SCOTUS: Trump Must Produce Financial Records

... The scope of the investigation is unclear but court filings have indicated that it may involve multiple possible crimes including tax and business fraud. ...

Once DA Vance gets the tax records, I suspect the scope of the investigation could expand with the additional evidence available.

Also, there's this recent activity in the case...

Trump's former fixer Cohen interviewed by Manhattan DA's office and newly hired litigator (Feb 18, 2021)
www.reuters.com

...he Manhattan District Attorney's Office and a newly hired high-profile litigator interviewed Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, on Thursday, as part of a criminal probe of the former president's business dealings, said two people familiar with the investigation.

The interview came after Mark Pomerantz, who has extensive experience in white-collar and organized crime cases, joined District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.'s team investigating the Trump family business. Pomerantz started on Feb. 2 as special assistant district attorney, said Danny Frost, a spokesman for Vance.

Pomerantz's hiring is part of a flurry of recent activity in Vance's investigation, including the issuance in recent days of roughly a dozen new subpoenas, according to the sources. One of those went to Ladder Capital Finance LLC, a major creditor used by Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, to finance the former president's commercial real estate holdings, the sources said....

Hopefully he will be exposed for the absolute fraud he's always been.

newyork.cbslocal.com
...In a three-word statement, Vance on Monday said only: "The work continues."...

Should this really, actually go south for Trump, would it be prudent for us to enshrine a requirement for POTUS candidates to hand over their taxes before primaries?

A simple matter of trust, that's all.

One thing this will do is set a precedent that will be played by any political enemy on either side.
At this point it's all about revenge. And that card gets slapped down with glee on both sides.

One thing this will do is set a precedent that will be played by any political enemy on either side.

I can only recall of two political candidate who refused to release all of their taxes because they are shady AF. Both are firmly GOP. Romney and Trump.

Be prepared for a litany of new court filings regarding the blacked out entries on Trump's tax returns which he will challenge as irrelevant to the Manhattan D.A.s investigation.

@#5 ... At this point it's all about revenge. ...

Is it?

I don't see revenge in this.

I do see a DA following the evidence to see if a crime has occurred.

At this point it's all about revenge.
#5 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

To want to bring a lawbreaker to justice is only "revenge"?
The court just made this decision, should they have prosecuted Trump before it came down?

"These justices aren't patriots! They aren't loyal to the President!" - Donnie OneTerm

Well... maybe now we'll get somewhere. Somewhere like prison.

Will Donald Trump be the presidential Al Capone of our time? Stay tuned.

www.efile.com

Traditionally presidents of the United States make their tax returns a matter of financial disclosure and public record. However, the practice of releasing returns as president or when running for office didn't become commonplace until the late 1960's. In the run-up to the 1968 presidential election, Republican candidate George Romney (the governor of Michigan at the time) released 12 years of his returns covering the period from 1955-1966. This set the precedent for future presidential candidates to release their tax returns. Almost every president since Richard Nixon has made their tax returns public. The only exceptions are Donald Trump and Gerald Ford.

One thing this will do is set a precedent that will be played by any political enemy on either side.
At this point it's all about revenge. And that card gets slapped down with glee on both sides.

#5 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Two things.

First, the worse precedent is not holding somebody accountable because they're a politician.

Second, all you're saying is "don't hold our guy accountable or else we'll be children and attack yours."

It's childish and stupid.

www.msnbc.com

No law requires presidential candidates to release their tax returns, but history does.
PolitiFact found only seven presidential or vice president candidates since 1976 have refused to release any tax returns. Romney is not among them, though he was in 2008. Those seven include five Republicans, one Democrat, and one Green Party: Jerry Brown, Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani, Richard Lugar, Ralph Nader.

www.robertreeveslaw.com

ARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES LEGALLY REQUIRED TO RELEASE THEIR TAX RETURNS?
Candidates Are Not Legally Required to Release Tax Returns

No. There is no legal requirement of any kind that presidential candidates release tax returns from any year. Indeed, there is a strict, strong constitutional right to privacy for all tax returns. Thus, tax returns can be released by an individual taxpayer, but cannot released by the IRS to the public.

