This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/nyregion/trump-taxes-lawsuit-vance.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Trump Taxes: President Ordered to Turn Over Returns to Manhattan D.A. Trump Taxes: President Ordered to Turn Over Returns to Manhattan D.A.
(about 2 hours later)
A federal judge on Monday rejected a bold argument from President Trump that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations, allowing the Manhattan district attorney’s office to move forward with a subpoena seeking eight years of the president’s personal and corporate tax returns. A federal judge on Monday rejected a bold argument from President Trump that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigation, the first significant ruling in a case that could require Mr. Trump to hand over his tax returns and ultimately test the limits of presidential power.
The ruling issued by Judge Victor Marrero of Manhattan federal court does not mean that the president’s tax returns will be turned over immediately. Mr. Trump’s lawyers quickly appealed the decision, and the appeals court agreed to temporarily block the order. Judge Victor Marrero of Manhattan federal court dismissed a lawsuit that had been filed by Mr. Trump seeking to block a subpoena for eight years of his personal and corporate tax returns. The Manhattan district attorney demanded the records in late August as part of an investigation into hush-money payments made in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.
The judge’s decision came a little more than a month after the Manhattan district attorney subpoenaed Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, for his personal and corporate returns dating to 2011. The demand touched off a legal showdown that raised new constitutional questions and drew in the Justice Department, which supported the president’s request to delay enforcement of the subpoena. In a 75-page ruling, Judge Marrero called the president’s argument that the Constitution shields sitting presidents from any criminal investigation “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.” Presidents, their families and businesses are not above the law, wrote the judge.
Mr. Vance’s office has been investigating whether any New York State laws were broken when Mr. Trump and his company reimbursed the president’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, for payments he made in the run-up to the 2016 election to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who had said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump’s tax returns, however, remain protected for now. His lawyers quickly appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, which agreed to temporarily block the subpoena while it considers initial arguments in the case.
Mr. Trump has denied having an affair with Ms. Daniels. The case has pitted the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., against the president and his Justice Department and raised a host of issues that have not been tested in the courts. The Constitution does not explicitly say whether presidents can be charged with a crime while in office, and the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers sued last month to block the subpoena, arguing that the Constitution effectively makes sitting presidents immune from all criminal inquiries until they leave the White House. The lawyers acknowledged that their argument had not been tested in courts, but said the release of the president’s tax returns would cause him “irreparable harm.” Frank O. Bowman III, a law professor at the University of Missouri, noted that Judge Marrero concluded that Mr. Trump’s claims of immunity from criminal inquiry were so sweeping, they could potentially include not only a president but also anyone who might have worked alongside him in any wrongdoing.
In his 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. “Marrero’s careful opinion is a long refutation of the idea that this is, or should be, the law,” said Professor Bowman, who is also the author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump.” The judge was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
A lawyer for the president and a spokesman for the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., each declined to comment. The judge’s decision came a little more than a month after Mr. Vance subpoenaed Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, for his personal and corporate returns dating to 2011.
On Monday, a lawyer for Mr. Trump asked the appeals court to block the subpoena until it hears the whole case, plus an additional week to give the losing side time to ask the United States Supreme Court to hear the arguments. Mr. Vance’s office has been investigating whether any New York State laws were broken when Mr. Trump and his company reimbursed the president’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, for payments he made to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who had said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump has denied having an affair with her.
“This case presents momentous questions of first impression regarding the presidency, federalism and the separation of powers,” the lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge, wrote. Mr. Trump’s lawyers sued last month to block the subpoena. The lawyers acknowledged that their constitutional argument had not been tested, but said presidents have such enormous responsibility and a unique position in government that they cannot be burdened with investigations, especially by local prosecutors who might be politically motivated.
Mr. Vance’s office had asked Judge Marrero to dismiss Mr. Trump’s suit, saying a grand jury had a right to “pursue its investigation free from interference and litigious delay” and rejecting his claim to blanket immunity. The judge was appointed by President Bill Clinton. The case also drew in the Justice Department, which did not take a position on the merits of the president’s argument but supported his request to delay enforcement of the subpoena because of the “significant constitutional issues.”
