Federal Judge: Trump Will Have to Disclose His Tax Returns to Manhattan D.A.
The New York Times reports:
A federal judge on Monday rejected a bold argument from President Trump that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations, a ruling that allowed the Manhattan district attorney’s office to move forward with a subpoena seeking eight years of the president’s personal and corporate tax returns.
Lawyers for Mr. Trump quickly told the court they would appeal the ruling from Judge Victor Marrero of Manhattan federal court. An appeal is likely to mean further delays.
In a 75-page ruling, Judge Marrero called the president’s argument “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.” Presidents, their families and businesses are not above the law, the judge wrote.
The office is investigating the Stormy Daniels payoff. According to the court, if Trump’s assertion of privilege were accepted, it would mean that as President, he and all his business affiliates, associates, and relatives would be immune from the application of any kind of criminal investigative tool looking into private as well as personal matters, before and during his tenure in office. Oddly, the Southern District of New York had weighed in to request that the judge delay his decision to allow them to give their view, saying that the stay would “prevent irreparable harm to the President’s asserted constitutional interest in not having his records subjected to state criminal compulsory process in these circumstances, while the District Attorney has identified no prejudice from a short delay to this discrete portion of the grand jury investigation at issue.”
Oh, Bill Barr. You have taken the SDNY’s collective testicles and placed them in a drawer in your desk. Well done, sir, well done.
“Irreparable harm” how, by the way? Releasing the tax records while they are (supposedly) under the audit that will apparently last the rest of Trump’s natural life? Have we forgotten that he promised to release them to the public (not a secret grand jury as here) once the phantom audits were done?
Anyway. The judge’s ruling is here. I found this part eye-opening:
The judge’s hypothetical reference to the President’s potential “lengthy incarceration” amused me. I couldn’t help but picture Marco Rubio standing in the well of the U.S. Senate deliberating whether to remove Trump from office as Trump serves a “lengthy incarceration” for New York State criminal offenses. After quoting Josh Hawley’s and Ted Cruz’s fiery speeches supporting Trump, Liddle’ Marco then meekly quotes the Constitution, grimaces, and turns to an aide. The hot mic captures his whispered question: “Does Trump still have his smartphone in prison? The one with the Twitter app?”
After being told guards can be bribed to allow such devices, Marco is a nay on removal.
There will still be litigation to come, but the judge’s ruling is pretty convincing. This is not the kind of thing federal courts get involved with. It will be fascinating to see what position Bill Barr’s SDNY takes on appeal.
UPDATE: The order has been stayed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which has set a very expedited briefing schedule. A stay is perfectly normal, by the way, and does not mean the Second Circuit plans to reverse.
I should add, to make Popehat happy on Twitter, that technically it’s not “Trump” who has to turn over the tax returns. It’s the accounting firm to which the subpoena was directed. I don’t think the headline is really that far off, though, as a practical matter.
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
And podesta and weber dont charged, vittee took over the deripasha account, greg craig gets away scott free.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:09 amThe judge is a Clinton appointee. But this is about the law, not the president— err, I mean, the judge.
Munroe (53beca) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:14 amWhile the result seems correct, does anyone doubt that the NY grand jury system, and the office of the Manhattan DA are being used against a political enemy of Mr. Vance and his party? And that such is a major motivating factor here?
So the question is, again, why is that kosher when one side does it, but an impeachable offense when the other side does it?
On that note, I was very impressed with the following article:
https://reason.com/2019/10/03/let-us-now-thank-donald-trump-for-revealing-brutal-truths-about-how-power-and-privilege-operate/
He is very negative about Trump (as am I), but he points out that Trumps great strength is that in his buffoonish and corrupt way, he highlights how corrupt the current system is, and how hypocritical his detractors are.
Perhaps it takes a Swamp Thing to “Drain the Swamp.”
