Welcome. I serve as president of the jesse helms center. Located in North Carolina just outside of charlotte we are a 501 c 3 nonprofit that houses youth programming as well as hosting lectures with the Heritage Foundation and others throughout the state and the country. So why the helms center lecture quick. Lets play the panel to do is we will hear the first case then we will take a brief recess, then we will hear the rest of the calendar, so i will call on the calendar as to the first case rain now and then i will call the calendar on the remaining cases after the recess, trump, Donald J Trump versus serious and all. Before i do that let me just read and as a matter of housekeeping for all concern just to read into the record or the agreement that we understand is now in place. I am quoting from the joint letter to forbear enforcement of the subpoena between the oral argument in this matter october 23, 2019 and ten calendar days after the court issues its opinion on the following conditions. Number one and he certiorari in this matter will be filed in the Supreme Court within the forbearance. Any opposition will be filed within seven calendar days from the petition. Any reply will be filed within three calendar days from any opposition. Should any filing date specify fall on the weekend or the holiday federal rules of appellate procedure shall control. Should the appellate petition for certiorari will be can requested that the Supreme Court hear the case and the current taint term and then further forbear enforcement of the subpoena until the Supreme Court either deny certiorari or issues an opinion whichever is sooner. Third, appellant will immediately withdraw all pending motions in this court. That i understand to be your understanding. Thats right. You may be seated. Me and please the court. This appeal presents two fundamental issues prickle first, whether the District Court should exercise jurisdiction or abstain as it did. Second if the District Court shouldve exercise jurisdiction if it was invalidated of the subpoena under temporary president ial immunity, we feel those papers as to both questions and that the court would enter judgment. Both sides will have all the time that you need to make your points. As i understand your complaint. You allege you began producing documents to the das office in response to the Trump Organization subpoena until you learned that they purported to cover the tax returns as your adversary informs us in your brief the Trump Organization has made for productions that is two after the lawsuit was filed. Are you objecting now to the entirety of the subpoena . Or is it limited to the tax returns quick. We are objected to the entirety of the subpoena. The entire subpoena as an inappropriate fishing expedition and while the president has declined and might otherwise have had the authority to invoke with respect to other subpoenas. Why would that pick up the organizations . Certainly immunity extends to the president. But that is different it seems to be someone from the department of justice view as to immunity. As to president ial immunity. I dont think there is real daylight between our position and the department of justice, i will answer both questions in order. With respect to the extent of the organizations those are targeted not just respect with respect to them but to the information of which they have possession. There has to be the anticircumvention rule otherwise they dont work. You can imagine a multitude of scenarios one scenarios that is personal records of the president. You are ignoring the Corporate Forum as these entities operate to conduct business. That is true there also wholly owned by the president and they do hold his personal records and those are being sorted out. And this raises a broader question that there are things the District Attorney could have said that could have made this case somewhat different and your question raises those issues but the District Attorney has declined to do so, to say the president is not a target has declined to say they are not investigating the president through these efforts, so that is the record in which this case arrives at the court. Is it your position the other persons who may be involved in this cannot be investigated at all as it implicates the president. Not necessarily we are in a handicapped position we have not seen the redacted portions we can only speculate as to who they may be in what the relationship might be. The issue is not who is being investigated but of criminal process to the president. Let me ask about the temporary absolute immunity seems in a criminal case the consensus seems to be yes there is absolute immunity from the briefs and the decisions but they all seem to say it applies once you get to the point of indictment. Not before that otherwise nixon would be a problem and just a subpoena was permitted in that case. How is that different when its just a grand jury subpoena not even a trial subpoena . I do agree that there is a consensus around the core idea of immunity. I think that reaches back at least to indictment certainly that story as quoted but with the bork brief supports that broader view remember that was the agnew grand jury investigation and in the course of that brief it explains why the Vice President did not have this kind of immunity but offered reasons why that would be with the grand jurys work that this is important and said at the end of the opinion this is not true with respect to the president that was a grand jury investigation and subpoena. What about the moss memo. That seems to suggest there are things that can be gathered while the president is still president even if he cannot be indicted while in office. The answer is yes but its not the things he gathered from the president. But the tapes gathered from the president of the United States Supreme Court in the unanimous opinion they will be disclosed even with executive privilege argument that there is no application to president ial immunity to preindictment subpoenas in that case. First the president was the third party and not the subject and we remain at that motion to dismiss stage. But everybody knew in those days the ultimate target was the president everybody seems to believe here that ultimate target could be president trump. We dont know that but it walks and talks that way. We have a popular understanding of what was going on but the Supreme Court would not allow the judicial decision to be driven by popular