Trump v. Vance
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
The Emperor Has No Clothes. President Trump contended that his private business papers and tax returns could not be subpoenaed by a local District Attorney in the conduct of a grand jury investigation in New York. He contended that as President, he was immune from subpoenas to produce his papers during a criminal investigation by a New York Grand Jury. The subpoenas were actually directed to his accountant and his banks. The court said 9-0 the President is not a monarch with absolute immunity and therefore is subject as every common man is to testify or to produce papers. The concurrence and the dissent are in accord with the majority as to a President’s obligations to testify and produce documents.
The five person majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts can be read as a pretty clear rebuke to the President’s lawyers’ position. “In our judicial system, “the public has a right to everyman’s evidence.” … Since the earliest days of the Republic, “every man” has included the President of the United States. Beginning with Jefferson and carrying on through Clinton, Presidents have uniformly testified or produced documents in criminal proceedings when called upon by federal courts.”
The initial precedent was by Chief Justice John Marshall in the treason trial of Aaron Burr who subpoenaed letters written to President Thomas Jefferson to support Burr’s defense. Marshall explained his ruling as follows: “The President, Marshall declared, does not “stand exempt from the general provisions of the constitution” or, in particular, the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that those accused have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses for their defense. United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 33–34 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807). At common law the “single reservation” to the duty to testify in response to a subpoena was “the case of the king,” whose “dignity” was seen as “incompatible” with appearing “under the process of the court.” Id., at 34. But, as Marshall explained, a king is born to power and can “do no wrong.” Ibid. The President, by contrast, is “of the people” and subject to the law.”
This may come as a big surprise to wanna-be Emperor (but merely President) Trump, but he has bought himself enough time so that any unflattering disclosures in his tax returns and any evidence of any criminality in his conduct of past business affairs will be delayed until after the November elections. In other words, “delay, distract and obfuscate” is working to keep conceivably important information from the American citizen voter.
Justice Kavanagh in his concurrence states that District Attorney Vance must show a “demonstrated, specific need” for the President’s documents. In his dissent, Justice Thomas maintains that the President would be entitled to relief from the subpoena if “the President can show that “his duties as chief magistrate demand his whole time for national objects.’” Since the subpoena is directed to the bank and accounting firm, Chief Justice Roberts points out that the demands on the President’s time are de minimis at best. Justice Alito takes Thomas’ dissent one step further and says that the President writ large is the “sole indispensable man in government” and therefore suggests the following standards should apply before intruding on the President while he is in office. “The Presidency deserves greater protection. Thus, in a case like this one, a prosecutor should be required (1) to provide at least a general description of the possible offenses that are under investigation, (2) to outline how the subpoenaed records relate to those offenses, and (3) to explain why it is important that the records be produced and why it is necessary for production to occur while the President is still in office.”
Prepared by: Lucien Wulsin
Dated: 7/10/20