In August 2019, a grand jury subpoena was issued by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. to Mazars, Trump’s accounting firm, requesting eight years of Trump’s tax records. Trump refuses to comply with the subpoena, and takes to the Supreme Court to dispute it, arguing that “the president is immune from investigation while he holds office” and “a prosecutor must show a greater need than normal to obtain the tax records.” In July 2020, the US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 vote, rejected Trump’s attempts to stop the subpoena. Trump and his lawyers then returned to the lower courts to argue that “the subpoena was overly broad and politically motivated,” where he was again rejected. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled, a second time, that Trump could not further withhold his financial records. Both Supreme Court rulings were made without any noted dissent.
Only a few hours after the ruling on Monday, Vance confirms that Trump has finally turned over his tax documents. Due to grand jury secrecy rules, the tax documents will not be made public. The Manhattan District Attorney initially requested the tax documents for an investigation of possible tax or insurance fraud as well as hush-money payments to two women who Trump allegedly had an affair with. Now that Trump finally complied to the subpoena, many analysts are searching through the thousands of pages in order to find any inconsistencies in his tax documents or the intent to defraud. Any cases of fraud can lead to indictment for financial crimes.
Not only does Trump deny any wrongdoing, Trump also stated that the case was a "political persecution," "fishing expedition," and "a continuation of the witch hunt." He adds: "This is something which has never happened to a President before, it is all Democrat-inspired in a totally Democrat location."
According to the New York Times, Trump's long-lasting “battle" with this issue "had tested the scope and limits of presidential power.” For 18 months, Trump was able to delay in complying to the subpoena with his defense that he was President, which protected him from any charges other than impeachment. Since Trump is no longer in office, he now has no choice but to provide the tax documents to Vance. Otherwise, if Trump delayed any longer, he could face much worse consequences for refusing to comply with the subpoena -- in which he could be held in contempt of court.
But now, Trump is at risk for critical backlash and serious consequences due to the many pending investigations against him. Because Trump is no longer a member of the executive branch, he is subject to the state judiciary just like any other citizen, even to a criminal trial. This issue has demonstrated the separation of powers in terms of crimes -- Congress has power over the President, but the judiciary has power over private citizens and still makes rulings about disputes between different groups.
3 comments:
I agree with the New York Times comment that Trump has undoubtedly tested the limit of his power to withhold his taxes. It is baffling to me that after the case was heard and decided upon by the Supreme Court (where they decided that he did have to turn over his tax returns), Trump and his team persisted, once again taking it to the lower courts. This may in itself be a clear sign-- whether it's a fraud, hush money, or both-- that something suspicious does lie in his tax returns. Is it possible that he was trying to maximize the use of his privileges as President to dodge this result, and thus kept returning to the courts? While it is not open to the public, I am interested to see where the numerous investigations lead in the future.
In his cries of a politically motivated “witch hunt,” I think Trump is conflating correlation and causation. He is not being investigated on account of his party, he’s being investigated on account of his actions. Indeed, the Court itself clearly did not find any significant political question in the matter of his tax records, as it ruled against him not once, but twice. Whether convincing or not, I also think that Trump’s narrative is dangerous as it attempts to undermine legitimate legal proceedings and can potentially serve as precedent for rejecting the validity of future prosecutions solely on the basis of political polarization and partisan antagonism and overshadow the actual offense that has occurred. Political discourse cannot be an excuse to avoid consequences and cannot be used as a smokescreen to cover up wrongdoing. Maybe the investigation will find something, maybe it won’t, but it’s time Trump is held accountable for any instances of misconduct he might have taken a part in.
I agree with the previous commentators on this issue, especially Niyati calling out Trump's actions as an attempt to "use a smokescreen to cover up wrongdoing." Whether the Court ultimately finds enough tax fraud to "put him away," there is almost undoubtedly something "fishy" going on or it would not make much sense for Trump to keep having his lawyers attack any subpoena. Additionally, I think this case can be connected to many more of Trump's actions in office. Even though he was ultimately acquitted by the Senate for his incitement of the Jan 7 Capital attack, Mitch McConnell later stated “President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen,”... “He didn’t get away with anything. Yet” (Reuters). For a fellow Republican and long time supporter to state that Trump could be tried as an "ordinary citizen" supports the idea that Trump cannot hide behind his time as President using it as a defense for his lawless actions. Thus it will be very interesting to see the outcome of this case and possible future ones as they will create and leave a lasting precedent covering the true "power" of a U.S. President.
Post a Comment