understanding, in fact it was careful when it went to that cross petition as if the president could be the unindicted coconspirator to preserve the question. I dont think any opinion then resolved it wasnt invoked like this in nixon and in cases like that the president claimed unqualified. You think they just overlook this in the nixon case quick. Maybe not. Again the president in the other cases every president will have to make his own determination of when to invoke as president nixon chose to not to invoke it the president has in other cases like in fitzgerald. So there was a trial subpoena part was clear that there isnt even more pressing need for the president to disclose hiS Communications because there is six men rights and that is true of the burn case as, well the rights of the defendants were at stake in those cases as well. Not just special prosecutors, they do talk about they to prices but here is a special prosecutors to subpoena for the tapes, it was in the defends. I completely agree, i mean in the opinions, particularly in the nixon opinion part of the courts reasons for that there are both parties having access to the testimony for the trial, but lastly even if the court thinks and nixon applies on all fours and we did not, this goes back to your original question about the department of justice, at a minimum the subpoena mom would have to be the nixon standard, and a new record for this court it is difficult to see and i havent seen the onepage redacted material so perhaps the court has, its difficult to see how a subpoena asking for more of a decades worth of Financial Reports relates specifically and the targeted fashion that is issued, whether its too broad that is something that can be addressed, but your position as you said a moment ago is that immunity is absolute and so if the president were to commit a crime, no matter how heinous, whether he did before he took office, he did it before he took office he could not be the subject of anything, even in the investigation, thats the position. Yes, of Course Congress retains the impeachment power, on the other side of this at the constitution it makes clear, the president like all the citizens is subject to the laws and jurisdictions of states, the question before the core. The premise is that this is a distraction, it distracts the president from carrying out his duties, where is the distraction if the subpoena has served accounts, the president doesnt have to do anything to comply with the subpoena. So to outsiders, so the question is not about this subpoena, its about what would happen if all 50 states were unleashed to engage in any kind of investigations, criminal investigations, i think it is difficult to sustain the proposition, i think this issue is made even in the civil area where they were afraid, where this would not lead to a proliferation of the investigation of a president that could go beyond one third party subpoena. That was one of the are moments in the clinton forces joan case, that did not happen, right . History will judge whether that prediction was correct or, not im not here to dispute it, i except the decision as it is, i think this court has to make a difference judgment, this is a different category. Has a different from federal grand jury subpoenas, theres 90 u. S. Attorneys. There are a lot of u. S. Attorneys to, why is it any different when it is state grand jury. Because the attorney exercises control at the end of the day over all of them, so you have a centralized that may not always be true. Some of the practical realities i think go both ways. Your honor that may be true but i think the practical reality of the Political Considerations that would necessarily infiltrate unleashing states to engage in this kind of broader reaching sitting president. Why can we think of this case in a narrow sense, that is to say that we are not confronted, we dont have to confront the question about whether the president is immune from indictment and prosecution while in office we dont have to consider whether the president may lawfully really putting documents for a state criminal proceeding, the only question arguably that is before us is whether a state may lawfully demand production by a third party of a third financial records, for a grand jury investigations while the president in his office. Your honor, on the third party issue which i think is the most difficult issue, the issue from the Supreme Court makes it clear that when you seek records from a custodian you cannot simply pretend that those are not a subpoena ultimately directed at the party who interested in the custodian with those records, that would allow for an enormous poll around the rights of individuals, and not just in this case, that would create an enormous loophole for all people who would trust the records you want to invoke their Fourth Amendment rights or other privileges like Attorney Client privilege this is the law of privilege and thirdparty custodians, not president s. That happens a lot towards the lowers records, the psychiatrist records and the potential defendant who tries to squash those because of privilege, why cant you do that here . Well here theres a dispute about whether that is even available as a third party under new york a law, we are not pressing that issue here because ultimately the there is no exhausted claim in 1980, three and its not about whether the president should have chosen or internal to evoke this, when we think the law is rather clear that a dispute between federal government and the stage before the president has immunity from state process is not a case in which the federal court would exercise it to power to abstain and not here a case in which it otherwise has a clear jurisdictional dispute. What is your response to the view that, you know a president could basically insulate himself from any state Court Proceedings by invoking section 1983 to get into federal court. I think anyone, not just the president can invoke 1983, any individual and be heard in federal court, they may not have a winning claim in federal court, they may be dismissed but i dont think, the court has been clear to respects, one there is no requirement that is completely clear, and second, the anti injection act do not require them to bring their claim so this is not. What is in 1983 claimed . Its the immunity claim. The president s immunity is being preached. Communities usually started as a defense, what is the 93 cause of action . It refers to immunities