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:22 amLOL. The “Judge” is left-wing Puerto Rican, who was deeply involved in the Clinton Administration and very liberal. He struck down parts of the Patriot Act. Just another Democrat in black robes fighting Trump. Trump will appeal, so it just depends on who hears the case at the Appeals level.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:30 am@4 good point. Only White Republican’s should be allowed to be judges.
Time123 (6e0727) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:33 am“He struck down parts of the Patriot Act.”
You say this like it’s a bad thing.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:42 amMaybe because “it” isn’t the same thing here.
In NY
-Trump @ associates are accused of specific crimes. These accusations are based on evidence. They can challenge this in an agreed upon process. If they can show the prosecution is malicious they have recourse under our legal system. 100% domestic.
In the Ukraine
-No specific crime is alleged, and also no evidence presented of a crime. No process. No recourse for malicious prosecution. Involves a foreign government into our internal politics.
These seem like substantive differences to me.
Time123 (7cca75) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:46 am@6 Dave, RCocean already told us the judge wasn’t white…therefore everything the judge does is suspect.
Time123 (6e0727) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:47 amNo hes a leftist hack, like the one in kansaa city that doesnt like immigration law.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:49 amWhy everyone in this country worships Federal Judges and lets them poke their nose into everything and have the final say on EVERY State and Federal law and every Federal administration action is beyond me. Its not in the Constitution as written.
This P.R. judge was just some Left-wing lawyer in the Clinton Administration until 1999, when he put on some black robes and now he’s a master of the universe and can strike down the Patriot act or stick it to Trump because…reasons. Why don’t we just get rid of Congress and let the Judges have the whole thing? Then all conformist dummies could just go back to football and drinking beer and wouldn’t have to worry their pretty little heads about Politics.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:49 amTimes123 — the whole point of an investigation is to see whether there is criminality, whether that is in the Ukraine or in Manhattan.
These lawyerly distinctions are what enrages half the country and why we have Trump.
(And as for malicious prosecution, you are simply wrong. Prosecutors have absolute immunity from any civil immunity, and are virtually never challenged for wrongdoing, no matter how egregious. At worst they get a slap on the wrist. And even that is a rarity.)
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:50 amWhy everyone in this country worships Federal Judges and lets them poke their nose into everything
It was Trump who went into federal court to get an injunction against the Manhattan DA.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:51 amBL, I read you link and I agree with most of what he wrote.
Several things
1. IANAL but my understanding is that an investigation needs to be based on a reasonable suspicion. It can’t be opened based on whim. Is that correct?
2. A prosecutor used their discretion to focus on someone they dislike is bad. But The President abused the power of their office to get a foreign government to harm a political opponent is much much worse. I’m not sure yet exactly what Trump did or if it justifies impeachment. I do support an investigation that puts statements under oath and lays out actual evidence, as opposed to talking head hot takes. YMMV
3. The correct response to corruption is recommit to our values and fix the system. It is not to use corrupt methods for our benefit. Trump and his allies have vast power to drive reforms to the system. They have so far chosen not to do so.
4. I will defer to you about how the system works wrt to a prosecutor’s discretion.
Time123 (7cca75) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:59 amHey RC, why do you keep bringing up the Judges race?
Time123 (7cca75) — 10/7/2019 @ 9:00 am“No recourse for malicious prosecution.”
Time123 (7cca75) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:46 am
Yeah, those Ted Stevens prosecutors were sure hung out to dry — not. Meanwhile, we still have the ACA.
It’s the template that’s now the new normal, and nobody’s supposed to notice — or it’s a Whaddabout.
Munroe (53beca) — 10/7/2019 @ 9:12 amYeah, your guy really effed up getting rid of that and replacing it with something better. How many times did he try? One time? than he moved on to making Mexico pay for the wall. let me know when that check clears.
Time123 (6e0727) — 10/7/2019 @ 9:34 amCy Vance is a toad. No better than Trump, just not nationwide. He is abusing the grand jury system and its subpoena power for political purposes and for his own personal advancement, and if he can do it to Trump he can do it to anybody.
As for judge in this case, not everybody can be a Trump butt gerbil. Somebody has to show some restraint and follow the law and the rules of equity. Trump has no federal case.
nk (dbc370) — 10/7/2019 @ 9:35 amUnti you can tell us where the judge is wrong in fact or in the law, all you have here is and ad hominem fallacy.
And why the scare-quotes on Judge? Are you trying to say that he really wasn’t appointed to the bench, but it merely pretending?
The more I see from Trump fanbois, the less inclined I am to vote Republican in the future.
Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 10/7/2019 @ 9:38 am“Yeah, your guy really effed up getting rid of that and replacing it with something better. How many times did he try? One time?”
Time123 (6e0727) — 10/7/2019 @ 9:34 am
You’re confused. McCain wasn’t my guy. I’m guessing he was yours.
Munroe (f2f14e) — 10/7/2019 @ 9:38 amClaimed “irreparable harm” is no reason for eyerolling. California has a judicially imposed bar to the production of returns in civil litigation unless they are really, really relevant to something.
Here we have a federal prosecutor, evidently with no local crimes to handle, wanting to “investigate” a payment made 3 years ago. To a woman with no apparent qualifications or link to the election. Except large beasts.
And while no president is immune from an investigation, he should not be treated as a litigation pinata either. No in camera investigation? no partial production? And that snotty observation about a prison term-really?
As some perceptive person noted above, its seemingly a given that this is Cy Vance jr’s political pursuit of Trump. On the plainly silly basis that silencing a large-breasted woman is a federal crime
This ransacking personal records is not a good thing. I remember Obama’s opponent in one Illinois race had his sealed divorce files opened.
Let’s see what the higher courts do.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 10/7/2019 @ 9:42 am“You’re confused. ”
Davethulhu (fab944) — 10/7/2019 @ 9:44 amBTW, do you know who else was a Clinton appointee? Trump’s sister.
And who are the people in this foursome?
nk (dbc370) — 10/7/2019 @ 9:49 amfirst appointed by Reagan, fwiw, look we know the game, judge Sullivan after holder slapped him down will pretend to inquire about Clinton matters, but not too closely, judge Walton, who enabled the libby sham trial, much the same,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/7/2019 @ 9:51 amOne try, Trump gave it ONE try. Mcain voted against and I guess we’re done. Mcain will never not be in the senate so i guess this is over. What you like more about Trump, that he’s a fighter? or all the winning?
Time123 (6e0727) — 10/7/2019 @ 10:05 amI count six.
Dave (1bb933) — 10/7/2019 @ 10:06 amBoobs, that is.
Dave (1bb933) — 10/7/2019 @ 10:07 amI would like to further point out that the Trumps have been culo y bragas (thick as thieves) with the corrupt New York political establishment for two generations. Trump is mired in the very same sewer he crawled out of.
nk (dbc370) — 10/7/2019 @ 10:07 amSo when presented with a crystal clear example of Trump making a promise and utterly failing to accomplish it, and also failing to really try to keep it, your response is to talk about a deceased Senator who never was president, that few here really liked. Of course you insinuate dishonestly that Trump’s critics are Mccain fanboys in order to change the subject from
Trump failing
to a personal argument. Anything to change the subject. Never a clear answer to anything. Obamacare might as well be called Trumpcare now.
Dustin (6d7686) — 10/7/2019 @ 10:10 amRe: ACA repeal.
Hmmm, let’s not indulge ourselves in oversimplification? Efforts* at repeal have been numerous.
* be they sincere, or merely wallpaper, they have happened…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_repeal_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
There is/was not much that Trump can/could do w/r/t repealing a duly-legislated and signed law. (Keep in mind, that our courts generally won’t even let him repeal EO’d policies with another EO.)
