NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's uplifting perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2020

Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court expected to rule soon on trio of pivotal Trump tax cases

Back-to-back oral argu­ments in cas­es seek­ing Don­ald Trump’s finan­cial records saw many of the nine jus­tices of the Unit­ed States Supreme Court take dif­fer­ing tones when debat­ing the lim­its of con­gres­sion­al over­sight ver­sus pres­i­den­tial immu­ni­ty in the face of a grand jury investigation.

In tele­phon­ic oral argu­ments held May 12th, 2020, the jus­tices appeared split on whether it was with­in Con­gress’ pow­er to obtain Don­ald Trump’s finan­cial records via sub­poe­na. But they appeared more open to giv­ing New York City the same records for its inves­ti­ga­tion con­cern­ing whether Trump engaged in any wrong­do­ing when list­ing pay­ments to Stephanie Clif­ford and Karen McDou­gal as legal expens­es on his busi­ness records.

The Supreme Court heard the much-antic­i­pat­ed con­sol­i­dat­ed cas­es of Trump v. Mazars USA (also known as Sup. Ct. Dkt. No. 19–715) and Trump v. Deutsche Bank (also known as Sup. Ct. Dkt. No. 19–760), to con­sid­er the issue of sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers after three con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tees asked for Trump’s finan­cial records. It almost imme­di­ate­ly then heard Trump v. Vance Jr. (also known as Sup. Ct. Dkt. No. 19–635), in which New York Coun­ty Dis­trict Attor­ney Cyrus Vance Jr. has been seek­ing Trump’s finan­cial records and tax returns.

In all, the court heard over three hours of oral arguments.

From one assess­ment:

The jus­tices appeared more open to giv­ing New York City the same records for its inves­ti­ga­tion of whether Trump engaged in any wrong­do­ing when list­ing pay­ments to Clif­ford and McDou­gal as legal expens­es on his busi­ness records.

From another:

A major­i­ty of the jus­tices appeared skep­ti­cal of Mr. Trump’s argu­ment, in response to a sub­poe­na from the Man­hat­tan dis­trict attor­ney, that he was absolute­ly immune from crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion while he remained in office.

But the court seemed more recep­tive to Mr. Trump’s argu­ment that the three House com­mit­tees had asked for too much infor­ma­tion for rea­sons unre­lat­ed to their leg­isla­tive responsibilities.

I have observed many legal teams try to catch a break when they suf­fered a string of big loss­es in a case or through a series of cases.

Trump can’t change the team, the strat­e­gy, or even flood the field like Crash Davis in Bull Durham to inter­rupt a bad sit­u­a­tion unfold­ing. (Good­ness knows he’s tried to change the jus­tices involved, with a lit­tle help, time and again.)

Books and records are the foun­da­tion for the tax returns filed, and for every oth­er local, state, and fed­er­al tax.  Also, loan appli­ca­tions and cur­ren­cy report­ing are inte­grat­ed into such books and records, along with employ­ment tax­es and jus­ti­fi­ca­tions for real estate and intan­gi­ble valuations.

Trump has a lot of rea­sons to hide those.

All he and his legal team have is hope, though, which is rarely a strat­e­gy for suc­cess unless it comes with a whole lot of luck.

In this case they are total­ly out of luck, because no priv­i­leges are avail­able regard­ing account­ing books of orig­i­nal entry, bank records, or trans­ac­tion doc­u­ments. In my for­mer respon­si­bil­i­ties as a fed­er­al civ­il enforce­ment agent, I was able to obtain records and com­pel tes­ti­mo­ny in sit­u­a­tions like this routinely.

Sub­jects were required to appear with the books and records and give tes­ti­mo­ny about them, even if they invoked the Fifth Amend­ment to avoid self-incrim­i­na­tion. But the mate­r­i­al had to be present and available.

Ignor­ing an IRS audi­tor, or say­ing no to records for a rou­tine audit, could get you a sum­mons to appear. If a sum­mons is ignored, it could result in a sur­prise hear­ing in a Unit­ed States Dis­trict Court.

Peo­ple who should have known bet­ter have ignored IRS sum­mons and have unex­pect­ed­ly found them­selves on the way to the cour­t­house escort­ed by U.S. Mar­shals instead of on the way home to their lov­ing fam­i­lies. And that’s just the aver­age guy in a small­ish shady deal. Don­ald Trump’s case would­n’t be at the Supreme Court if he was­n’t declar­ing spe­cial priv­i­leges.

It does­n’t real­ly mat­ter if Con­gress or the grand jury in New York get the records. Par­ti­sans will fret if the Supreme Court rules that the grand jury can have the records, and denies or is silent regard­ing the Con­gres­sion­al request.

The most min­i­mal touch rul­ing may be made by the Supreme Court to re-bal­ance the Earth and make it a bit less wob­bly, as their major­i­ty per­ceives it, and the rest of us will then have to pick up the pieces and try to bal­ance it all the more.

What should hap­pen, under exist­ing law, is that both the grand jury and the con­gres­sion­al inves­tiga­tive com­mit­tees be award­ed access to the records post haste. If the grand jury in New York receives the records, they will inevitably be shared with the appro­pri­ate Con­gres­sion­al inves­tiga­tive committees.

It’s per­fect­ly appro­pri­ate for the grand jury to han­dle those records and con­tin­ue their work under exist­ing secre­cy provisions.

State and fed­er­al tax agen­cies also, how­ev­er, have infor­ma­tion shar­ing agree­ments in place. It might be best if the state of New York takes the lead regard­ing the case any­way, since the Trump Orga­ni­za­tion has a long his­to­ry of malfea­sance in the New York area. New Jer­sey might be able to get in on the act as well. I per­son­al­ly think we should let New York and New Jer­sey have him, and get onto fix­ing the rest of the mess he and his regime have made.

I’m so sure that grand jury in New York will soon have Mazar’s records and maybe even Con­gress too, that I tried to call Lad­brokes, but they would­n’t take my bet.  I also tried to call Cae­sars Enter­tain­ment but they laughed and hung up.

So much for legal gam­bling pro­vid­ing all the enter­tain­ment and oppor­tu­ni­ty for prof­it that one could want, and when I for sure have a sure thing.

If you want to know what’s next, sign in over here to get noti­fied about the deci­sion, which is lit­er­al­ly due any day now.

Adjacent posts

  • Enjoyed what you just read? Make a donation

    Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local politics.

    Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than fif­teen years. The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you and trust­ed spon­sors. We don’t run ads or pub­lish con­tent in exchange for money.

    Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able to all by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy journalism.

    Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

    Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time donation

One Comment

  1. The long arm of law in the Sov­er­eign Dis­trict Court of New York, like the Roy­al Cana­di­an Moun­ties always get their man. Jus­tice is about to be served.

    # by Rein Lepnurm :: June 25th, 2020 at 11:06 AM
  • NPI’s essential research and advocacy is sponsored by: