Trump’s attorney, William Consovoy, did not directly respond to that claim, but said there were strong indications that the Vance investigation was a political commission on behalf of Democratic lawmakers in Washington who were looking for the exact same set of records.
“This subpoena is copied literally from a subpoena from Congress. … The New York County Citation is fortuitously exactly the same scope and nature as two [congressional] investigations focused on federal issues, ”Consovoy complained.
The Supreme Court ruling last week closed the door on Trump’s most aggressive argument: that presidents enjoy absolute immunity against state criminal investigations that produce subpoenas like that issued to their accounting firm last year. However, the judges outlined a number of other claims that Trump remains free to raise, such as that the subpoena is harassing, over-issued, issued as an act of retaliation, or compliance will interfere with his official duties.
Trump has not yet determined exactly what arguments to raise, Consovoy said, but suggested that the president will argue that the subpoena is too long and should be reduced.
“The president believes there are likely to be strong arguments that the subpoena is not tailored,” said the lawyer.
However, the time is now as great as any of the legal issues in the case. To that end, United States District Court Judge Victor Marrero opened the conference call asking why the two sides had submitted a nearly one-month proposal for legal filings in the case when that work was completed in six days during the first phase of the last case. year.
“It raises why the parties need so much more additional time,” said Marrero, appointed by President Bill Clinton.
Initially, the judge seemed inclined to handle the next phase of the case with what he called greater “speed” than the two sides proposed, but ultimately agreed to his suggestion, which calls for Trump to file a new version of his lawsuit against the US attorney. district. for July 27 and for an exchange of written arguments until August 14. No date was set for a future hearing.
One of the politically urgent questions raised by the case is whether Vance’s lawyers will have Trump’s financial records in their hands before the November election, and if so, how long in advance. Grand jury submissions are generally kept secret, but information can be made public if charges are filed.
No one in Thursday’s nearly 40-minute call made any reference to the election, but Dunne said a further delay in the case meant that some people might escape justice because the statute of limitations could expire.
The precise scope of Vance’s investigation is unclear, but it is believed to involve questions about how Trump’s business recorded so-called silent payments of money to women who were considering making statements during the 2016 campaign about their alleged sexual encounters. with Trump. It can also encompass claims that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen has made Trump companies routinely inflate real estate valuations by applying for loans and deflate them when they try to cut tax bills. (Trump has said that Cohen was lying to try to reduce a prison sentence he faced.)
Marrero seemed puzzled by the suggestion by at least one concurrent Supreme Court opinion that Trump should have an opportunity to question Vance’s need for information. The judge noted that nearly 10 months ago he received a statement from one of Vance’s prosecutors detailing the scope of the investigation and the need for information from that office.
After receiving the submission, part of which remains sealed, Marrero concluded that Vance had “a sufficient basis” to issue the citation.
Dunne said he doubted there would be a need for more to show up on that front from his office, but Consovoy said the president or at least his attorneys should be able to see the now secret part of what Vance’s office said a year ago had guided. to demand access to the president’s taxes.
“We believe the discovery is important,” said Consovoy.
However, Dunne insisted that even that request suggested to the president an advantage over the typical litigant that defies a similar subpoena. “Such a person, if he does not like a subpoena, cannot take the prosecutor’s statement,” said Vance’s assistant.
