Supreme Court splits on Trump tax cases, potentially shielding returns until after election

That's logical according to the writing of the law, as it actually is. Subpoena's are only valid in a court setting. You don't hear a "subpoena" for an arrest, now why is that? It's because a subpoena is not the same thing as an arrest warrant. And it is not a part of the criminal justice system, as I outlined in another post(that you conveniently ignored), the LEO's/detectives investigate, the DA decides whether or not to bring the case and the courts try the case.

All of these are fundamentally different phases, and only when a case is brought before the court is there a PROCEEDING. They literally call it a court proceeding. The Grand jury essentially decides whether or not there's enough evidence to bring the case forward. Not whether or not a person is guilty, just whether or not they can bring the case.

It is atypically not a criminal proceeding. I already noted a few times the notable exceptions, and will not do so again. This is an expansion of what is defined as a criminal proceeding, and that expansion should have been voted on or made an actual amendment to the fourth, rather than a common law created by Congress.

I'm also not going to respond to you again, I specifically warned you not to insult me and that's exactly what you did. Since I don't come to PF to be insulted on a regular basis, you get the distinct honor of being the second person I've ever ignored.

 

. . . grand juries happen in a court setting. This subpoena happened in a court setting.

That's exactly what I said. They decide whether or not there is enough EVIDENCE to bring charges. They use subpoenas to obtain that EVIDENCE. Always have.

No amendment is required. There is no legal precedence for declaring all court subpoenas illegal, which is what your argument would require. You've literally argued that there can be no subpoenas until after the person is convicted . . . that courts can't gather evidence to reach a decision until after they've already reached a decision.

 

I support the President releasing his tax returns like Trump promised to do if he won

 

And what facts would those be? Or rather what fact do you believe to be true.

 

Not 100% correct. He lost a subpoena, from the DA in NY. Congress still cant' see it. And that DA still must provide cause as to see that information. Which unless something has come up, is still circumstantial and not a smoking gun.

 

Everyone knows there is nothing damaging in those tax returns. They have been under examination since before Trump announced his run.
Anything that could hurt him would obviously have been leaked in 10/16.

 

Just his dementia like signs.

 

There have been two extensive opinions written by the Office of Legal Counsel which took into account many reasonable opinions on the content meaning of the Constitution, both of which concluded firmly that indicting a president would seriously impact a president's ability to do his assigned constitutional duty and therefore be unconstitutional. It really is not that difficult.

 

I stopped reading after that...

It's never been put to the test... it might or might not be by the NY DA this fall, but I suspect they won't be done until after the election anyway.

To be honest, I would frown on it happening during a presidency, as long as there is still remaining statute of limitations time available, which is the case here...

But opinions written by the Executive Branch are not law...

 

Link?

 

I appreciate that this time, there's no insult so I'll respond. My argument is not that all subpoena's are(or should be) invalid. My argument is actually quite simple: A: Subpoena's to me, are a weaker form of a warrant and should only be granted in the commission of a trial. Now, this case deals with Mezer and if they wanted say all of Mezer's financial documents that would be one thing. But they specifically targeted Trump's financial documents and that brings this concept into play that Trump is neither indicted nor is he in a trial setting.

The Fourth Amendment specifies that without probable cause/warrant, you cannot see anybody's documents. Not just Donald Trump's, anybodys. A "criminal proceeding" where a person is not on trial/awaiting sentencing, but merely being investigated and still has to surrender personal documents(rather than say anything specific related to a case, warrants are also great at that, specifying what is being searched for.) is rather chilling. This interpretation of a Subpoena is a de-facto power grab, passed by law instead of amendment and used in this fashion shows why it should have been an actual constitutional amendment in 1992 or a referendum in the public sphere.

Since a Grand Jury can only indict(it can't sentence), I don't see it as a criminal proceeding at all. It's really a closed room deliberation so that the public jury doesn't have to be bothered with frivolous cases(and this works on the criminal level, maybe we should have grand jurys on a civil case level too.)

So to summarize: In my view of the law(which yes, doesn't count for much. I know it, you know it. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. Even a "wrong" one), subpoena's should be strictly defined to a court setting that has taken place. It shouldn't take the place of warrants with probable cause, and if the court should rule(as it did), we should have a constitutional amendment.

