This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/nyregion/donald-trump-taxes-cyrus-vance.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Trump Says Subpoena for His Tax Returns Is Illegal ‘Harassment’ Trump Moves to Force Manhattan D.A. to Reveal Details of Inquiry
(about 3 hours later)
President Trump, in a new court filing seeking to block the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., from obtaining eight years of his tax returns, said on Monday that the efforts amounted to illegal harassment. President Trump, seeking to block a subpoena for his tax returns, plans to ask a federal judge to order the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., to disclose details about his investigation into the president’s business practices, according to a letter filed on Monday.
The argument came in response to a filing last week by Mr. Vance’s office, which said prosecutors had a wide legal basis to subpoena the tax records and other financial documents. The office suggested it was investigating the president and his company for possible bank and insurance fraud, a significantly broader inquiry than the prosecutors have acknowledged in the past. The letter, which Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote to the federal judge in Manhattan, was in response to a filing from prosecutors in Mr. Vance’s office, who argued last week that they had wide legal basis to subpoena eight years of the president’s tax records and other financial documents.
In their new filing, Mr. Trump’s lawyers questioned the true scope of the investigation and wrote that even if Mr. Vance’s office were conducting a sprawling inquiry into financial crimes, the subpoena was still too broad. The office suggested it was investigating the president and his company for possible bank and insurance fraud, a significantly broader inquiry than prosecutors had acknowledged in the past.
In their letter, Mr. Trump’s lawyers asked for a hearing to discuss whether Mr. Vance’s office should be forced to disclose the justifications for the subpoena. The president’s lawyers, who have called the subpoena “wildly overbroad” and the investigation politically motivated, said the prosecutors should be required to show that each item requested in the subpoena is relevant to their investigation and within their jurisdiction.
In a separate filing, they wrote that even if Mr. Vance’s office were conducting a sprawling inquiry into financial crimes, the subpoena was still too broad.
“If anything, it shows that the district attorney is still fishing for a way to justify his harassment of the president,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote.“If anything, it shows that the district attorney is still fishing for a way to justify his harassment of the president,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote.
They noted that the subpoena asked “for every document and communication related to the president and his businesses over about the last decade” and simply copied a congressional subpoena seeking the same information.They noted that the subpoena asked “for every document and communication related to the president and his businesses over about the last decade” and simply copied a congressional subpoena seeking the same information.
The filing was the latest salvo in a nearly yearlong fight between Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance, a Democrat. A spokesman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to comment. The office has previously accused Mr. Trump of employing delay tactics in order to run out the clock on the statute of limitations for bringing any possible criminal charges.
Mr. Vance issued the subpoena last August to Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, seeking eight years of his personal and business tax returns and other financial records. The filings were the latest salvo in the nearly yearlong fight over the tax records between Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance, a Democrat. Mr. Vance’s office was expected to file a response by Friday.
Until recently, the district attorney’s inquiry appeared largely focused on hush-money payments made in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election to two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump.Until recently, the district attorney’s inquiry appeared largely focused on hush-money payments made in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election to two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump.
But in a court filing last week, Mr. Vance’s office suggested for the first time that its investigation was focused on possible fraud. The office cited undisputed “public reports of possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization,” the president’s company. But in a court filing last week, Mr. Vance’s office suggested for the first time that its investigation was focused on possible fraud. The office cited several newspaper articles in describing what it called “public reports of possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization,” the president’s company.
The investigation has been stalled by Mr. Trump’s repeated attempts to block the subpoena. He first sued last year, arguing that a sitting president was immune from criminal investigation. In their response, lawyers for the president said Mr. Vance’s office had initially subpoenaed the Trump Organization for information related to the payments, leading to a dispute about whether the company was required to hand over tax returns.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote that Mr. Vance, “in a fit of pique,” then subpoenaed the president’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, for the tax returns. The lawyers argued that the request was issued in bad faith because it was identical to a subpoena from a House committee.
They said Mr. Vance requested documents that went beyond his New York jurisdiction, including business records and transactions for entities in India and Ireland.
In their letter to the judge, Victor Marrero of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote that Mr. Vance “refuses to disclose to the president the nature of the grand jury investigation and has offered shifting reasons for why he copied a congressional subpoena.”
Andrew M. Lankler, a veteran white-collar criminal defense lawyer who served in the district attorney’s office in the 1990s, said Mr. Trump’s lawyers were facing an uphill battle in their latest strategy to fight the subpoena.
“The seeking of discovery is an interesting tactic, though unlikely to succeed, given that the issue at hand is limited in scope — namely whether the D.A.’s office has discretion to issue broad grand jury subpoenas, which it does,” he said.
If the judge were to grant the president’s request, it is not clear whether any details about the nature of the investigation would eventually be released publicly.
The investigation by Mr. Vance’s office began two years ago but has proceeded only in fits and starts. A senior official in Mr. Vance’s office recently told Judge Marrero that the tax returns were “central evidence” in its investigation.
Mr. Trump first sued to block the subpoena last year, arguing that a sitting president was immune from state criminal investigations.
The case reached the Supreme Court, which last month ruled against Mr. Trump by a vote of 7 to 2.The case reached the Supreme Court, which last month ruled against Mr. Trump by a vote of 7 to 2.
“No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.“No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.
But the decision opened the door for Mr. Trump to return to the lower court and raise other objections to the subpoena. But the decision opened the door for Mr. Trump to return to the lower court and raise other objections to the subpoena. The president raised his new arguments in a filing last month.
In a filing last month that reopened the arguments, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said that Mr. Vance’s subpoena had been issued in bad faith and was “wildly overbroad.”
“The Mazars subpoena is so sweeping,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote, “that it amounts to an unguided and unlawful fishing expedition into the president’s personal financial and business dealings.”“The Mazars subpoena is so sweeping,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote, “that it amounts to an unguided and unlawful fishing expedition into the president’s personal financial and business dealings.”
A senior official in Mr. Vance’s office recently told the judge overseeing the proceedings, Victor Marrero of Federal District Court in Manhattan, that the tax returns were “central evidence” in its investigation. The New York Times reported that last year Mr. Vance’s office also had issued a separate subpoena to Deutsche Bank, the president’s longtime lender, seeking records that Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization provided to the bank when he sought loans. The bank complied with the request, The Times said.
The New York Times reported that last year Mr. Vance’s office also had issued a separate subpoena to Deutsche Bank, the president’s longtime lender, seeking records that Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization provided to the bank when he sought loans. The bank complied with the request, The Times reported.
Even should Mr. Vance obtain the president’s tax returns, they are not likely to become public in the foreseeable future. They would be shielded by grand jury secrecy and might only surface if charges were later filed and they were introduced as evidence in a trial.Even should Mr. Vance obtain the president’s tax returns, they are not likely to become public in the foreseeable future. They would be shielded by grand jury secrecy and might only surface if charges were later filed and they were introduced as evidence in a trial.