The rulings…

Trump v. Vance: “In 2019, the New York County District Attorney’s Office—acting on behalf of a grand jury—served a subpoena duces tecum on Mazars USA, LLP, the personal accounting firm of President Donald J. Trump, for financial records relating to the President and his businesses. The President, acting in his personal capacity, sued the district attorney and Mazars in Federal District Court to enjoin enforcement of the subpoena, arguing that a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process under Article II and the Supremacy Clause.”

Held: "Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President." Votes: 7 – 2.  Opinion: Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch. Dissent: Thomas, and Alito.

Comment: The Court has indeed violated the Constitution's Supremacy Clause because a county prosecutor cannot indict a sitting president. The law is clear, “…the Supremacy Clause prohibits state judges and prosecutors from interfering with a President’s official duties, any effort to manipulate a President’s policy decisions or to retaliate against a President for official acts through the issuance of a subpoena would be an unconstitutional attempt to “influence” a superior sovereign 'exempt' from such obstacles.” Justice Alito nailed it in his dissent. The presidency has been clearly damaged by these buffoons who do not seem to understand the Constitution – or perhaps, for personal and political reasons, want to ignore it.

The entire case hinges on whether or not payments under a non-disclosure agreement are considered “improper” or “hush money” and a campaign violation. If this is the finding, civil law in America has been severely damaged as these NDAs are used each and every day as part of court settlements. If justice prevails, Vance would be sanctioned by the Courts for engaging in frivolous litigation for political purposes.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP: “In April 2019, three committees of the U. S. House of Representatives issued four subpoenas seeking information about the finances of President Donald J. Trump, his children, and affiliated businesses. The House Committee on Financial Services issued a subpoena to Deutsche Bank seeking any document related to account activity, due diligence, foreign transactions, business statements, debt schedules, statements of net worth, tax returns, and suspicious activity identified by Deutsche Bank. It issued a second subpoena to Capital One for similar information. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a subpoena to Deutsche Bank that mirrored the subpoena issued by the Financial Services Committee. And the House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena to the President’s personal accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP, demanding information related to the President and several affiliated businesses. Although each of the committees sought overlapping sets of financial documents, each supplied different justifications for the requests, explaining that the information would help guide legislative reform in areas ranging from money laundering and terrorism to foreign involvement in U. S. elections."

Petitioners—the President in his personal capacity, along with his children and affiliated businesses—contested the subpoena issued by the Oversight Committee in the District Court for the District of Columbia (Mazars, No. 19–715) and the subpoenas issued by the Financial Services and Intelligence Committees in the Southern District of New York (Deutsche Bank, No. 19–760). In both cases, petitioners contended that the subpoenas lacked a legitimate legislative purpose and violated the separation of powers. The President did not, however, argue that any of the requested records were protected by executive privilege.

Held: "The courts below did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information." Votes: 6—2.  Opinion: Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Dissent: Thomas and Alito.’

Comment: There is no true legislative or oversight purpose in examining the President’s papers. This is a pretext as any legitimate examination is under the purview of the Internal Revenue Service, and any legislation putting conditions on the requirement to run for the presidency would be clearly unconstitutional.

What does it mean?

As for the Supreme Court, “they” can access the data, but not now and not without further proceedings in a lower court. Considering Trump’s litigious history and court maneuvering, nothing will happen before the election, and if the GOP regains a House majority, the subpoenas will likely be quashed.  In New York, Grand Jury proceedings are secret, and violators are punished harshly.

Litigation will continue!!!

So what do “they” really want?”

Put simply, to harass and distract the President of the United States and to provide the mainstream media with enough fodder to detract from the real issue: the Democrats are running a mentally-impaired candidate who is not fit to assume the Office of the President and that their platform is shocking and disgusting to most Americans.

Most people assume that the opposition is interested in the Trump tax returns to embarrass Trump over the apparent exaggerations of his net worth over the years. Considering Trump’s pattern and practice of public statements, many of which are verifiably untrue, it is unlikely that this is a matter of concern as are his sources of income and gifts to charity -- unless that charity could be shown to benefit Trump or his immediate family.

However, other than embarrassing tidbits to be exploited by the media, it is likely that it is not Trump’s tax returns per se that they are interested in.

They are more interested in the working papers behind the tax returns; hence they have actually subpoenaed information from Trump’s accounting firm and his lead bank.

First, to discover if Trump lied on any bank application about his income or made materially false statements, which may be a federal crime. Of concern is foreign income, undeclared accounts, and profits left overseas.

Second, to discover the decision-making behind his filings, which can reveal suspect justifications for the information filed with the state and the federal government. This could include the omission of gift taxes on transactions benefiting his family, such as the undervalued sale of a property, which was then flipped for a profit.

Third, to discover relationships between individuals and organizations that may have done business with Trump. Considering that Deutsche Bank was the only lender to offer a loan to Trump after his various corporate bankruptcies and the bank has significant dealings in Russia, the opposition may attempt to make a “guilt by association” case in the mainstream media -- even though there may not be a legal basis for further investigation or prosecution. There is also the issue of alimony, which may provide hints as to the nature of Trump’s divorce settlements, which remain under Court seal.

Fourth, attempt to discover filing omissions for individuals or companies that Trump has failed to list. Considering the complexity of the returns, the number of entities involved, and the methodology of consolidations, this may take an enormous amount of time.

And, of course, all of these factors can serve as a distraction and a deterrent should Trump win re-election.

Bottom line…

The majority of the Court has crapped its pants in pandering to the mainstream media as it overlooked fidelity to the Constitution.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court rulings about tax returns, especially those for years before an individual assumed office, are a two-edged sword as investigations into prior activities can cripple a president, make them vulnerable to impeachment, and possibly force a resignation.

Whatever is produced is likely to be a large Gordian-knot since almost all of the President's ventures involve limited liability corporations with their own books, income, deduction, and details.

It angers me that Michal Cohen, the President’s former attorney, and a known liar, has not been disbarred and sued for his unethical behavior in providing false testimony and privileged information.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell