Home / US / Trump raises new objections to the subpoena to get his tax returns

Trump raises new objections to the subpoena to get his tax returns

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court inflicted a defeat on President Trump and cleared the way for the Manhattan District Attorney to file his tax returns, his lawyers renewed their efforts Wednesday to block or at least restrict access to the records.

Trump’s lawyers wrote to the federal judge in Manhattan, who originally headed the case, saying they wanted to argue that the district attorney’s subpoena, which required eight years of his corporate and personal tax return, was too broad and politically motivated.

The filing was made less than a week after the Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Trump̵

7;s previous argument – that the subpoena was invalid because a seated president could not be criminally prosecuted.

In the new file, Mr. Trump’s lawyers stated that the Supreme Court decision allowed him to raise other objections: the summons was “motivated by the desire to be harassed or maliciously waged” and would be his affect constitutional obligations.

The uneasiness of legal activity over how quickly Mr. Vance could access some or all of the records – and to what extent Mr. Trump could block them – came after the lower court judge Victor Marrero asked both sides to find out whether Given the landmark decision of the Supreme Court, further action was required.

In a response on Wednesday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said they wanted to argue that the subpoena should be blocked, while Mr. Vance’s office told the judge that the questions had largely been resolved. The two sides wrote to the judge in a joint letter, outlining their positions.

Judge Marrero will hold a hearing on Thursday to discuss a schedule for further arguments. It is not expected that he immediately decides whether the position of both sides is justified in the summons.

Last October, Judge Marrero rejected Mr. Trump’s original argument in a 75-page statement that he was immune to all investigations and called it “repulsive of the government’s structure and constitutional values”.

After a federal appeals court unanimously confirmed the judge’s decision, the president requested a review before the Supreme Court.

After the Supreme Court decision was announced last week, Mr. Vance stated in a statement that the judgment was “a tremendous victory for our nation’s judicial system.” He said his office’s investigation, which had been delayed by nearly a year due to the President’s legal challenge, would resume.

The president’s lawyers did not provide much detail in the Wednesday filing on the reasons for their new objections, but said they would likely have several arguments about the scope and purpose of the subpoena.

Mr. Vance’s office made it clear that it intended to resist Mr. Trump’s position. Relying on Judge Marrero’s statement last October, it was argued that when he decided to waive the Grand Jury’s subpoena, he had found “no proven malice” or harassment.

Mr. Vance’s prosecutors also said Judge Marrero rejected the president’s allegation that “there is evidence of a” secondary motive “that goes beyond the good faith enforcement of criminal law.”

The dispute arose from the case of Michael D. Cohen, the former president’s lawyer, who paid adult film actress Stormy Daniels $ 130,000 to buy her silence during the 2016 presidential campaign. He later pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign funding for his role in this business and to paying another hush money.

Mr. Cohen, who is serving a three-year sentence in a federal prison in Otisville, NY, involved the President and said in court that he had acted on the orders of Mr. Trump.

After prosecutors completed their investigations last year, Mr. Vance’s office began to investigate whether New York state law had been violated when Mr. Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, reimbursed Mr. Cohen. The subpoena was issued as part of this investigation.

On Wednesday, Mr. Vance’s office asked the judge to instruct Mr. Trump to quickly submit further arguments, given the risk of losing evidence, “due to fading memories or lost documents,” or the possibility that statutes of limitations would expire.

“If the president has anything to say,” wrote Mr. Vance’s office, “the ball is now in his court.”

Source link