A federal judge on Thursday rejected President Trump’s latest attempt to block the Manhattan attorney from getting his taxes, and dismissed Mr Trump’s arguments that the prosecution’s grand jury was “wildly exaggerated” and in bad confidence issued.
The ruling by Judge Victor Marrero of Federal District Court in Manhattan marked another commitment for the president in his years-long legal battle to block the saga. The conflict has already reached the Supreme Court once and could end there again if, as expected, Mr. Trump appeals.
District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat, has sought eight years of personal and business proceeds from Mr. Trump and other financial records as part of an investigation into the president’s business practices.
Judge Marrero dismissed the president’s argument that Mr Vance started a politically motivated fishing expedition, saying in his decision that “established litigation” did not automatically “transform” into an incident of impossible harassment and bad will just because the procedure could potentially imply the president. “
Judge Marrero was appointed to the federal bank in 1999 by President Bill Clinton.
The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision in July, rejected Mr. Trump’s first argument that a sitting president had immunity from criminal investigation. But that ruling opened the door for the president to return to the lower court in Manhattan and bring other objections to the summons.
Mr. Trump renewed his fight in July with a new argument that the statement was exaggerated, and sought information far beyond the jurisdiction of a local district attorney.
But in his decision on Thursday, Judge Marrero agreed with Mr Vance’s argument that deepening the summons would be effective in protecting the president and his colleagues from an investigation that could remove the state of restrictions. on any crimes.
“At its core, it comes to absolute immunity through a back door,” Judge Marrero wrote.
A spokesman for Mr Vance declined to comment. A lawyer for Mr. Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
It has become known that Mr Vance is investigating whether any laws in New York State were broken when hush money payments were made in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election to two women who said they had issues with the Mr. Trump.
But Mr Vance’s office recently suggested in a court submission that its inquiry was broader, also concentrating on potential banking and insurance fraud.
The prosecutors, defending their speech for records of Mr. Trump, unequivocally called “public reports of possible widespread and protracted criminal behavior at the Trump Organization.” Mr Vance’s office recently made it clear in court that it considered tax returns to be central evidence in its investigation.
The New York Times also reported that Mr Vance’s office gave a separate statement to the president’s longtime lender, Deutsche Bank, looking for records that Mr Trump and his company provided to the bank at the time. he was looking for loans. The bank complied with the request, The Times reported, although there was no indication that the bank’s records included Mr.’s taxes. Trump.
Mr. Vance’s speech for Mr. Trump’s tax return was sent in August 2019 to the president’s accounting firm, Mazars USA.
Mr. Trump soon filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Manhattan, where he made his first argument about immunity.
Judge Marrero, in a 75-page decision last October, rejected that view, calling the argument that Mr. Trump was immune from criminal investigation “contrary to the government’s structure and the nation’s constitutional values.”
In that ruling, Judge Marrero also said that “barrier to a stronger action by the president,” he did not believe the district attorney was acting in bad faith.
Finally, the case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled last month against Mr. Trump with a vote of 7 to 2. “No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when summoned in criminal proceedings,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.
Chief Justice Roberts, however, said Mr. Trump could still raise objections to the scope and relevance of the ruling, which resulted in the president’s new arguments before Judge Marrero.
“The Mazars’ commitment is so damning,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers told Judge Marrero in court documents last month, “that it comes down to an unguided and illegal fishing expedition into the president’s personal financial and business dealings. “
Even if Mr. Vance were to receive the tax records, they would be governed by rules of secrecy of grand juries and would probably not be made public. They would only be able to appear in public if prosecutors were later submitted and they were introduced as evidence in a trial.
