President Trump wins supreme court case over tax records

[BobRyan]

Trump's efforts to prevent release of his tax records was upheld today by the Supreme Court in a ruling that refused to order him to turn his records over to congress or to the state of New York. So now the case goes back to lower courts for "more arguments" to be made.

Many see that as a "loss" for the President - because the court still held the previously existing rule that Presidents can be subpoenaed in a court of law... (sadly - nothing new there - but we are supposed to respond like "that is news! wow!")

 

[Der Alte]

There is another post here somewhere seeing the SCOTUS ruling as a loss for Trump. I heard on the news that in order to get the records they must have a legal reason. It cannot be a fishing expedition. And I don't think anyone can produce any credible evidence of wrongdoing which would justify obtaining his records.

 

[Hank77]

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision on Thursday, said that it is not so that President Donald Trump is absolutely immune to the criminal process, meaning a state prosecutor can move forward with an attempt to obtain Trump’s tax returns as part of a criminal investigation.
“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,” the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Vance.
In Landmark Tax Return Case, Supreme Court Rules Trump Is Not Immune to Criminal Process

The President, acting in his personal capacity, sued the district attorney and Mazars in Federal District Court to enjoin enforcement of the subpoena. He argued that, under Article II and the Supremacy Clause, a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process. He asked the court to issue a “declaratory judgment that the subpoena is invalid and unenforceable while the President is in office” and to permanently enjoin the district attorney “from taking any action to enforce the subpoena.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

That's the part of Trump v Vance that Trump lost. The SCOTUS said Trump and Jay Sekolo were incorrect in their interpretation of Article II. A sitting President does not have absolute immunity from a criminal investigation.

 

[cow451]

This is a loss for any President that considers himself above the law. Trump is such a President.

 

[Fantine]

I see the spin doctors are at work here. You must be interns of Kaylee McEneany, who says the world looks to us for covid-19 leadership as we hurtle towards four million cases with lightning speed.

 

[camille70]

There is another post here somewhere seeing the SCOTUS ruling as a loss for Trump. I heard on the news that in order to get the records they must have a legal reason. It cannot be a fishing expedition. And I don't think anyone can produce any credible evidence of wrongdoing which would justify obtaining his records.

There doesn't have to be wrong doing or evidence of wrong doing. If they are planning on passing new laws or revising or reviewing existing laws, all they need is a legislative reason. I don't think the guidance the SCOTUS gave today is going to be difficult for them to meet.

 

[Pommer]

There doesn't have to be wrong doing or evidence of wrong doing. If they are planning on passing new laws or revising or reviewing existing laws, all they need is a legislative reason. I don't think the guidance the SCOTUS gave today is going to be difficult for them to meet.

Right, but then should the District Court side with the House, I think it goes straight back to SCOTUS, without mucking about in the appellate court.

 

[camille70]

Right, but then should the District Court side with the House, I think it goes straight back to SCOTUS, without mucking about in the appellate court.

I don't think it goes back. They nipped all his craziness in the bud. He has no special privilege that makes him exempt from participating or complying and presidential immunity is nonsense. Lower courts have already ruled Mazars and Deutsche Bank have to comply with the DA's subpoena, and both put out statements saying they would. I'm pretty sure they just want it over and done with without setting themselves up to be sued by Trump for complying. I don't know if Congress also had such a ruling in their favor, they may have since it also went to SCOTUS, but I don't think it will be a problem with them meeting the standards. The only thing is, it's going to take a while for them to do so as reporting says that they don't have an avenue to expedite requests like the DA does.

Trump got a delay where his business doesn't come out before the election, but eventually it does, even if he wins again. There are groups trying to talk Biden into refusing debates unless he releases his taxes, but I don't think Biden is going to do it. Trump is dangerous right now, though. He's not running for reelection, he's running from prosecution so he is going to lash out and dial up the divisive rhetoric. There are still the DOJ guidelines in place that say he can't have charges brought against him. If he stays in office, that will be the next thing that goes to SCOTUS. His family doesn't have those protections, though. Two or three of his kids are already forbidden from having anything to do with a charity because of the shenanigans with the Trump Foundation when that got shut down for fraud. If the state goes after them, Trump can't pardon them out of their troubles and Barr has no control over State prosecutors. Besides, I'm half expecting Barr to be disbarred sooner or later because of the stuff he has done for Trump.

 

[eleos1954]

Trump's efforts to prevent release of his tax records was upheld today by the Supreme Court in a ruling that refused to order him to turn his records over to congress or to the state of New York. So now the case goes back to lower courts for "more arguments" to be made.

Many see that as a "loss" for the President - because the court still held the previously existing rule that Presidents can be subpoenaed in a court of law... (sadly - nothing new there - but we are supposed to respond like "that is news! wow!")

It is the internal revenue services job to scrutinize tax records ... and when they find errors and such then unless criminal there are remedies for it ... paying the money owed to them.

Is or has anything criminal been filed against Trump from the IRS? No? Then leave it alone.

If the people what to make it a requirement that all presidential nominees are required to release their tax returns BEFORE they are allowed to become an official candidate for president .... then fine (I would be for this).

This after in office "tax return scrutiny" is nonsense and is just used as a distraction from one party or the other in an attempt to marginalize whoever is holding the presidential office at the time. I grow weary with the political games played for the sake of votes ... from all of them.