1/ The SDNY has filed a statement of interest in the Trump v. Vance (no kin, Manhattan DA Vance) case. Trump filed this case in federal court after Vance sought his taxes using a grand jury subpoena. He's asked for a temporary restraining order. https://t.co/bxDG3eUGES— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) September 25, 2019
2/ The US Atty cites statutory authority to “to attend to the— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) September 25, 2019
interests of the US in [any] suit pending in a court of the US.” That's interesting, because this is a case Trump filed to keep Manhattan DA from getting his taxes; to keep the grand jury from investigating him.
3/The Southern District says it may want to assert "that Article II, the Supremacy Clause, and the structure of the Constitution— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) September 25, 2019
preclude subjecting a sitting President to state criminal process, including grand jury
subpoenas directed at the President or his agents." pic.twitter.com/CCfBfXZAGX
There's no case law for this, but what the hell, the Supreme Court will probably give it to 'em, right?
4/ I can't recall, as a US Atty, trying to block a fellow prosecutor in my state from proceeding with a grand jury investigation. Yes, DOJ policy is that DOJ can't indict a sitting POTUS. This week DOJ is willing to argue he can't even be investigated. And now, that they...— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) September 25, 2019
This argument really confuses me, because if a President can't be investigated, what about the Mueller investigation? Or is this a wholly new assertion that the President IS above the law? Or does this new argument only apply when the DOJ can't control the release of the information after the investigation, or the investigation itself?
5/ believe the Constitution prohibits a state prosecutor from investigating or indicting a sitting president. If SDNY intervenes, it will be to insure Trump remains above the law & his taxes can't be reviewed like those of any other citizen under investigation. pic.twitter.com/utK4utroiG— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) September 25, 2019
6/ Because this is confusing, Here's the cliff notes: Trump filed a law suit using his own lawyers to keep Manhattan DA from getting his taxes for use in a criminal investigation. Now DOJ/SDNY says it's thinking about intervening in the case to argue in Trump's favor.— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) September 25, 2019
I don't understand what federal governmental interest the DOJ has in this case, but I like even less that the Supremes could find there is one. They did it in Bush v. Gore when there wasn't one, then tried to pull the ladder up by both releasing an unsigned per curium order, and by declaring it could not be precedent. Nothing to keep them from trying that again.
That lawlessness thing is not going away any time soon. That "Constitutional crisis" (which, oddly, no one is talking about just now) is still coming, and when it arrives, the press will be sure to explain both sides of it to us. After all, I'm sure there's another "ambiguity in the law" somewhere in here. I mean, the Constitution doesn't explicitly say the President is not above the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment