This Week The Supreme Court Heard Oral Arguments On Two Cases Involving The Release Of Trump’s Taxes And Financial Records. Trump’s Attorney’s Argued The Time The President Would Spend Involved In His Defense Would Be Meet The Legal Standard Of “Burdensome” For A Sitting President And Limit His Ability To Execute His Duties. This Argument By Trump Attorney’s Came On A Day Trump Spent Most His Time On Twitter. Of Course, There Are Those Hundreds Of Golfing Hours He Could Forego To Be Accountable To Congressional Oversight.

After almost four years, the same questions haunt millions of Americans suspicious of Trump’s behaviors before, during, and after becoming President. Although many Trump worshippers don’t care if he has been involved in illegal or unethical dealings, most educated Americans paying attention to the many criminal and civil cases against him do care and are rightfully worried about our democracy. Many of the alleged crimes Trump is accused of committing indicate a mob-like crime mentality, which has put people’s lives, our democratic institutions, and our national security at risk. The President has been effective in keeping his base so jazzed up about his fake, manufactured image of the strongman out to save them, they have decided not to believe provable facts about his egregiou lawless behaviors.The two cases before the Supreme Court this week were: Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank. The oral arguments were broadcast for the American people to hear, and for those interested, synopses of how these cases are being argued are on the website. Both of these cases afford the Supreme Court to address two separation of powers issues: 1) the scope of Congress’s power of oversight and investigations of a sitting president and 2) and the scope of a sitting president immunity from criminal process. Trump has challenged Congress’s right to control since becoming president. With the help of AG William Barr, who believes except for the impeachment mandated in the Constitution, a sitting president is immune from any form of prosecution or investigation. Barr supports the President’s right to terminate any federal investigation, even one looking into his own wrongdoing. In other words, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States is interested in every criminal, except the President and his cronies.These cases are complicated and difficult for non-legal minds to fully understand from a legal and historical perspective, but here is a quick summary of the Mazars case:The District Attorney of Manhattan Cyrus Vance Jr. began a grand jury investigation, looking into the legality of payments by Trump and his businesses. Subpoenas were issued to Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, to gather information on business dealings, some including possible dealings with Russia and real estate projects. The information being sought after involves business dealings mainly before Trump became President. Understandably, legal, governmental professionals would be interested to know if a potential candidate for President had a conflict of interest with other countries, especially adversaries. Trump has fought to block those subpoenas and has successfully delayed the release of Mazar’s records, hopeful that a conservative Supreme court would agree with his position that “Article II of the Constitution says I can do anything I want.” Mazars USA did not object to complying with the subpoenas but was block by Trump and his legal team.Trump v. Deutsche Bank involves the request from three House of Representatives committees for records from Deutsche Bank, Trump’s biggest moneylender for many years. The House is seeking the Court to determine the House’s right to issue subpoenas and argues many cases involving separation power disputes have been heard by the Court. Congress’s legal argument is it’s right to investigate a President to discover if illegal or unethical practices have occurred that violate the rule of law and that jeopardize national security. The House cited historical cases such as Nixon v United States and Clinton v. Jones to argue their case of Presidential accountability to the legal process of investigation. Richard Nixon had to turn over the Watergate Tapes, and Bill Clinton had to sit for a deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit.Even Trump appointed conservative Supreme Court Judge Neil Gorsuch pushed back at Trump’s attorney’s suggestion that this President should be held to a different standard of accountability than these former Presidents. Gorsuch referring to the Clinton v. Jones case, asked Trump attorney Jay Sekulow, “How do we avoid the conclusion that the president wasn’t subjected to some special immunity in that case, but here is?” Sekulow argued back that there are other cases pending which ask for Trump’s personal records, and Gorsuch argued back, “How is this more burdensome, though, that what took place in Clinton v. Jones?” He explained, “in the Clinton case, the plaintiffs wanted a sitting president deposed, and in this case, a grand jury is simply asking Trump’s records from someone else.”Arguments will continue to a conclusion if the Court decides to make a decision on these monumentally essential rulings on the separation of power. Trump, his attorney’s, and rogue AG William Barr stand by Trump’s statement that “He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and nothing would happen to him”. Americans have to pay attention to these cases and ask themselves if they are comfortable with any president being allowed to commit any kind of crime and be immuned from indictment or removal from office. If one is in support of that standard, then we can all stop calling the United States of America a democracy. Any person who goes to the lengths Trump does to conceal information is hiding something legally or ethically harmful to themselves and the country..The Supreme Court will hopefully rule in favor of prior presidential precedent, support of the lower court rulings that supported Trump’s taxes and financial records to be turned over, and for the belief that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Leave a Reply