In the filing, Trump’s attorneys said the subpoena, which seeks eight years of tax returns and other financial records from his accounting firm Mazars USA, “is so broad that it amounts to an unguided and illegal ‘fishing expedition.’ to the president’s financial and commercial business staff, “and argued that it is beyond the scope of District Attorney Cy Vance’s jurisdiction.
Because the grand jury subpoena is based on a similar subpoena by the House Oversight Committee to Mazars, Trump’s attorneys said that instead of adapting to Vance’s investigation, it was “comprehensive and sought irrelevant records “
“The fact that the district attorney dubiously claims that he did this for reasons of ‘efficiency’ does not save the citation from invalidation. It confirms that it lacked a basis in good faith and that the citation amounts to harassment by the president,” they wrote. Trump’s lawyers.
When Trump’s lawyers sued Vance last year, they also raised a “bad faith” argument.
After the briefings and discussion, the United States District Judge Victor Marrero rejected Trump’s position. In a 75-page ruling, the judge said Vance had no secondary reason to issue the subpoena and noted that the requested evidence of the subpoena could lead to a successful investigation.
“None of these investigations necessarily involves the President himself, and the President does not demonstrate that the District Attorney cannot reasonably expect to obtain a favorable result in a criminal investigation that is substantially related to the issues and objectives listed above. From the President, the Court refuses to impute bad faith to the District Attorney in these proceedings, “wrote the judge.
Trump’s attorney, William Consovoy, told the judge that he viewed the previous ruling as a decision that there was no bad faith when initiating the investigation.
“We think the approach is somewhat different,” Consovoy said, adding that at some point the citation becomes so broad “it becomes incorrect.”
Carey Dunne, the attorney general representing the district attorney’s office, told the judge that a twist in the argument was a tactic of delay.
“The facts will not change, and therefore the factual conclusions will not change,” Dunne said.
.
