2020 Presidential Election

[JasonEvans]

SCOTUS rules that the NY AG can get Trump's tax records!!! Yikes!!

7-2 decision with Roberts writing the decision.

[Acymetric]

SCOTUS rules that the NY AG can get Trump's tax records!!! Yikes!!

7-2 decision with Roberts writing the decision.

I'll be interested to see if there are any good highlights in the decision.

[JasonEvans]

SCOTUS rules that the NY AG can get Trump's tax records!!! Yikes!!

7-2 decision with Roberts writing the decision.

Only Thomas and Alito dissent, so even Trump's appointees refuse to agree with Trump's assertion that the President cannot commit a crime.

Will be interesting to see how long it takes the NY AG office to leak the taxes to the public.

[Bluedog]

Only Thomas and Alito dissent, so even Trump's appointees refuse to agree with Trump's assertion that the President cannot commit a crime.

Will be interesting to see how long it takes the NY AG office to leak the taxes to the public.

Honest question here as I don't know. Are those tax records supposed to be confidential to the AG office or is it case evidence that's public?

[Tripping William]

Honest question here as I don't know. Are those tax records supposed to be confidential to the AG office or is it case evidence that's public?

I believe the subpoena came as part of a NY grand jury process, which would presumably keep them secret unless/until there is an indictment. But I never took CrimPro in law school, so YMMV.

[JasonEvans]

Honest question here as I don't know. Are those tax records supposed to be confidential to the AG office or is it case evidence that's public?

They are supposed to be confidential, I believe, but leaks happen...

But none of that matters because upon further review of the ruling the Court has sent the case back down to the district court so Trump can make other procedural arguments about whether he has to hand over the taxes. So, this thing is going to take time. There will be arguments in the district court and probably the court of appeals before the taxes are released. Essentially, the court told Trump that he cannot make the same arguments but he can make new arguments.

In short, Trump lost but almost certainly won't have to hand over his taxes until after the election.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Only Thomas and Alito dissent, so even Trump's appointees refuse to agree with Trump's assertion that the President cannot commit a crime.

Will be interesting to see how long it takes the NY AG office to leak the taxes to the public.

Would love to hear from one of our legal or tax experts here about what might actually be in these returns? They have been built up for a while but based on my limited knowledge of such things I feel like with the fleet of accountants and tax lawyers he likely employs, there will be very little specific detail and this could end up being a big nothing.

[OldPhiKap]

I believe that in the AG case, it has been remanded to the trial court (ultimately) to address other objections Trump raised. So the fight is far from over.

But, my quick scan is that the court rejected Trump's claim of some vast imperial immunity.

So, a loss for Trump but not the end of the fight. Nothing coming out before the election.


(ETA: my turn to say "Damn Jason Evans" for already saying this!)

[OldPhiKap]

SCOTUS issued the "McGirt" decision first. It is a case involving Indian tribal lands. The two Trump tax cases won't be released until 10:10 and 10:20am, I believe.

This has HUGE implications for the state of Oklahoma. Beyond the scope of this thread, but worth ferreting out if you are interested.

long/short: half the state is no longer subject to many state laws and state taxes. Including Tulsa, I believe.

[JasonEvans]

Trump also loses 7-2 in the House case... but the case has again been sent back down to the district court. So, the House will not get the tax records until after it gets a ruling in district court and then probably the appeals court as well.

SCOTUS did a great job of punting on these two issues, moving the ball so far down the field that it cannot be returned until after the election.

[Bluedog]

Would love to hear from one of our legal or tax experts here about what might actually be in these returns? They have been built up for a while but based on my limited knowledge of such things I feel like with the fleet of accountants and tax lawyers he likely employs, there will be very little specific detail and this could end up being a big nothing.

Not a legal/tax expert, but many speculate that there's likely nothing illegal in them given, as you said, a fleet of accountants and tax lawyers (and also likely been audited), but there may be several unflattering things or business dealings with foreign/shady entities, lack of charitable contributions, over-exaggeration of how wealthy he is/how much money he makes, etc. It's all speculation though. Of course, to the NY AG, they want to understand the financials to have more evidence of the hush money payments, which is the case they're looking to prosecute.

[Bluedog]

Trump also loses 7-2 in the House case... but the case has again been sent back down to the district court. So, the House will not get the tax records until after it gets a ruling in district court and then probably the appeals court as well.

SCOTUS did a great job of punting on these two issues, moving the ball so far down the field that it cannot be returned until after the election.

CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...-20/index.html
"Supreme Court blocks Congress from getting Trump financial records
From CNN's Ariane de Vogue

House subpoenas for President Trump’s financial documents will remain blocked the Supreme Court said, sending a controversial case back down to the lower court for further review.

The vote count was 7-2."

Huh? CNN or JasonEvans wrong? Or maybe it's the same given that it's "blocked for now." Still, seems like opposites.

USA Today: "BREAKING: #SCOTUS won't allow Congress to get President Trump's tax and financial records, for now. The ruling returns the case to lower courts."

Funny how headlines can really convey different messages. Seems like it was the same 7/2 split as the Vance case, basically saying that President isn't immune from prosecution, but sending both to lower courts. Why the disparate headlines by CNN and USA Today for the two cases then if they're largely the same message?

[OldPhiKap]

I use tax returns all the time to impeach folks in business cases. They are a wonderland.

-- they likely show valuations of property (low) that differ from sworn financial statements given to banks as to the same assets (high)
-- they show related businesses and creditors
-- they show, in this case, how Trump handled the payment to Stormy Daniels (remember, he is "Individual 1" in the Cohen case)
-- they likely show that he claims a much lower gross and net worth than he claims publicly
-- they likely show that he does not really "own" some of the assets he claims are his (or that his ownership percentage is a minority share)
-- they likely show some embarrassing deductions (remember HRC deducting the donation of her used underwear to Goodwill back in the 1980's?)
-- they likely show a lack of donations to charitable entities, if reports are to be believed
-- they may well show problems with the Trump charities above and beyond those to which they recently entered a consent judgment

Oh, they're lots of fun.

[budwom]

Not a legal/tax expert, but many speculate that there's likely nothing illegal in them given, as you said, a fleet of accountants and tax lawyers (and also likely been audited), but there may be several unflattering things or business dealings with foreign/shady entities, lack of charitable contributions, over-exaggeration of how wealthy he is/how much money he makes, etc. It's all speculation though. Of course, to the NY AG, they want to understand the financials to have more evidence of the hush money payments, which is the case they're looking to prosecute.

Indeed, we don't know what's in those records, but there seem to be indications that properties were relatively overvalued for for loan purposes (Deutsch Bank) and relatively undervalued for tax purposes, which can be problematical.

ha, OK, OPK beat me to it, as is often the case...he's like an internet viper.

[JasonEvans]

CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...-20/index.html
"Supreme Court blocks Congress from getting Trump financial records
From CNN's Ariane de Vogue

House subpoenas for President Trump’s financial documents will remain blocked the Supreme Court said, sending a controversial case back down to the lower court for further review.

The vote count was 7-2."

Huh? CNN or JasonEvans wrong? Or maybe it's the same given that it's "blocked for now." Still, seems like opposites.

USA Today: "BREAKING: #SCOTUS won't allow Congress to get President Trump's tax and financial records, for now. The ruling returns the case to lower courts."

We are both saying the same thing. By and overwhelming margin, the Court rejected Trump's argument that he is absolutely immune from prosecution while in office. But, the court says there are other arguments that could be made at the district court level and so they are throwing this back down to the lower court for further arguments.

The ruling on the Congressional subpoena also really slaps at congress for asking for too much. The Supreme Court is clearly concerned about congress venturing into Presidential harassment. It seems like the Supreme Court feels that the Congressional subpoena is too broad but the NY AG is a suitable subpoena.

But, bottom line, no one is going to see Trump's financial records until after the election. That is what matters for this thread.

[OldPhiKap]

CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...-20/index.html
"Supreme Court blocks Congress from getting Trump financial records
From CNN's Ariane de Vogue

House subpoenas for President Trump’s financial documents will remain blocked the Supreme Court said, sending a controversial case back down to the lower court for further review.

The vote count was 7-2."

Huh? CNN or JasonEvans wrong? Or maybe it's the same given that it's "blocked for now." Still, seems like opposites.

USA Today: "BREAKING: #SCOTUS won't allow Congress to get President Trump's tax and financial records, for now. The ruling returns the case to lower courts."

Funny how headlines can really convey different messages. Seems like it was the same 7/2 split as the Vance case, basically saying that President isn't immune from prosecution, but sending both to lower courts. Why the disparate headlines by CNN and USA Today for the two cases then if they're largely the same message?