Mr. Trump’s lawyers have called the investigation by Mr. Vance, a Democrat, politically motivated. Mr. Vance has accused the president and his team of trying to run out the clock on the investigation. A lawyer for the president and a spokesman for Mr. Vance both declined to comment on Monday, as did a spokeswoman for the Justice Department.
Last week, lawyers with Mr. Trump’s Justice Department jumped into the fray, asking the judge to temporarily block the subpoena while the court takes time to consider the “significant constitutional issues” in the case. “This case presents momentous questions of first impression regarding the presidency, federalism and the separation of powers,” a lawyer for the president, Patrick Strawbridge, wrote to the appeals court in requesting that the judges block the subpoena. He said the losing party should be given time to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department, led by Attorney General William P. Barr, did not say whether it agreed with Mr. Trump’s position that presidents cannot be investigated. But, citing the constitutional questions, the department said it wanted to provide its views. A spokeswoman for the department declined to comment on the ruling Monday. The decision was a victory for Mr. Vance, whose office had asked Judge Marrero to dismiss Mr. Trump’s suit, saying the president was intentionally delaying the subpoena.
The Constitution does not explicitly say whether presidents can be charged with a crime while in office, and the Supreme Court has not answered the question. Mr. Trump’s lawyers have called the investigation by Mr. Vance, a Democrat, politically motivated. Mr. Vance has accused the president and his team of trying to drag out the investigation until the statute of limitations runs out on any possible crime.
Federal prosecutors are barred from charging a sitting president with a crime because the Justice Department has decided that presidents have temporary immunity while they are in office.Federal prosecutors are barred from charging a sitting president with a crime because the Justice Department has decided that presidents have temporary immunity while they are in office.
But in the past, that position has not precluded investigating a president. Presidents, including Mr. Trump, have been subjects of federal criminal investigations while in office. Local prosecutors, such as Mr. Vance, are also not bound by the Justice Department’s position. But in the past, that position has not precluded investigating a president. Mr. Trump and other presidents have been the subjects of federal criminal investigations while in office. Local prosecutors, such as Mr. Vance, are also not bound by the Justice Department’s position.
As part of a temporary deal reached last month, Mr. Vance’s office agreed not to enforce the subpoena until two days after Judge Marrero issued a ruling, which would give Mr. Trump a chance to appeal if he lost. But that agreement was to expire at 1 p.m. on Monday. The president and his lawyers have fought vigorously in other venues to shield his tax returns, which Mr. Trump said during the 2016 campaign that he would make public but has since refused to disclose.
The president and his lawyers have fought vigorously to shield his tax returns, which Mr. Trump said during the 2016 campaign that he would make public but has since refused to disclose. Mr. Trump’s lawyers have sued to stop attempts by congressional Democrats to gain access to his tax returns and financial records and to block a New York State law that would share state tax returns with congressional committees. They also successfully challenged a California law requiring presidential primary candidates to release their tax returns.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers have sued to block attempts by congressional Democrats and New York lawmakers to gain access to his tax returns and financial records. They also successfully challenged a California law requiring presidential primary candidates to release their tax returns. If Mr. Vance ultimately prevails in obtaining the president’s tax returns, they would not automatically become public. The documents would be protected by rules governing the secrecy of grand jury investigations unless the documents became evidence in a criminal case.
If Mr. Vance ultimately prevails in obtaining the president’s tax returns, they would not automatically become public. They would be protected by rules governing the secrecy of grand jury investigations unless the documents became evidence in a criminal case.
Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, which he sued along with the district attorney’s office to bar the company from turning over his returns, reissued the statement it released nearly three weeks ago when the lawsuit was filed, saying it “will respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations.”Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, which he sued along with the district attorney’s office to bar the company from turning over his returns, reissued the statement it released nearly three weeks ago when the lawsuit was filed, saying it “will respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations.”