/5/19, 12:31 AM
brylun said...: More on the federal appellate judiciary:

"Of the judges confirmed under Trump, 43 are appeals court judges — a very impressive number. In fact, this is 14 more appeals court judges than George W. Bush, 16 more than Clinton, and 22 more than Obama had confirmed at the same point in their presidencies.

Additionally, Trump has flipped the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands). For those unfamiliar with the term, “flipping a circuit” means creating a majority of judges on a circuit court who were nominated by presidents from the same party. Trump is also on the cusp of flipping the Second Circuit of Appeals (which covers New York, Vermont, and Connecticut) and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Georgia, Florida, and Alabama). Trump has even made notable gains on the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) where there are now 16 Democrat-appointed judges and 12 Republican-appointed judges with one vacancy."; 11/5/19, 5:49 AM