IIRC, and correct me if I’m wrong on the details, even if the House could muster a compromise bill to pass (and, really, there should have been one ready-to-go on Jan. 20, 2017, but there wasn’t), given the razor-thin majority in the Senate, it became impossible to arrive at any Republican compromise legislation that would satisfy both the Rand Paul wing, on the one hand, and the Collins/Murkowski/McCain wing, on the other.
ColoComment (27e48b) — 10/7/2019 @ 10:45 amThat the Republican House & Senate leaders failed in THEIR promises and responsibilities vis-a-vis ACA repeal shouldn’t, I believe, be laid at the feet of Trump. Of course, YMMV
2nd circuit upholds a stay for now,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/7/2019 @ 10:50 amhttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/second-circuit-grants-trump-reprieve-after-lower-courts-blistering-decision-in-tax-return-case
narciso (d1f714) — 10/7/2019 @ 10:51 amColocomment, I was mostly just making for Munroe.
Yes there have been many repeal votes. There was 1 vote after Trump because president and you’re right there’s plenty of blame to go around. Repeal was easy, but there wasn’t’ any plan to replace. I agree finding a replacement that would get broad support is challenging. People have pointed that out. But Trump’s approach of saying it would be easy to eliminate it and replace it with something better, without any details, was the one the voters liked. It hasn’t work very well yet.
Time123 (ea2b98) — 10/7/2019 @ 10:55 am“here is/was not much that Trump can/could do w/r/t repealing a duly-legislated and signed law. ”
What do you call someone who promises to do something they’re not capable of doing?
Davethulhu (fab944) — 10/7/2019 @ 10:58 amA politician?
whembly (fd57f6) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:02 am3. Bored Lawyer (998177) — 10/7/2019 @ 8:22 am
I don’t.
I do wonder why doesn’t Trump challenge the subpoena on more normal grounds. Perhaps he has and/or [erhps he doesn’t want anyone getting even aglimpse of his business and tax records.
They are apparently, ostensibly investigating whether there wass afaksification of business records (not even tax evasion!) when Trump’s company was (probably) used to reimburse the National Enquirer for the payoff they had made to Karen McDougal.
If the thibg was kept secret it would most easily have been treated as abusiness expense, instead of a check being cut to Donald Trump and Trump using his own check. Perhaps they are looking into whether that happened other times.
Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:10 amNobody but nobody, or nobody who could get any attention had any idea of something good to replace the ACA with.
Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:12 amI’ll suggest that Trump likely believed that he’d be able to rely on support and cooperation from his legislative Republican cohort, and that assumption, which unfortunately turned out to be unwarranted, led to his [perhaps rash, perhaps not] “promise” to repeal and/or replace ACA. And the Wall. And all the other claims that persuaded people to vote for him rather than the presented alternatives.
ColoComment (27e48b) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:16 amWho knew or would have guessed it likely that the anti-Trump Republicans would (as my dear departed mother would have said) “cut off their nose to spite their face”?
If Trump, on the other hand, had reneged on his indication that he’d sign a repeal/replace bill, and if he had vetoed or pocket-vetoed a bill that had passed both chambers, then I think there would be cause to complain, and loudly.
…just trying to play Devil’s Advocate here…. : )
“A politician?”
Drain the swamp!
Davethulhu (fab944) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:19 amWell, it’s Trump we’re talking about, so moron? Clueless, liar, corrupt, there are many things that accurately describe him, but knowledgeable about [insert subject here] is not one of them.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:24 amSammy, I would have much rather they’d just nuked the whole ACA law and gone back to status quo ante, while they figured out if there were an economically rational & politically supportable policy program to propose.
ACA was built and passed on lies perpetrated on a gullible population by ethically-challenged politicians and their advisers. It never made economic sense.
Prior to ACA, states had subsidized high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions. Health insurance providers did offer multiple choices of short v. long term, high v. low deductible/premium, diverse coverage policies to match market demand. Within defined geographic areas, there was competition for consumers.
ColoComment (27e48b) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:28 amHe lives in the ‘now.’
So when this does all come out one day–and it will after he is long out of office and dead– it won’t matter to him. Though it may perturb the blindly loyal supporters who took the bait when they see, like everyone from ex-wives, mistresses, contractors and assorted businessmen over the decades– how they were snookered. What a showman.
But for now…
“Ain’t nuttin’ gonna happen…” – ‘Quincy Maddox’
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:28 am39:
Its not as if he is a 29 y/o bartender, 16 y/o Swede, 78 y/o socialist, holder of a “journalism degree,” Hillary’s daughter, or some other widely respected expert in such matters.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:30 amWhat can be laid at Trump’s feet is his inability and unwillingness to lead his own party. He has shown absolutely no desire to build any kind of coalition.
Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:33 am“Its not as if he is a 29 y/o bartender, 16 y/o Swede, 78 y/o socialist, holder of a “journalism degree,” Hillary’s daughter, or some other widely respected expert in such matters.”
He’s a 73 y/o con man, and you’re one of his marks.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:40 amJudge never addresses the more important question – whether the release of the tax returns is even relevant.
The payment to Stormy is known – ie the date of transfer of money – So why is nine years relevant when only a single date/year is relevant.
The second point – How are the federal agents going to find out if a single expenditure is deducted on the tax return without the underlying financial records? Do they really think there will be a one line description of an expense titled “payoff to bimbo”?
Joe - the non legal expert (debac0) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:42 amJudge marrero, btw doesnt believe in the olc memos re indictment
narciso (d1f714) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:46 amMany of the Founders assumed that the Executive was NOT subject to prosecution during his term. Time and again, during the repeated discussions of Impeachment, the worry was expressed about the inability to remove a criminal President short of assassination or other main force, and eventually the Impeachment process was sorted out.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-1
At the VERY least, the President has to be immune from politically-inspired harassment such as the present case, where the animus of the DA is plain to all and openly expressed.
This is for much the same reason that court officials have immunity from certain lawsuits, lest plaintiff’s attorney’s inundate them with nuisance suits. To allow trivial lawfare as a political tactic is already the bane of our society and extending it further is worse than a mistake.
Kevin M (19357e) — 10/7/2019 @ 12:03 pmOf course, I can rely on Trump’s attorneys to make all the wrong arguments, directed by a moron as they are.
Kevin M (19357e) — 10/7/2019 @ 12:04 pm#43
What can be laid at Trump’s feet is his inability and unwillingness to lead his own party. He has shown absolutely no desire to build any kind of coalition.
Chuck, are you not begging the question, e.g., making assumptions based on evident lack of action but where we have no idea of the actual reasons therefor?
We do not know anything of the behind the scenes conversations, arguments, discussions, arm-twisting, etc., that he may have exerted or that may have been rejected. I’ll suggest that rather than a failure to “lead” his party, we might consider that “his” party may quite possibly have refused to follow his lead.
Again, Devil’s Advocate at work here.
ColoComment (27e48b) — 10/7/2019 @ 12:09 pmYou guys DO realize that using the courts and silly lawyer tricks against Trump only weakens him among those who respect lawyers and politicized courts? Which is NOT the bulk of the voters? Right?
Kevin M (19357e) — 10/7/2019 @ 12:23 pmIt is truly sad that the willingness to defend a person’s rights is now completely subject to whether you like them or not.
Kevin M (19357e) — 10/7/2019 @ 12:25 pmDo you have any evidence of any behind-the-scenes negotiations Trump has been involved in? Given his willingness to publicize nearly everything he does and the lack of him publicizing any such negotiations, I am utterly unconvinced that he has tried to convince anyone within his party to go along.
I think you’re being way too generous to Trump to assume that he’s been trying to lead a party that would not be led. After all, Bush didn’t have much trouble getting a coalition of his party moving in the direction he wanted. And Trump is way better than Bush (at least, that’s what the Trump fanbois say).
Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 10/7/2019 @ 12:29 pmConstitutional Convention, July 20, 1787, debate and vote on idea of Impeachment:
Kevin M (19357e) — 10/7/2019 @ 12:39 pmLink in #47
Kevin M (19357e) — 10/7/2019 @ 12:42 pm44:
I am a “mark” because:
1. Paris Agreement dumped;
2. No new wars;
3. Gorsuch;
4. Stuck with Kav;
5. Slapped some barrier to endless Blue Sate debt with new SALT limit;
6. limited the ability to claim “refugee” status from political violence, domestic violence, road rage, etc., et. al.,
7. capped the number of benefit hungry refugees that need to be deposited in US cities;
8. Clawed back million from the Palestinians;
9. Stopped attending the WH Press dinner;
10. Kept Hillary out of the WH;
11. Does not pretend that 16 y/o Swede’s are oracles;
and…
Wait. My gratitude for which of these makes me the mark?
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 10/7/2019 @ 12:43 pmRelevance wasn’t the argument from Trump’s attorney’s.
This is not the limit of the investigation, their are many ongoing; Trump org, Stormy, Trump foundation.
A) This is New York State so has no federal agents involved. B) If there isn’t documentation, then that’s your problem right there.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/7/2019 @ 12:47 pm5. Slapped some barrier to endless Blue Sate debt with new SALT limit;
Slapped every upper-middle-class family and quite a few middle-class families with higher taxes. Even in Texas, which has property tax rates that Californians would consider extreme.
Kevin M (19357e) — 10/7/2019 @ 12:48 pmHis taxes seem less important right now….
Trump issued a threat to Turkey today on Twitter, indicating that if it “does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey.”
As he abandoned our ally, the Kurds, in yet another gift to Putin.
noel (f22371) — 10/7/2019 @ 1:00 pm50:
Fewer people every year hold judges in high regard.
Decades of lax sentences prompted voter outrage and 3 Strikes laws.
The 9th Circuit, plainly opposed to the death penalty, issued stay after stay of an execution, on endless flimsy arguments, until the USSC stepped in to stop that circus (People v. Robert Alton Harris).
SF based Judge Tigar issues serial nationwide injunctions, on what some say is a belief that federal judges have a blue-pencil veto power over policies they don’t like.
Besides, the people you speak of do not care about the regard in which people hold judges. In the 30’s they threatened to pack the courts to get what they wanted. Now they write articles asking if the court’s prestige will “survive” a vote to let the census count the # of illegals here, and savaging Thomas and Kavanagh.
Just like Reid dumped the filibuster in 2013, they feel courts exist as a one way rachet for policies they want.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 10/7/2019 @ 1:03 pm57:
They can’t endlessly deduct increasing state taxes anymore. Or hope they die before the sate has to seek help from the Feds.
They may have to do something about it–like go out to vote against the next proposed state tax bill.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 10/7/2019 @ 1:05 pmwell the previous wave of sanctions, did a number on their economy,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/7/2019 @ 1:09 pmWhen we were choosing a new place from the Bay Area I was shocked at what taxes in Dallas county were. 30% the home price, 100% of the taxes.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/7/2019 @ 1:13 pm@59: It’s not about judges. It’s about the law. And, it’s about the moron in the WH.
That’s why we need a smart president (think Warren, even Biden) who will appoint hundreds of moron judges over four/eight years.
Munroe (f2f14e) — 10/7/2019 @ 1:22 pmWell, in states that have no state income tax their government and services must somehow still be funded. Real and/or personal property taxes, estate tax, sales taxes, fuel taxes, hotel/entertainment taxes, etc. will naturally be somewhat higher in various ratios to make up the difference.
ColoComment (27e48b) — 10/7/2019 @ 1:38 pmThe real issue, it seems to me, would be how profligate any state’s government is with tax money, whatever the source.
the real issue is that my Tax bill under the new system wasn’t lower. So from my perspective I didn’t get a tax cut, and the deficit went up.
Time123 (235fc4) — 10/7/2019 @ 2:03 pm“the office is investigating the Stormy Daniels payment”
What exactly is being investigated? What is the crime? NDA’s are illegal? That cant be right. The corporate world is awash in them. Lawyers reach settlements everyday, almost all have a NDA attached.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/7/2019 @ 2:59 pmViolation of Election Law? That is federal law, not state. The SNDY passed on prosecution of the payment. I struggle to find the State crime investigated.
the real issue is that my Tax bill under the new system wasn’t lower. So from my perspective I didn’t get a tax cut, and the deficit went up.
My federal tax under the new law was $10,000 higher than it would otherwise have been, due to the undeductibility of CA cap gains on the sale of my home. That was high enough to notice.
Kevin M (19357e) — 10/7/2019 @ 4:14 pmHere’s the thing. If Cy “The Toad” Vance could not subpoena from the IRS, he should not be able to subpoena them from Trump’s accountants or Trump himself. That’s the argument to make.
But you know, when a toad fights a scorpion, I don’t even want to watch let alone care who wins, if you ‘noraimean.
nk (dbc370) — 10/7/2019 @ 4:44 pm37. ColoComment (27e48b) — 10/7/2019 @ 11:16 am
I don’t think he thought so.
The whole Republican Party was saying “repeal and replace”
So long as there were a few members of Cngress who treated that as plausibe,, Trrump would edorse it.
First he claimed his new Sectreary of Health and Human Services would comw up with a plan. That surprised him because he didn;’t have an idea. Later, after some kind of discusson with others he said he never thought health care would be so hard.
Nuking the ACA would leave some people worse off and there were some prvisios peole liked.
There were complicated plans. It isa real conudrum because you can’t even give peoe the same amount of money. You need patient choice and you need incentives to save mone.
Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8) — 10/7/2019 @ 5:06 pm66. iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/7/2019 @ 2:59 pm
I tnk it;s falsifyin business records.
When the Trump Organization reimbursed the parent company of the NAtional Enquirer for the money they had paid Karen McDougal, did they account for it correctly?
It was not a business expense. It was income to Donald Trump. Even if they managed to put it into teh proper categories, was it truthful?
How you get from that to 8 years of tax returns I don’t know. Possibly there were other insances when the Trump Organization was used to pay non business expenses like this.
Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8) — 10/7/2019 @ 5:10 pmRe the earlier thread:
https://esco-pivnich.com/en/news/hsh-prince-albert-ii-of-monaco-and-burisma-group-president-nikolay-zlochevskyi-co-host-third-annual-monaco-energy-security-forum/
narciso (d1f714) — 10/7/2019 @ 5:18 pmUPDATE: The order has been stayed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which has set a very expedited briefing schedule. A stay is perfectly normal, by the way, and does not mean the Second Circuit plans to reverse.
I should add, to make Popehat happy on Twitter, that technically it’s not “Trump” who has to turn over the tax returns. It’s the accounting firm to which the subpoena was directed. I don’t think the headline is really that far off, though, as a practical matter.
Patterico (115b1f) — 10/7/2019 @ 7:57 pm#56 – The case is being tried in Federal court, not NY state court.
joe (debac0) — 10/8/2019 @ 5:29 amInstapundit usually prefaces these type of posts with
“Unexpectedly..”
That defense was the best anyone at SDNY was up to. I’m just shocked they didn’t bring in Sid Blumenthal to ghost write it… maybe that explains it
Or maybe they rewrote it to delete the mental incompetence defense they choose first
Trump will try to move it through the courts until he wins.
steveg (354706) — 10/9/2019 @ 6:12 pm