klehner wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Sounds like kind of a mixed bag ruling. Pres Trump loses on the idea that he might be exempt from criminal subpoena, but the ruling seems to send the decision about whether he will have to release his financial records back to lower courts, and provides the President more opportunity to fight.
It doesn't seem like this ruling provides any path to seeing those records before the elections, so while it might be a legal defeat for POTUS, it might be a victory in practical terms.
Maybe I'm not understanding the ruling. I've only got what I'm seeing online or on the news.
I see this:
Quote:
The court said Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. had the authority to subpoena the records from Trump’s private accounting firm.
Where do you get the idea that this is somehow going back to lower courts?
I think others have addressed this, but my take is this. This ruling said that the DA had the authority to issue the subpoena. It didn't
t say that Pres Trump was legally obligated to provide records. Trump's team contended that simply issuing the subpoena was illegal just because he's the President and shouldn't be subject to such things. The court said it's not. However, they also said that Pres Trump, like anyone else, still has the right to contest the specific subpoena and whether he should have to comply, and that would happen in lower courts.
Two separate issues. 1. Can the President be issued subpoenas? 2. Does Pres Trump have to comply with this specific subpoena or can he challenge it on its specific legal merits?
They answered question 1, and said the lower courts would have to answer question 2.
My initial take, for what it's worth.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)