Trump Appeals Tax Case To Supreme Court

We previously discussed the line of negative rulings in President Donald Trump’s effort to withhold his tax records from New York prosecutors. The Trump legal team has made, in my view, untenured and unsupportable constitutional claims of immunity. President Trump claims that “the District Attorney’s issuance of criminal process demanding the President’s records violates the immunity that he holds under Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.” That would create an unstated, sweeping immunity under the Constitution — an immunity never suggested, let alone stated, by the Framers. Now, like a bad gambler at Vegas, the team is doubling down again with an appeal to the Supreme Court. This is an example of a bad case making bad law for the presidency.

While this is the first time that the question of a presidential tax records will go before the Court, the underlying arguments have been heard before in terms of unlimited claims of executive privilege or immunities. The filing seems more an effort to delay than prevail given the extreme character of the underlying arguments.

The filing argues that “For the first time in our nation’s history, a state or local prosecutor has launched a criminal investigation of the President of the United States and subjected him to coercive criminal process.” 

I believe that this is a continuation of a reckless litigation strategy that is racking up losses for the presidency.

25 thoughts on “Trump Appeals Tax Case To Supreme Court”

  1. Trump has explicitly asserted that he will win in all cases appealed to the Supreme Court, no matter what lower courts say, because he has installed judges that are partial to him, and who owe their appointments to him. We shall see if this strategy works out for him.

    1. Independent Thinker – Trump is the eternal optimist. His glass isn’t just half full, it is always full. He has installed over 150 new federal judges.

  2. The IRS is as unconstitutional as the unconstitutional principles of communism.

    If there were no unconstitutional communist redistribution of wealth and social engineering, there would be no need for an IRS.

    If there were a Supreme Court that upheld the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution as is its charge, there would be no unconstitutional communist redistribution of wealth and social engineering, much less unconstitutional central planning and control of the means of production (i.e. regulation).

    Article 1, Section 8

    – Congress cannot tax for redistribution or individual welfare.

    – Congress cannot regulate anything other than “…money…” and “…commerce among the several States.”

    The Right to Private Property (Absolute)

    – Congress cannot legislate affirmative action, quotas, forced busing,non-discrimination laws, fair-housing laws, minimum wage, rent control, etc.

  3. We’re talking about creating an exception that allows any president’s tax returns to be examined and (make no mistake) disclosed publicly regardless of whether he approves. Our tax reporting system is consider to be “voluntary” and can be adversely affected by such a decision.

    It is one thing if there is (a) reason to believe a misstatement has occurred, and (b) a way to secure the privacy of the tax returns with a relative degree of certainty (perhaps a $10,000,000 bond purchased by the entity requesting the return information, guaranteeing the contents of the returns will not be made public).

    If there is a bonafide need for access to the returns, the state should offer to accept a delay until Trump leaves office with a coinciding extension of applicable statutes of limitations.

  4. Seems to me that Trump has some much better lines of defense that aren’t being used.

    Just like cases against the various Trump immigration executive orders, he could argue that past statements by his foes clearly show that they want his tax returns for political reasons.

    While technically broad in scope, the new law passed by New York State is a bill of attainder, aimed at Trump. Again for political purposes.

    It’s absurd to claim the president cannot be investigated while in office. That line of defense is a loser.

    However, the abuse of the legal system with the purpose of being more than a nuisance is a valid argument he could use.

    1. I agree about the groundless nature of the request. Without some indication that the President’s tax returns are going to prove a crime, it’s likely this is no more than a fishing expedition, not for evidence of a crime, but for embarassing facts which might hinder the President’s chances of re-election in 2020 or provide material to a partisan press which has demonstrated a readiness to make unsupported charges of treason, graft and obstruction of justice.

      1. There is an indication. His personal lawyer swore under oath that Trump fraudulently manipulates his income to pay lower insurance rates and lower taxes. Some documents have been produced demonstrating exactly that. The request by one of the defrauded parties is not groundless.