Despite the lack of legal requirement, for the last thirty years, almost all presidential and vice presidential candidates have released reams of their personal tax returns. Of 34 past presidential and vice presidential candidates, only seven " Brown, Buchanan, Huckabee, Forbes, Giuliani, Lugar, Nader " declined to release personal tax returns. Hillary Clinton has released her tax returns for years 2007 to 2014 showing that the Clintons paid more than $43 million in taxes over that period. For his part, Donald Trump has said that the tax rate he pays is "none of your business" and "I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible."

All the references above say that neither Trump nor anyone else is compelled to release their tax returns.
EOS

#12

You witless potato.

None of them were blatant serial criminals. The SDNY has been trying to get Trump for years. Now he's buffoonishly in their sights. How could anyone vote for someone whose public record is so damaging? It's because he told you what you wanted to hear and you ran with it, no matter the consequences. We all knew Trump is rotten to the core. Get ready for the 'I told you so.'

To wit,

Republicans, remember: You asked for this. Given the choice between a dozen solid conservatives and one Clinton-supporting con artist and game-show host, you chose the con artist. You chose him freely. Nobody made you do it.

No. There is no legal requirement of any kind that presidential candidates release tax returns from any year.

Why do you keep repeating this? We already know it, which is why I asked the question in #4.

"Should this really, actually go south for Trump, would it be prudent for us to enshrine a requirement for POTUS candidates to hand over their taxes before primaries?"

Yes. States should require primary candidates for president to provide at least 10 years of recent tax returns.

All the references above say that neither Trump nor anyone else is compelled to release their tax returns.
EOS

#16 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

You do realize you're not addressing the actual point, right?

Donnie Fail - A Festering Boil on the Posterior of the Nation.

Well Mr tomato head, This is all about cheap revenge and hate. Starting with the impeachment of the cigar tsar. After that, it was all out war.
Let's ask ourselves something that does not appear in writing. So far.
If they further crush Trump, is there a good possibility of "retribution" by the crazies we saw in action Jan 6?
I say there is. Are they weighing this against Trump's prosecution? I say yes.
Just my personal opinion.

This isn't about a POTUS candidate sharing their tax returns. Trump said that he would release his returns, but as usual that was another lie.

This is about a criminal suspect trying to hide his tax returns from a grand jury.

Separate from the former Russian mob guy's obstruction of justice, all elected officials should be required to release their tax returns to voters.

"Name-calling is a great way to shut down critical thinking and discussion."

Cindy Sheehan

The main flaw in your logic, PhB, is that no one tried to impeach, or impeach much to be honest, Bush.

First thing first: the order is in response to an investigation of possible criminal acts, so SCOTUS is hesitant to block such activity.

Second: the investigation is for crimes against the State of New York, and not federal crimes, so SCOTUS is loath to block a state matter (states rights, and all that).

Third: Trump's lawyers made a big tactical and strategic blunder in bringing this to SCOTUS, because they no longer have an avenue of appeal, and their action generates precedent, in the event any future state investigator is conducting a criminal investigation for acts against a state.

Here's how this will play out: Trump's folk will file more nonsensical briefs challenging various nits in the Vance case, trying to get some NY state court to knock Vance's case out of the box. They will fail in every filing. The Trump Crime Family will squeal like stuck pigs during visits to Fox News/NewsMax/OAN. Meanwhile, Mazars--Trumps accountant--will quietly cough up all that the Vance team wants, and various Mazars folk will sit for depositions, because they want to be done with this matter and rid of Trump's bad smell.

End game: Vance will reveal that he has something serious on Trump, and the Trump family will quietly cough up what is owed, along with a fine. Vance will agree to having the file sealed, and Trump will crow about a victory--a victory so big it will be described as 'pyrrhic' in size...

If they further crush Trump, is there a good possibility of "retribution" by the crazies we saw in action Jan 6?
I say there is. Are they weighing this against Trump's prosecution? I say yes.
Just my personal opinion.

#22 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Of course there's a chance the loons will react to his finally facing deserved criminal prosecution.

But let me ask you this, "Mr tomato head," are you suggesting the criminal investigation is purely partisan?

Are you suggesting it's not for actions Trump committed prior to being POTUS?

Trump should not be above the law so if a grand jury wants his tax records he should provide them.... but since he is corrupt he challenges everything....
and republicans love him still.

My guess is they are rushing to put the final touches on Trumps new home in Southern Russia....