held by law, so it is textual basis, moreover the Supreme Court has made clear that these kinds of immunities are available, it is held under the constitution, no difference in someones right to the claim against, the credit clause has been a basis, and the Supreme Court, i think it was pretty clear that it is not going to pick and choose among Constitutional Rights to say this one is good enough to bra, its not officially important and you must be kicked out of federal court. Can i ask, you how would your argument be different if this was a subpoena from a grand jury in the Southern District of new york and manhattan, a federal grand jury pursuing attacks investigation, how would your argument be different to stop that subpoena . I think there would be some subtle differences, i think in the overarching view we wouldnt be entirely different, of course the president himself has not involved with respect to federal process, this is not a direct answer, because he believed those investigations were handled appropriately, properly, was sensitive into the office, of the subpoena which is a photocopy of a congressional subpoena mostly unrelated. Its different, now another point your honor, i think this issue of control over the u. S. Attorney, i think that argument could be made i think its a different case because you might say i dont expect there to be a proliferation of litigation that we think is part of a state subpoena, there is obviously more of a history of federal prosecutors and things like that, i think it is a harder case, i think ultimately there are good arguments for immunity there as well but weve never had to cross that bridge. Could you explain to me a little bit more about what is the harm that your client would suffer if financial attacks documents were disclosed to the da and to the grand jury, as i understand it state and federal tax authorities already have at least some of these records, so how would disclosure to another state authority cause additional harm. First any bridge creates this, harm they make this point quite well, so we are aware of no immunity case where the more courts as well youre ready has been breached but its not irreparable harm, that is the essence of immunity, no more than having to have this in a double jeopardy situation. Second, i think the average citizen could be asked the same question, your tax records have been disclosed to the irs why not just turn them over to a grand jury, i think there are obvious reasons why any citizen does not want their information exposed to a grand prix if they have a lawful right to not allow that to happen, third the law here, this is unique to the president is changing rapidly as we noted in our brief, there have been changes to new york law that have been taken what was once protected information and made it less protected or are not protected at all, lastly, it is unclear what would happen at the end of the investigation, i dont know the answer to this question but if an indictment were issued on to someone else they could be exposed, could the grand jury issue a report at the . And exposing information and, i dont think there is a guaranteed of that, i dont think the District Attorney Northern Court could guarantee that the president s personal, Financial Information would not be exposed, so i think collectively all of those provide ample bases for injury, but i dont think its not clear to me the issues are viable concerning the agreement between the parties. I just want to nail this down, the District Courts say that its uncontested that they investigated conduct that occurred in new york state, do you contest that the District Attorney and the grand jury are investigating conduct that falls within their enforcement or distinction. I dont see it as a material. Do you contest . It im prepared to stipulate to it without conceding to it for purposes of adjudicating this dispute, i dont think it is materials whether they have the right to see these documents, whether they have a basis and state law does an answer where they have a basis and federal law to secure these documents. Thank you. Thank you your honor. Court im carry done and i joined by my colleagues, together we represent the District Attorney of new york county, i would like to pick up where i think the court started this, morning that is to put it bluntly the claims to come down to his tax returns i believe, we wouldnt be if we had ignore the obvious conclusion that those returns are relevant to what our grand prix is looking at, the counsel told us flatly that he would never agree to produce the tax returns so we decided that we had an obligation to look at all the facts, that we were not for bear, these reasons get to your honors question about irreparable harm, first obvious see there is no such thing as immunity for a tax returns, this isnt about executive communications with matters of state or diplomacy which was the concern is central to the case. As i take it, it is a concern of your adversary and it is not just with respect to tax returns but that the subpoena copies, the congressional subpoena which relates to things like the washington d. C. Hotel where there is some question about what its relationship would be to the new york investigation. If i could it address two things embedded in, that first is this complaint that it was a photocopy subpoena, i think this was addressed, just so it is, clear i think its all about their claim of harm and bad faith comes down to, as was explained to the District Court, the simple reason for relying on the text of the earlier Accounting Firm, this is not unusual in our practices having learned from sources that there was such a subpoena, we decided to use the same language and text of that subpoena to make it easier to you to produce the same materials that theyre already gathering for the house presumably and to limit their ability to object to our subpoena on the basis of it being harassing or Something Like that, secondly with respect to the question as to whether, within that subpoena, yes there was a mention of a hotel in bc for example, but your honor as you all know an office like ours even though its based in new york is commonly investigating transactions that have tentacles an impacts all over the country, as long as there is a basis to allege that there is a grounds for jurisdiction in manhattan, and in many cases as you all know that often happens by virtue of where the transactions were and obviously goes without saying