        1. Public records show that tRump is a liar and cheat – one of the tax prep people even went so far as to state that his prep signature was forged – so tRump has probably commited many life times of tax fraud – remember his sister resigned from the bench to stop an investigation into their tax records –

  5. I have to laugh my burro off at the gullible people who are taken in by the never ending ambushes of President Trump. This one is so transparent you have to wonder how stupid people are really? Unlike Warren who released her government payroll records only and not the ones from private industry as a lawyer Trump didn’t do his own taxed but had a raft of CPA and Tax Attorneys PLUS a slew of onsite IRS agents before the taxes were submitted.

    Do you really think with that much attention they are anything but squeaky clean?: Poor little stupid party snowfakes. the answer is ask the IRS after all they have the records and they okayed the filings.

    Stupid is a stupid does and the PREZ scores another home run

    It’s just like this current bucked of schifft when they haven’t a clue how they are going it get around that little six word clause ‘to the best of my ability’ in the Presidents Oath of Office. Especially since the majority of the House of Representatives is guilty of violating their oath of office and has no such escape hatch

    Stupid is as stupid does in the stupid party.

    1. i think the returns are solid, but real estate enterprise taxation is very complicated, and, yes, the fake news media is drooling to get their hands on them so they can pretend to “analyze’ them incompetently and feed pablum to their witless groupies such as they did with the bogus and wrong editorial they wrote about Fred Trump’s estate tax strategies in the NYT.

      i bet the Sulzbergers’ pursued the same lawful tax avoidance strategies as Fred but nobody wrote them up about it. very convenient to own the “newspaper of record” kind of gives you a lot of pull.

      oh wait New York Post did run this article. gotta give em credit for trying.

      https://nypost.com/2012/10/12/very-taxing-times/

    1. Better yet, records of every buy and put Nancy Pelosi ever made on the stock market or other securities purchases, to be compared to instances in which the stock’s value was influence by information only Rep. Pelosi and her House colleagues had. Insider trading is a crime in ways that the President’s business acumen or lack thereof are not.

  6. This isn’t the first time the president has tried to put himself above the law. For years the justice department lawyers denied the use of warrantless wiretaps, until they suddenly admitted that, yes, warrantless wiretaps were used. In the first two cases, the judges ignored the admission and allowed the cases to proceed. In the third case, the judge issued a strong condemnation of the use of warrantless wiretaps, but before he could dismiss the case, the jd appealed. They lost. They then appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Even with the architect of the strategy, Rehnquist, on the bench, they lost again. Rehnquist recused during arguments but joined in the 9-0 decision. The day before the decision was announced the second-rate burglary of the DNC at the Watergate was discovered. The burglars had all the goodies for the warrantless wiretaps on them. If the decision had gone the other way, the taps would have been legal.

  7. The Constitution protects all citizens from selective prosecution for political purposes. It would protect Trump too, but he’s not arguing that. The totally untenable argument is the president’s immunity from such investigations, good cause or not. He will lose on that, but it will absorb months of time, which is what he wants. Unless the investigation is stopped for other reasons, it will resume once SCOTUS denies the immunity; which it will. The election will be over by the time the Court sees the next phase of the New York case. If he loses, there will be a lot less interest in pursuing the issue.

  8. They cant see his taxes. Trump dont have to show them. Everyone knows the law cant make him. How come Turly dont know? I bet everyone agrees with me today.

  9. While I might be convinced that NYS has a right to demand returns filed since his election and possibly for the year before, I don’t think requesting returns filed prior to 2015 is legitimate.

  10. I believe that this is a continuation of a reckless litigation strategy that is racking up losses for the presidency.

    You have the mentality commonly ascribed to wife-beaters.

  11. I am a little leary about his taking the standing that he cannot be prosecuted while in office, but it is testable.

  12. Appears to me that Trump has won most of his cases. SCOTUS shouldn’t countenance a vindictive prosecution on substantive due process grounds. This one surely qualifies.

        1. Is there an example of this? Mespo thinks Trump is winning most of his cases. That’s what happens when you only get your news from partisan sources. Regarding his taxes, Trump is losing up and down the line.

Leave a Reply