Chief Justice Gives Trump Temporary Reprieve in Financial Records Case

[sportage]

NO POINT for analysis here....
It's DONALD TRUMP'S Supreme Court.
What did we expect ???

If Donald Trump can drag out lower court rulings in the US Supreme Court, he will and is doing exactly that.
The US Supreme Court. YOU HAVE A FRIEND IN ME. la la la la la

We gotta to get this guy out of there.
Trump is soooo corrupt that if the mob had a play-book to follow they'd follow Trump's example word for word.

 

[fskimospy]

The IRS traditionally does not share returns with other agencies like the FBI or State LEO w/o strong evidence of fraud in the returns. An outfit like Mazars won't share any client information w/o a subpoena, rightfully so. The only reason Trump has a leg to stand on is in claiming absolute immunity via executive privilege.

It takes 4 justices to grant certiorari to review a case. Any case they turn away has the same effect in law as if they'd ruled on it themselves. It's an affirmation of the lower court ruling. If an appeal is dropped after denial by the circuit court of appeals en banc the ruling affects only that circuit.

Why would absolute immunity mean that third parties were also immune from complying with subpoenas?

He has no leg to stand on.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why would absolute immunity mean that third parties were also immune from complying with subpoenas?

He has no leg to stand on.

Because they are his records even though in possession of another party. Mazars can't legally release them until appeals are complete. Raising it to a separation of powers argument is an unexplored realm of the law. I see it as bullshit but SCOTUS conservatives have toadied up to Trump all too often. If they deem to review the case that may well put off resolution for six months, even if they eventually rule against Trump, an effective delay.

It's a sideshow to the main event, Trump's malfeasance wrt Ukraine.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Once the Tax returns are revealed with all the line items from the Russians, fine, but the can of worms will remain open long after Trump leaves office...
You guys want this to be legal precedent, live with it. There's an old saying; "be careful what you wish for." Eventually this will be far reaching and there goes some of our right to privacy. Some of you sure think it's a good idea to have the government more involved in our lives.

You've received ample comment to this, and I might only add little to it.

First, the President -- and many government officials elected, appointed or merely just hired -- have less "rights" than others. The President is supposedly subject to Congressional oversight.

Second, tax returns are -- paradoxically -- public records, but by law only Congress has the right to solicit and review them in addition to IRS processes of audit.

Third, since there is already evidence that Trump attempted to subvert the usual IRS audit of presidential returns -- and is seemingly protected by Mnuchin and the IRS Commissioner deferring to presidential as opposed to Constitutional loyalties, Congress is the only remaining fallback to assure that Trump paid what he owed as opposed to what he himself described as "as little as possible".

Since GOP administrations beginning with Bush 43 understaffed the IRS to the point of being unable to complete the normally reasonable random computer sampling of returns chosen for audit, what is to stop others from more boldly cheating on their taxes in the future, if the Chief Executive is no longer under scrutiny himself and refuses to honor the tradition of tax-return disclosure by presidents?

I suggest that you cannot maintain an orderly nation-state with any stability if citizens no longer honor their obligations to it. You can change tax laws. You can create -- through the legislature -- credits or new obligations.

But if you completely subvert the administration of those laws and encourage people to ignore their obligations, we might as well dissolve the Union and allow individual states to attempt being the only taxing authority.

Rule of Law. This is all about Rule of Law, and the authorities of different branches of government.

If Trump is allowed to get away with any major aspect of his criminality, there won't be any "Great Again."

 

[fskimospy]

Because they are his records even though in possession of another party. Mazars can't legally release them until appeals are complete. Raising it to a separation of powers argument is an unexplored realm of the law. I see it as bullshit but SCOTUS conservatives have toadied up to Trump all too often. If they deem to review the case that may well put off resolution for six months, even if they eventually rule against Trump, an effective delay.

It's a sideshow to the main event, Trump's malfeasance wrt Ukraine.

What does that have to do with anything though? The fact that Trump originated his tax records doesn’t mean that a third party he elected to give them to suddenly has some sort of transferred immunity.

 

[Moonbeam]

Once the Tax returns are revealed with all the line items from the Russians, fine, but the can of worms will remain open long after Trump leaves office...
You guys want this to be legal precedent, live with it. There's an old saying; "be careful what you wish for." Eventually this will be far reaching and there goes some of our right to privacy. Some of you sure think it's a good idea to have the government more involved in our lives.