" are you suggesting the criminal investigation is purely partisan?
Are you suggesting it's not for actions Trump committed prior to being POTUS?"

Did you see that suggestion? NO?
Then why you asking dumb ----? Joey

Right wingers are up in arms, trying to force their twisted view of what they think reality is on the rest of us. They're a bunch of blustering, whiny ---------- with guns and a hankering to murder women and children.

We've let them grow their ranks for too long. Time to put an end to the alt-right. Prison for every single person who set foot in the Capitol on January 6th, and for everyone who planned it. All the way up the line...

Did you see that suggestion? NO?
Then why you asking dumb ----? Joey

#29 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Then why are you so "concerned" that this will lead to retribution? Especially partisan retribution?

If Trump is guilty of crimes then he should be prosecuted. It is not a complex concept. And if is "supporters" don't like it they can go **** themselves.

One possible upside to requiring anyone seeking public office to pony up a verifiable 10-year account of their finances to appear on the ballot, is it will keep the cannibal capitalist/real estate bunko/pump & dump/tax cheat-types from continuing to rig the game in their favor. It will, however, not deter the dilettante gun-nut Qanon mouthbreathers from running I'm afraid. Trump let those monsters off the chain and groomed them with the dangerous idea statute law is now subject to cavalier, situational interpretation. Hawley? Cruz? Greene or Boebret? Cawthorn? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

There is a mushroom cloud and some NSFW language heard at Mango Lamo this morning.

Another view, from Mr O'Brien (who has seen fmr Pres Trump's tax returns as part of some prior litigation)

The Supreme Court Puts Trump's Tax Returns in Play
www.bloomberg.com

...Donald Trump and his lawyers have routinely argued that the former president would be subjected to "irreparable harm" if his tax returns landed in unfriendly hands. The Supreme Court disagreed, and refused to block a subpoena that local prosecutors in New York had issued for the records.

This doesn't mean Trump's returns will suddenly appear online. They're going to a grand jury, and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., whose office issued -- but had yet to enforce -- the subpoena, presumably will be circumspect about who gets to see them.

Even so, a dam that Trump has spent decades fortifying around his finances and tax returns has been broken. And Vance's investigation appears to be broad enough to pose a serious criminal threat to the former president, his three eldest children and the Trump Organization.

Vance is investigating Trump for possible tax fraud and falsification of business records, according to appellate court filings. His office is also examining whether Trump inflated the value of his properties and other assets to secure funds from lenders and investors. Vance's investigation also involves the former president's payment of hush money to two women who allegedly had sexual encounters with him, a possibly less-threatening inquiry that may involve campaign finance violations and falsification of business records....

Trump has spent decades inflating his wealth and his business acumen, which has also fed his desire to keep a lid on his financial records. Pride, as much as the legal perils he faces, has informed his efforts to keep Vance, other prosecutors and Congress from getting his tax returns.

(Trump sued me for libel in 2006 for a biography I wrote, "TrumpNation," alleging that the book misrepresented his business record and understated his wealth. Trump lost the suit in 2011.) ...

The Supreme Court has now given Vance fodder to pursue a criminal investigation that entails something Trump has always feared: exposure....

"Then why are you so "concerned" that this will lead to retribution?"

There is a concern that the same nuts that stormed the Capitol Bldg *might take up arms in anger over Trump being prosecuted.
This fear is self explanatory, so knock off the stupid gotcha questions.

Additionally, in SCOTUS actions...

High court formally rejects Trump election challenge cases
www.wnct.com

...The Supreme Court on Monday formally rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had divided the justices just before the election.

The cases the justices rejected involved election challenges filed by former President Donald Trump and his allies in five states President Joe Biden won: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Other than the disputes from Pennsylvania, the justices' decision not to hear the cases was unsurprising. The court had previously taken no action in those cases and in January had turned away pleas that the cases be fast-tracked, again suggesting the justices were not interested in hearing them.

At the same time, the justices' decision not to hear Pennsylvania disputes involving a Republican challenge to state courts' power over federal elections continued to provoke strong feelings from some of the justices. On Monday, three of the nine justices said the court should have taken up the issue.

"A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election ... But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections," Justice Samuel Alito wrote. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch also would have taken up the issue....