I'll read the opinions over lunch, but my quick scan is that the court came up with a new four-part test and sent it back down to the trial court to apply the test. Until then, the stay from production remains in place. This is not unusual and perhaps not unexpected.

I wouldn't say that the Court "punted" the disclosures until after the election, really. The procedural posture of both cases makes the remands to the trial courts logical. In the AG case, apparently there were other objections that were not ruled upon so that still remains to be resolved. In the Congressional case, if there is a new test then appellate courts usually send the cases back to the trial courts to hold a hearing and apply the test to the facts.

[camion]

We are both saying the same thing. By and overwhelming margin, the Court rejected Trump's argument that he is absolutely immune from prosecution while in office. But, the court says there are other arguments that could be made at the district court level and so they are throwing this back down to the lower court for further arguments.

The ruling on the Congressional subpoena also really slaps at congress for asking for too much. The Supreme Court is clearly concerned about congress venturing into Presidential harassment. It seems like the Supreme Court feels that the Congressional subpoena is too broad but the NY AG is a suitable subpoena.

But, bottom line, no one is going to see Trump's financial records until after the election. That is what matters for this thread.

So as has been said above, the court didn't block Congress or NY from getting the records, but they did punt and it rolled dead somewhere after the election.

[Bluedog]

We are both saying the same thing. By and overwhelming margin, the Court rejected Trump's argument that he is absolutely immune from prosecution while in office. But, the court says there are other arguments that could be made at the district court level and so they are throwing this back down to the lower court for further arguments.

The ruling on the Congressional subpoena also really slaps at congress for asking for too much. The Supreme Court is clearly concerned about congress venturing into Presidential harassment. It seems like the Supreme Court feels that the Congressional subpoena is too broad but the NY AG is a suitable subpoena.

But, bottom line, no one is going to see Trump's financial records until after the election. That is what matters for this thread.

I'll read the opinions over lunch, but my quick scan is that the court came up with a new four-part test and sent it back down to the trial court to apply the test. Until then, the stay from production remains in place. This is not unusual and perhaps not unexpected.

Yep, I hear you guys. Thanks. The thing that's just funny to me is the disparate headlines from the same source:

Case 1 Headline from CNN:
"SCOTUS rules Trump not immune from New York's subpoena"

Case 2 Headline from CNN:
"Supreme Court blocks Congress from Getting Trump Records: The ruling is a win for the President as the court demands a higher bar for obtaining his financial documents"

I get that both are accurate statements though, but somebody just perusing might think Trump "won" one case and "lost" the other.

Is there a way to tell if any of the 7 justices thought that Trump should have to hand over financial records now? I thought there are sometimes different decisions written even if they largely "agree." Like in the Affordable Care Act case, Roberts agreed with the majority that Affordable Care Act is legal but for different reasons (i.e. Congress has authority to tax its citizens).

Edit: Maybe that is one reasonable interpretation. Others agree that one is a win for Trump and the other is a loss:
CNBC: Supreme Court says Manhattan DA can get Trump’s tax records, but rejects bid by House Democrats

WaPo: Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutor may see Trump's financial records, denies Congress access for now

Politico: Supreme Court splits on Trump tax cases, potentially shielding returns until after election

But if they have the same general result (delaying it, sending to lower courts), still odd to me to see the disconnect. Perhaps the rulings on them focused on different aspects (e.g. presidential immunity vs. obligation to release financial records).

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm confused. I see where the court did send the Congressional case back to the lower courts, but I don't see where they did that for the NY AG case.

The Supreme Court dealt President Trump a major defeat Thursday by rejecting his claims of presidential immunity and upholding subpoenas from New York prosecutors seeking his tax returns and financial records.

In one of the most anticipated rulings on presidential privilege in years, the justices by a 7-2 vote ruled the nation's chief executive is not above the law and must comply with legitimate demands from a grand jury in New York that was investigating Trump's alleged hush money payments to two women who claimed to have had sex with him.

Trump had sued to block the subpoenas and claimed that as president he had an "absolute immunity" from demands for personal or confidential information.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, rejected Trump's claim of immunity.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/s...141438163.html

[OldPhiKap]

Trump, in the calm manner we have come to expect, is now reacting on Twitter . . . .

He ain't happy.