Legal dispute over Donald Trump's financial records

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The legal dispute over the financial documents of US President Donald Trump primarily concerns two lawsuits that have been consolidated:

  • Those of Trump against his former accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP
  • Trump's against a lender, Deutsche Bank AG

In both cases, a House Committee asked for pre-Trump documents; Under threat of punishment (so-called subpoena ), the companies were asked to submit the documents.

A sideline is about Trump's lawsuit against Manhattan (New York County) Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who is also looking for information about Trump's business for criminal investigations.

All three cases were heard in the Supreme Court on May 12, 2020. Due to the coronavirus pandemic , the first time a Supreme Court hearing was held in the form of a conference call , and for the first time a hearing was broadcast live on the internet.

The verdict is expected in June / July 2020 in all three cases. The criminal requests to Mazars and Deutsche Bank expire at the end of the 116th legislative period , i.e. on January 3, 2021.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG

With both lawsuits, Trump has suffered defeats in every instance. He moved the two cases to the Supreme Court , the highest court in the United States. Trump v. Mazars was accepted to the certiorari on December 13, 2019 , and he was immediately linked to the related lawsuit against Deutsche Bank.

Trump's lawyers essentially argued:

  • the committee's request would harass the President and hinder his work
  • the only coercive measure against the president that was of constitutionally impeachment provided
  • the committee did not pursue a legislative goal, it was also unclear what motives the committee truly pursued

The committee's lawyers said:

  • that in principle every person has to testify before the parliamentary committees or has to submit documents if requested to do so
  • the gathering of information with criminal subpoenas was a means by which Congress could review the effectiveness of the previously passed laws
  • that investigations into whether Donald Trump made himself dependent on foreign lenders would be useful for later legislation (e.g. accountability for presidents and presidential candidates)
  • that the information sought relates to the period in which Donald Trump held no political office, which is why no form of immunity can take effect
  • that the president is not above the law - nor can other individuals ward off subpoenas and lawsuits by claiming a heavy workload
  • In the case of United States v. Nixon was held in 1974 that an incumbent president could be forced to hand over documents; in the case of Paula Jones v. Clinton (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that a president has no immunity from any activity prior to his term in office, and that legal proceedings in such cases need not wait until the end of his term in office.

The Supreme Court ruled with a 7-2 majority that the case should be returned to the lower court. One reason is that the House Committees 'attorney did not adequately explain the extent to which the committees' right to request documents from incumbent presidents is restricted. It is considered unlikely that the committees will receive the documents before the next presidential election (November 3, 2020).

Trump v. Vance

In the case of Trump v. Vance, the Supreme Court ruled by a 7-to-2 majority that the prosecutor should have access to Donald Trump's tax records.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutors can obtain Trump's financial records. In: Axios.com. July 9, 2020, accessed July 9, 2020 .