It’s been almost one and a half years since Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance’s Grand Jury issued a subpoena for eight years’ worth of Trump’s tax returns.
It may seem like harping but it's a constant sore point to me that all this legal maneuvering to get to the Supreme Court TWICE seems to be a privilege of wealth. Two questions if you have the time: Where can one look up to find the legal structure for the court system to better understand the route a case like this takes? And how is it Republicans got a President to testify in an impeachment hearing about something as inconsequential as a private illicit affair? I realize that's opening a serious can of worms better left to a separate discussion but it's quite remarkable how uneven the application of the law seems between the two main political parties.
I think it’s fair to say that Trump violated a number of norms when it came to cooperating with Congressional investigations, ones which the Obama administration and Clinton before him obeyed. As for how to understand this, each case or question has a bit of its own unique path. When a party appeals a case, courts have many options, including refusing to hear the case, or hearing it and “sending it back down” for reconsideration with some guidance, which is what happened here. SCOTUS left open the possibility that the subpoena could be challenged as overly broad or brought in bad faith, and Trump’s attorneys tried to argue that but failed. What was surprising here was how long SCOTUS sat on this case only to have it deny the appeal without comment. That could have been done four months ago, but for unknown reasons it was not.
Waiting with baited breath!
If crimes are found in these records, are the accountants liable for a cover up?
It would depend on what Trump told them and whether they participated in the fraud itself.
It may seem like harping but it's a constant sore point to me that all this legal maneuvering to get to the Supreme Court TWICE seems to be a privilege of wealth. Two questions if you have the time: Where can one look up to find the legal structure for the court system to better understand the route a case like this takes? And how is it Republicans got a President to testify in an impeachment hearing about something as inconsequential as a private illicit affair? I realize that's opening a serious can of worms better left to a separate discussion but it's quite remarkable how uneven the application of the law seems between the two main political parties.
I think it’s fair to say that Trump violated a number of norms when it came to cooperating with Congressional investigations, ones which the Obama administration and Clinton before him obeyed. As for how to understand this, each case or question has a bit of its own unique path. When a party appeals a case, courts have many options, including refusing to hear the case, or hearing it and “sending it back down” for reconsideration with some guidance, which is what happened here. SCOTUS left open the possibility that the subpoena could be challenged as overly broad or brought in bad faith, and Trump’s attorneys tried to argue that but failed. What was surprising here was how long SCOTUS sat on this case only to have it deny the appeal without comment. That could have been done four months ago, but for unknown reasons it was not.
Thank you! As always it raises more questions, but that's what good answers do. Cheers.