The irony of this situation is that in the Oklahoma Case, Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority that the reason they decided that case was to hold the government to those standards. In the same breath, since subpoena's aren't a constitutional amendment the court should not expand on subpoena's being used in that setting. A subpoena, being inferior to a warrant cannot possibly access personal documents. That is how I would have ruled.

And that a court setting, as I define it is an actual trial with actual participants, not the closed door grand jury depositions. They have their own authorities to comply cooperation with the grand jury, but they don't have warrant power either.

I do believe that if these challenges were brought up to the Courts, even the Liberals on the bench would have seen the problem with the expansion of subpoena power.

If Subpoenas are to have the same power as a warrant, let's amend it so. Let's not have a court force it on us.

 

As a NY resident, I'll be sure to post Dirty Donnie's returns here once the DA gets them into the public record.

You're welcome.

 

"In United States v. R. Enterprises I the United States Supreme Court held that a subpoena duces tecum issued by a grand jury is presumed to be reasonable and that the recipient bears the burden of proving unreasonableness."

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6716&context=jclc


Also:

"The law of grand jury subpoenas for evidence is very different. The Fourth Amendment applies, but its role is modest. No probable cause is required to issue a subpoena. The government can issue a subpoena—in the name of the grand jury, but really by the prosecutors who run the grand jury—just to see if a crime might have been committed. A recipient does have Fourth Amendment rights at stake, but he can challenge the subpoena only on the ground that it is overbroad or compliance is overly burdensome.

The flip side is that the recipient of a subpoena can challenge it under the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The recipient can claim that complying with the subpoena implies certain statements—that the records exist, that the recipient has them, and that the recipient thinks that they are authentic—and that he can’t be forced to testify against himself.

Note the key difference. When investigators want to break in and get the evidence themselves, they proceed by way of a warrant and the Fourth Amendment is the big legal barrier. When investigators want to have the evidence produced for them, they proceed by way of a subpoena and the Fifth Amendment is the big legal barrier. Two different paths with two different legal regimes limiting government access."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/does-carpenter-revolutionize-law-subpoenas#:~:text=The law of grand jury,required to issue a subpoena.&text=The flip side is that,Amendment right against self-incrimination.

And . . .

"A subpoena duces tecum, in contrast to a search warrant, does not require a showing of probable cause. Although the subpoena does direct the subpoenaed person to search his files and bring forth specified documents, it does not authorize the police or prosecutor themselves to search the premises for those files. The only Fourth Amendment limitation imposed upon the subpoena duces tecum relates to its breadth. A subpoena may not encompass such a wide range of material as to impose an unreasonable burden on the subpoenaed party."

Read more: Grand Jury - The Subpoena To Testify - Witness, Testimony, Person, and Counsel - JRank Articles https://law.jrank.org/pages/1263/Grand-Jury-subpoena-testify.html#ixzz6Rp1aGfKE

 

surprised you did not know it was made public before the 2008 election

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obamas-birth-certificate/ June 16, 2008

 

So you too are a conspiracy theorist

How about if Trump behaves like a POTUS should and release his taxes, that the past 50 yrs of Pres have, in order to remove any conflict of interest.

 

I did not know that, I thought he released it in April 2011.
For the record, I was not a birther and although I disliked that man for a number of reasons, like you, I respected the office he held and accepted the decisions he made even though I started day drinking at times after hearing some of them.

 

he has no obligation to show them to voters

 

Biden's way ahead, ask President Hillary!

 

he released a copy of the short form, it wasn’t until 2011 did he release the long form

 

Hardee, Har, Har
I was so upset because I had intended to pour over every page as I have done for every candidates tax returns regardless of party since 1972. Yep, sure did.

 

It depends on the amount and if the IRS feels there was a criminal intent to hide the money. But you knew that, yes?

 

No it is not a Freudian slip. It means, you’re a newbie on these forums and do not know the way I post.

Yet, I hope.

 

Which one? First... second, or a fake one?

 

short form, the normal one people hand out to get jobs, drivers licenses, ect... .... then after all the birther nonsense, he asked Hawaii to give out the long form and certify it, both of which they did

 

But, but Hillary! LOL

The battle cry of a Trump fan.