WHAT’S THE STORY?
A US federal judge has emphatically rejected President Donald Trump’s challenge to the release of his tax returns to New York prosecutors.
US District Judge Victor Marrero said the President’s broad claim of immunity from all criminal investigations is at odds with the constitution.
But an appeals court blocked the handover of the documents for now.
At issue is a request from Manhattan district attorney Cyrus R Vance Jr that Trump’s accounting firm turn over eight years’ worth of his business and personal tax returns for an investigation into the payment of hush money to two women who claimed to have had affairs with the president.
WHY DID TRUMP LOSE?
JUDGE Marrero turned down Trump’s challenge, saying he could not grant the president a “categorical and limitless assertion of presidential immunity”.
Trump’s lawyers immediately appealed to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, and it granted a temporary stay of the judge’s ruling “pending expedited review” by the court.
READ MORE: Message of hate from Johnson and Cummings falling on deaf ears
“The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts,” Trump wrote on Twitter, “so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump. A thing like this has never happened to any President before. Not even close!”
Trump’s lawyers have said the investigation is politically motivated and the request for his tax records should be stopped because he is immune from any criminal probe as long as he is president.
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS?
IN striking down Trump’s attempt to block the subpoena, Judge Marrero called Trump’s claim of a broad immunity “extraordinary” and “an overreach of executive power”.
“As the court reads it, presidential immunity would stretch to cover every phase of criminal proceedings, including investigations, grand jury proceedings and subpoenas, indictment, prosecution, arrest, trial, conviction, and incarceration,” Judge Marrero wrote.
“That constitutional protection presumably would encompass any conduct, at any time, in any forum, whether federal or state, and whether the president acted alone or in concert with other individuals.”
The judge said he could not accept that legal view, “especially in the light of the fundamental concerns over excessive arrogation of power that animated the constitution’s delicate structure and its calibrated balance of authority among the three branches of the national government, as well as between the federal and state authorities”.
Justice Department lawyers in Washington, who had urged Judge Marrero to delay deciding the issue, declined to comment.
HOW DID THIS ALL BEGIN?
VANCE began his probe after federal prosecutors in Manhattan completed their investigation into payments that Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, arranged to be paid to porn actress Stormy Daniels and model Karen McDougal to keep them silent during the presidential race.
The Trump Organisation later reimbursed Cohen.
Cohen is serving a three-year prison sentence for crimes that included campaign finance violations.
Trump was never charged, though prosecutors said publicly that he was aware of and directed the illegal payments.
WHAT NEXT?
JUSTICE Department policy has long been that sitting presidents cannot be charged criminally.
Grand jury proceedings and records in New York are secret.
If Vance gains access to Trump’s returns through a grand jury investigation, that does not mean that their contents would be disclosed publicly.
It is unclear what Trump’s returns might have to do with the criminal investigation.
IS TRUMP FACING OTHER TROUBLE?
IT was only a couple of days ago that a second whistleblower emerged in the row over the impeachment case against Donald Trump.
Last month, lawyer Mark Zaid filed a formal complaint with the inspector general after a whistleblower came forward with information that the president was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country” in the 2020 US election.
The complaint – which prompted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to launch a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump – related to a phone call in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski to investigate former vice-president Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
According to Zaid, a second whistleblower has now come forward with “firsthand knowledge” that supports the original whistleblower.
Trump and his supporters have rejected the accusations that he did anything improper. However, the administration has struggled to come up with a unified response to the quickly progressing investigation.
Asked on Wednesday whether the White House intended to comply with the Democrats’ subpoena of White House records, Trump told reporters “I always co-operate”, even as he dismissed the inquiry as “a hoax”. A day later, he had a different answer for the same question, saying he would instead leave the matter to his lawyers.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – who has become a key figure in the Democrats’ investigation – has said his department intends to follow the law in the House impeachment investigation.
Democrats have warned that defying their demands will in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a potentially impeachable offence.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here