I would caution people to consider that if they are conservative in leaning they have an exaggeration of their fear response, meaning they tend to see boogie-men everywhere and they don't really exist. You were had long ago. What we fear we fear because it already happened. We were all badly violated. What we should want to do now is recover.

 

[Jhhnn]

What does that have to do with anything though? The fact that Trump originated his tax records doesn’t mean that a third party he elected to give them to suddenly has some sort of transferred immunity.

Mazars has a legal duty to all their clients to not release records w/o a valid subpoena. The validity of the subpoena is being challenged in court for bullshit reasons but the challenge needs to be ruled bullshit by the SCOTUS before they can release anything. Capische?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Mazars has a legal duty to all their clients to not release records w/o a valid subpoena. The validity of the subpoena is being challenged in court for bullshit reasons but the challenge needs to be ruled bullshit by the SCOTUS before they can release anything. Capische?

I'm actually flabbergasted that the Supremes actually contemplate taking the case. The law is clear. The ruling by the lower court is clear.

 

[akenbennu]

I'm actually flabbergasted that the Supremes actually contemplate taking the case. The law is clear. The ruling by the lower court is clear.

I suspect it's just because the situation is fairly unique in that there hasn't been a President who's pushed the limits of his power to this extent in a long time, they're probably wanting to make a ruling on the limits of that power.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm actually flabbergasted that the Supremes actually contemplate taking the case. The law is clear. The ruling by the lower court is clear.

The executive privilege/ separation of powers claim puts it into an unsettled area of Constitutional Law. The Court gave themselves a few days to think about it.

 

[VRAMdemon]

My guess would be that they only even intervened and are giving any mild consideration to the topic out of deference to the Executive Branch.

But there's really no argument to be made in Trump's favor. And even if we believe that Kavanaugh is little more than a partisan toady, he's a toady to the RNC not Trump and he's one man not five.

I'll surely allow I may be wrong. But if I am, then we've been a banana republic for awhile, and we should all wake up to this new reality.

 

[Bitek]

Once the Tax returns are revealed with all the line items from the Russians, fine, but the can of worms will remain open long after Trump leaves office...
You guys want this to be legal precedent, live with it. There's an old saying; "be careful what you wish for." Eventually this will be far reaching and there goes some of our right to privacy. Some of you sure think it's a good idea to have the government more involved in our lives.

I'll worry about that day when I'm elected president and don't want all my scams and tax dodging exposed to the public.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll worry about that day when I'm elected president and don't want all my scams and tax dodging exposed to the public.

It’s such a transparently silly argument I can’t believe multiple people have tried to make it.

When someone is the president the country needs to know who is putting money in their pocket. This is common sense.

 

[fskimospy]

Dp

 

[ElFenix]

Any case they turn away has the same effect in law as if they'd ruled on it themselves. It's an affirmation of the lower court ruling.

this is completely wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

this is completely wrong.

It certainly has the same effect on the appeal in question.

 

[ElFenix]

It certainly has the same effect on the appeal in question.

letting stand != affirmation. if you'd have said, it has the same effect on the case in question as if they'd have issued the same ruling themselves, that would be correct.

 

[fskimospy]

Letting a case stand creates no new nationwide binding precedent. Affirming the judgment does.

 

[woolfe9998]

It certainly has the same effect on the appeal in question.

Yes, on the case in question, but is not a binding precedent.

 

[KMFJD]

SC should be deciding this case any moment now.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1281209521675874304

Did someone hear the decision a bit early?

 

[UNCjigga]

Decision expected at...10:10am.

[stares at ticking clock]

 

[UNCjigga]

So first decision—which as I expected is a victory for Cy Vance—includes a small victory for Trump in that he can continue to stall this case by challenging the scope of Manhattan DA’s subpoena in lower court.

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1281230006283382790

7-2

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

 

[HomerJS]

So first decision—which as I expected is a victory for Cy Vance—includes a small victory for Trump in that he can continue to stall this case by challenging the scope of Manhattan DA’s subpoena in lower court.

Most of those details have already been detailed DA can ask for expedited hearing to push this through. Public won't get to see the records anytime soon but if a grand jury can be impaneled an indictment will tell everything they need to know.

 

[soundforbjt]

They punted the second case back to the lower courts as well.