Today, the Supreme Court upheld a subpoena issued by New York prosecutors to access President Trump's tax records.  Both of Trump's SCOTUS appointees, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, ruled against him.

Quote:Eugene Gu, MD   @eugenegu

The Supreme Court ruled that Mazars USA, LLP, the personal accounting firm Trump used, must comply with a grand jury subpoena the New York County District Attorney issued to investigate “business transactions” involving President Trump “whose conduct may have violated state law.”

Twitter

Quote:July 9, 2020, 10:14 AM EDT / Updated July 9, 2020, 11:52 AM EDT
By Pete Williams

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday gave President Donald Trump a chance to beat back House Democrats' efforts to obtain his financial records but ruled he is not immune from the Manhattan district attorney's attempt to get his taxes.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. wants years worth of Trump's tax returns as part of his probe into hush-money payments to two women while House Democrats sought financial records from the Trump Organization's accounting firm and two banks to determine if foreign governments, including Russia, hold sway over him.

Both matters will go back to lower courts to determine if Trump needs to turn over any documents, which will not likely be settled before Election Day.

In our judicial system, "the public has a right to every man's evidence," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the decision on the New York case. "Since the earliest days of the Republic, 'every man' has included the president of the United States. Beginning with Jefferson and carrying on through Clinton, presidents have uniformly testified or produced documents in criminal proceedings when called upon by federal courts."

He added: "(W)e cannot conclude that absolute immunity is necessary or appropriate under Article II or the Supremacy Clause."

The rulings, both 7-2, with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting, represent a mixed bag for the president, allowing him to drag out the legal process but not providing him with any clear-cut victories.

Trump blasted the efforts to gain his financial information, tweeting after the rulings that it was "a political prosecution."

President Trump put out a tweet after the ruling:

Quote:Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump
[/url]
The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!

10:38 AM · Jul 9, 2020

Quote:The president's attorney, Jay Sekulow, said Trump would challenge the efforts to get his financial records in the lower courts.

"We are pleased that in the decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the president's financial records," Sekulow said. "We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts."

Vance, meanwhile, called the ruling "a tremendous victory for our nation's system of justice and its founding principle that no one — not even a president — is above the law."

"Our investigation, which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit, will resume, guided as always by the grand jury's solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead," the prosecutor said in a statement.

Vance sought eight years of Trump's business and personal tax records for an investigation of payments made to two women who claimed they had affairs with him — allegations the president has consistently denied.

[url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-new-york-prosecutor-can-get-trump-s-n1232086]Continue reading...

They are desperate to catch him in "something", anything, to tarnish his reputation before the election.

Even if it is found that he paid off two women, to me, that is less a crime than bribing another country (Biden and Ukraine), or selling our uranium to Russia (Killary), or the pallets of cash Obummer sent to Iran.

It's going to be another clown show until the election.   

I'd be mighty interested in exactly what laws they wanna investigate him breaking. Last I heard the simple act of paying someone to be quiet isn't illegal in itself. So unless they were witnesses he paid to not testify or some such, I don't see where they would have the authority.

(07-09-2020, 07:03 PM)RickyD Wrote: I'd be mighty interested in exactly what laws they wanna investigate him breaking. Last I heard the simple act of paying someone to be quiet isn't illegal in itself. So unless they were witnesses he paid to not testify or some such, I don't see where they would have the authority.

Yep exactly ... sort of how his niece's book finally gets released and it's a big nothing burger, essentially only calling Trump mean LOL and that's about it. Why they don't get it after a while people do see it as a witch hunt a boy who cried wolf too many times. Left has lost what little credibility they had with the constant hounding of the Teflon Don. Funny thing I wasn't a huge fan of Trump but I'm not stupid either he has a better chance of turning the economy around even while being bombarded by the left the media and everybody else, than Biden or any of the obvious puppet masters pulling his strings.

(07-09-2020, 07:03 PM)RickyD Wrote: I'd be mighty interested in exactly what laws they wanna investigate him breaking. Last I heard the simple act of paying someone to be quiet isn't illegal in itself. So unless they were witnesses he paid to not testify or some such, I don't see where they would have the authority.

It's called a Non Disclosure Agreement and they are pretty common.

No, this is nothing more then another fishing trip to see if they can spin anything in his financials in a bad light.

HOWEVER.

I DO see where Team Trump can make a lot of political hay with this....

Such as demanding that a certain taxpayer-paid Congressional slush fund used to secure NDA's from men and women with sexual harassment issues against our congress-critters be opened up to the public.

Or perhaps we can get some of Obama's sealed files opened up...

Even go so far as to revisit Clinton vs Paula Jones.

Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle a rape lawsuit out of court...

Isn't that essentially paying "hush money" to silence a woman?

Inquiring minds want to know!!!

As an aside, I'm wondering if Justice Roberts is going to step down in the next few weeks...

They obviously have some dirt on him.

(07-09-2020, 08:03 PM)Luminary Wrote:

(07-09-2020, 07:03 PM)RickyD Wrote: I'd be mighty interested in exactly what laws they wanna investigate him breaking. Last I heard the simple act of paying someone to be quiet isn't illegal in itself. So unless they were witnesses he paid to not testify or some such, I don't see where they would have the authority.

It's called a Non Disclosure Agreement and they are pretty common.

No, this is nothing more then another fishing trip to see if they can spin anything in his financials in a bad light.

HOWEVER.

I DO see where Team Trump can make a lot of political hay with this....

Such as demanding that a certain taxpayer-paid Congressional slush fund used to secure NDA's from men and women with sexual harassment issues against our congress-critters be opened up to the public.

Or perhaps we can get some of Obama's sealed files opened up...

Even go so far as to revisit Clinton vs Paula Jones.

Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle a rape lawsuit out of court...

Isn't that essentially paying "hush money" to silence a woman?

Inquiring minds want to know!!!

As an aside, I'm wondering if Justice Roberts is going to step down in the next few weeks...

They obviously have some dirt on him.

@"Luminary"

If the court rules that President Trump must show his tax returns, I don't see any legal ground left for those you mentioned; they'd have to show theirs.  It would be great to watch them sweat when the tables are turned.

Could this be another 5D chess move from President Trump?  He always beats them at their own game.

(07-09-2020, 06:45 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: They are desperate to catch him in "something", anything, to tarnish his reputation before the election.

Even if it is found that he paid off two women, to me, that is less a crime than bribing another country (Biden and Ukraine), or selling our uranium to Russia (Killary), or the pallets of cash Obummer sent to Iran.

It's going to be another clown show until the election.   

Biden and Ukraine used public money - yours and mine - to coerce Ukraine. Hillary and Uranium used public resources - OUR unranium - to enrich her private coffers by selling t to a foreign power and weakening our own resources. Obama sent public money - yours and mine again - by the pallet load to an actively hostile foreign power, Iran.

The difference here, and what is at question, is whether Trump used his own money to pay the women off, or whether he used campaign funds to pay them off, rather than whether there was ever a payoff at all or not. As I recall, the Trump lawyer says it was private Trump money involved in the payoff, and the Witch Inquisitors claim it was campaign money used, which would be a campaign finance violation.

I believe the matter was settled some time ago already, and what they are doing is trying to get his personal financial records to attempt to find OTHER improprieties unrelated to the actual reason for the subpoena - i.e. a "fishing expedition". Team Trump is just keeping them tied up on a wild goose chase, distracting them by making them think there may be a "there" there, when in reality there is not so that they don't even consider looking where there might actually be something to find..

Pretty sure that Trump will come out of this smelling like a rose, and the grand Inquisition will end up with egg all over their faces...

... again.

.

I think this is good news.  The Supreme Court basically said, "You can run, but you can't hide" to EVERY politician.

Remember when all the left was saying that they couldn't investigate Biden because he was running for office?

Well. . . . that's now shot to hell!

(07-09-2020, 11:32 PM)beez Wrote: I think this is good news.  The Supreme Court basically said, "You can run, but you can't hide" to EVERY politician.

Remember when all the left was saying that they couldn't investigate Biden because he was running for office?

Well. . . . that's now shot to hell!

It's already shot to hell because Ukraine is doing it as we speak.  

Trump will play this red herring to the hilt and get the last laugh as usual 

Any dirt in those returns would have been leaked by the dirty Obama IRS and later by leftover operatives inside the IRS 

(07-10-2020, 12:02 AM)xuenchen Wrote: Any dirt in those returns would have been leaked by the dirty Obama IRS and later by leftover operatives inside the IRS 

It is going to be very hard to find any "dirt" in his tax returns that the IRS didn't find with an ongoing ACTUAL audit for the last 20 years...