Belgium
formerly colombia
- 25,969
- 37,262
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
I feel like this has largely been glossed over but the case of Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance's grand jury subpoena to Mazars LLP for 8 years of Trump's tax returns is important to keep track of.
As part of Vance's investigation into possible violations of state law regarding Trump's hush-money payments and the subsequent reimbursement that was falsely disguised as retainer fees, a grand a jury subpoena was issued to Trump's accounting firm, Mazars.
In response, Trump sued to block Mazars from complying with the state grand jury subpoena to a third party for Trump's tax returns.
Trump's attorneys in this case, led by Marc Mukasey, argued that the sitting president can not be "investigated, indicted or otherwise subjected to criminal process.”
That argument is as absurd as it sounds, essentially arguing complete immunity. The grand jury subpoena wasn't even issued to Trump directly, it went to a third party. Under Trump attorneys' argument, even such a third party would be immune from having to comply with grand jury subpoenas if it links to the sitting president.
Below is an excerpt from the Mueller report about the infamous 1973 opinion by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel.
The OLC opinion has never been subjected to a serious court challenge but it explicitly concludes that while the sitting president can't be indicted, it does permit investigating the sitting president.
This is where the key part of this case comes in. Under Barr's leadership, the DOJ filed a statement of interest, arguing in Trump's favor.
In the statement, the DOJ requests that the case should be kept in federal court, citing "significant constitutional issues" raised by Trump's attorneys. DA Vance requested moving the case to state court.
The primary argument made by Trump's attorneys is that the sitting president is immune from any criminal process, which explicitly contradicts the 1973 OLC opinion.
In their court filings, the DOJ did not argue in favor of that position but also did not argue against it.
Instead of taking a position on Trump's legal argument, they simply argued in favor of blocking the subpoena and cited unspecified "significant constitutional issues" raised by Trump's attorneys. That appears to be an implicit approval of the assertion of complete immunity.
They argued that Vance's investigation would not suffer from the blocking of the subpoena, whereas Trump would suffer "irreparable harm" if he was forced to comply with the subpoena before his legal argument was considered to the fullest extent.
In response, DA Vance has accused Trump's attorneys and the DOJ of arguing a blatantly unconstitutional position and trying to run down the clock for the statute of limitations.
The judge in this case, a Clinton appointee, ruled against Trump and the DOJ and condemned Trump attorneys' legal argument, which would effectively render Trump above the law.
Excerpts from the judge's ruling:
Trump immediately appealed the ruling and the appeals court has issued a temporary stay, blocking the subpoena from going into effect.
Given the involvement of the DOJ in this case, despite the absurd legal argument for complete immunity from any criminal process, it is certainly worth keeping an eye out for how the case progresses. Particularly how the DOJ will proceed.
AG Barr's view on executive power is very broad, and amongst other things he has stated in public congressional testimony that Mueller shouldn't have investigated Trump for obstruction of justice in the first place due to the lack of a prosecutorial decision. The report made explicit references to Congress' authority to address presidential misconduct and the importance of gathering the facts, as the 1973 OLC opinion permits.
As part of Vance's investigation into possible violations of state law regarding Trump's hush-money payments and the subsequent reimbursement that was falsely disguised as retainer fees, a grand a jury subpoena was issued to Trump's accounting firm, Mazars.
In response, Trump sued to block Mazars from complying with the state grand jury subpoena to a third party for Trump's tax returns.
Trump's attorneys in this case, led by Marc Mukasey, argued that the sitting president can not be "investigated, indicted or otherwise subjected to criminal process.”
That argument is as absurd as it sounds, essentially arguing complete immunity. The grand jury subpoena wasn't even issued to Trump directly, it went to a third party. Under Trump attorneys' argument, even such a third party would be immune from having to comply with grand jury subpoenas if it links to the sitting president.
Below is an excerpt from the Mueller report about the infamous 1973 opinion by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel.
The OLC opinion has never been subjected to a serious court challenge but it explicitly concludes that while the sitting president can't be indicted, it does permit investigating the sitting president.
This is where the key part of this case comes in. Under Barr's leadership, the DOJ filed a statement of interest, arguing in Trump's favor.
In the statement, the DOJ requests that the case should be kept in federal court, citing "significant constitutional issues" raised by Trump's attorneys. DA Vance requested moving the case to state court.
The primary argument made by Trump's attorneys is that the sitting president is immune from any criminal process, which explicitly contradicts the 1973 OLC opinion.
In their court filings, the DOJ did not argue in favor of that position but also did not argue against it.
Instead of taking a position on Trump's legal argument, they simply argued in favor of blocking the subpoena and cited unspecified "significant constitutional issues" raised by Trump's attorneys. That appears to be an implicit approval of the assertion of complete immunity.
They argued that Vance's investigation would not suffer from the blocking of the subpoena, whereas Trump would suffer "irreparable harm" if he was forced to comply with the subpoena before his legal argument was considered to the fullest extent.
In response, DA Vance has accused Trump's attorneys and the DOJ of arguing a blatantly unconstitutional position and trying to run down the clock for the statute of limitations.
The judge in this case, a Clinton appointee, ruled against Trump and the DOJ and condemned Trump attorneys' legal argument, which would effectively render Trump above the law.
Excerpts from the judge's ruling:
Trump immediately appealed the ruling and the appeals court has issued a temporary stay, blocking the subpoena from going into effect.
Given the involvement of the DOJ in this case, despite the absurd legal argument for complete immunity from any criminal process, it is certainly worth keeping an eye out for how the case progresses. Particularly how the DOJ will proceed.
AG Barr's view on executive power is very broad, and amongst other things he has stated in public congressional testimony that Mueller shouldn't have investigated Trump for obstruction of justice in the first place due to the lack of a prosecutorial decision. The report made explicit references to Congress' authority to address presidential misconduct and the importance of gathering the facts, as the 1973 OLC opinion permits.
. Tie stuff up in courts, stiff contractors, cheat, steal. You name it. He’s very experienced at graft and con.. I’ll give him that.
