re: Federal Judge Rules Trump Must Hand Over Tax Returns to New York Prosecutors

Seems that third tier law degree you got was worth it

Back... And to the Left.

LINK

Here is the judge's 75 page ruling.

If you want to discuss it, I will be happy to entertain what I am sure is going to be some amazing legal analysis from you.

quote:

---

He could appeal this well past the end of his second term as POTUS.

---

Cy Vance has already filed a motion to expedite.

Oral arguments set for October 11, 2019...well into the second term of Trump

quote:

---

Can you provide one reason to believe the IRS missed anything when they originally reviewed Trump's taxes?

---

"an IRS employee who said he was told that at least one Treasury Department political appointee tried to interfere with an audit of Trump or Vice President Pence’s tax returns."

LINK

I wish I had invested in DC whistle stores.

quote:

---

Tax returns have been subject to discovery in civil litigation

---

So there's no law that states a candidate for office must show their tax filings?

quote:

---

have a feeling there will be some opportune point in the coming campaign where he just dumps all his tax returns on the media. It will be fun.

---

Probably not. The average person is mentally and educationally unable to understand the complexity of a Trump (or any wealthy businessman’s) tax return.

quote:

---

Here is the judge's 75 page ruling

---

TLDNR: This Ruling has nothing to do with whether this federal judge thinks a tax return should (or should not) be subject to discovery. To the contrary, it turns upon the federal anti-injunction statute, which provides that a federal court should keep his nose out of state court criminal litigation, except under very clearly defined circumstances not present here.

Cliff notes.

The federal anti-injunction act provides that a federal court should not stick its nose into state court criminal litigation, when the “federal” party has an adequate opportunity to obtain judicial review of its federal Constitutional claims in the state criminal case. Falco v, Suffolk County.

Trump argued that this line of cases does not apply, because the subpoena was issued in a grand jury investigation and thus that no criminal case was yet pending. The court disagreed.

Trump argued that he did not have adequate redress in NY appellate courts, because. Y and the feds are in disagreement as to whether a sitting POTUS can even be indicted in state court. Again, the court disagreed.

Trump argued that the NY state proceeding was brought in bad faith, an exception to the anti-injunction act. The Court disagreed.

Trump also argued Presidential Immunity. Because the Court ruled under the anti-injunction statute, the immunity issue did not form the basis for its ruling. Nonetheless, the court included some dicta regarding immunity, indicating that the immunity in question is less broad than asserted by Trump. Basically, the court indicated that none of the bases for the official DoJ memos on immunity are applicable to this case.

All four threads about this ruling quickly dropped off Page One. This tells me that people are finally beginning to grasp that these procedural rulings are NEITHER great wins NOR devastating losses.