that the businesses throughout are here in manhattan so i dont think it is a surprise that the subpoena happened to mention transactions or other things of value outside of the island of manhattan. Does your office commit to preserving the confidentiality of any and all responsive documents. Yes we do we are obviously bound to do so by law. We are not travel to provide this to congress around, here that is central to the question of irreparable harm, and the other bodies that have received these tax returns in the first place already have their own secrecy obligations, but again. One of the arguments is that at the end of the day one of the documents is disclosed and therefore the harm. The short answer to that is there is no privileged, whether it is the privilege or anyone else in the country, maybe they view it as embarrassing but his tax returns to get subpoena all the time in financial investigations and sometimes perhaps the trials for example leads them to at least in part being made public or made exhibit in court, i just dont understand where this centrally of the secrecy of tax returns come from, yes we are obliged to talk about this, and they have their own obligations to not turn those publicly but an Accounting Firm does not have a valid privilege to interrupt heroes when the subpoenas happened here for someones tax returns, they are making this up your honor, thats all i can say,. Absolute immunity for him while she or he is an office, you agree that there is some absolute immunity from a criminal trial while he or she is an office. Obviously that is not the case before, us that has never been decided by any court that im aware, of there are the olc memos, there are a lot of dispute as to the analysis in those memos and the effect of those etc, so it is hard for me to say that there could be no circumstance under which the president could ever imaginatively be criminally charged or perhaps tried, i understand the sensitivity and how it would be very disruptive, particularly if it was a state or a federal charge. Absolute immunity to the president from indictment and criminal trial while he is sitting at the president. Lets assume that that does not extend before that in the proceedings to like a subpoena in the United States versus nixon case, so lets assume for a moment you can have this subpoena complied with because its not at this stage yet where that absolute immunity kicks and. The. Well how are we gonna know, what are the mechanics of that . So you say you have a response to the subpoena and you see something that looks indomitable, do you then notify people who are going to seek an indictment next wednesday against the president and if you want to file a new 19 a three case or something else, you better do it now because there is gonna be an indictment this wednesday. I think the practical answer to that question, i completely agree that is our position, given the rulings and nixon and the project they have simply no basis to object at this point, whether there is immunity or not, the way it would work as a practical matter in the case such as ours or any, it happens all the time is that, long running grand jury investigation its almost unheard of and i would imagine happen here for the lawyers that are representing parties that have been looked at in the grand jury investigation to serve grand jury, notice what that does is it obligates an office like ours to provide notice to the defense whenever we get to a point in an investigation when we are contemplating putting charges, reading charges to a grand jury for consideration for indictment and what we do here, it would gave the defendant as it always does the right to decide to actually testify before the grand jury, number two in this case to answer your question i would put them on notice that yes now the time is right what they want to interpose, a claim immunity from indictment based on something in the constitution. Well let me press you a bit, with this would still be appropriate if the president , if you indicted the president any suit in federal court to join that prosecution. I think it would, i think would be the same position we take right here, that in the first instance at least this is an issue, we would dispute that there is a blanket absolute immunity and i would argue that it has to be a balancing test and looking at the factors and circumstances but yet again we would be saying that the state courts honored our principles of federalism, not only required but perfectly well capable of adjudicating in the first instance a constitutional claim like. That is the presidency somehow different, in other words, the argument in part would be that the president is challenging the constitutionality of them having to submit to stay prosecution, and that this should be something that is resolved in a federal forum but it washes away when there is an inherent conflict between the authorities. I dont want to sound insensitive to this surrounding the office of the presidency, i think the difference here would be, if a conduct underlying this that could bring a criminal charge that was related to the official duties or acts in office that i think would raise the cost issue and would be something that in the balancing of factors we looked at. Even under the klan effect shadows questions be resolved by a federal court . Your honor, hes inventing it as a surprise because as she by saying that, and bringing this action whether hes investigate or not. Isnt that for the court to decide . This is an action brought in private conduct, hes not allowed to turn this into an act of sovereignty by saying i am the sovereign and the sovereign is me, as long as what were talking about his private, personal conduct, business transactions before he was even in office, i think that that belong to the first and sense in the state court under younger. Let me pressure again either any circumstances that you can envision in which a president could get in to federal court when there is an ongoing criminal proceeding . As i said, i believe that, if what was being investigated and looked at it was in fact his conduct, and his official duties, some sort of official wrongdoing, i think that might amount to an extraordinary circumstance that would justify having the federal court keep the case, given the federal interest in both. Thats not the case here. He brings this action as a private citizen, which is what the doj brief actually says. Hes not bringing this in his official capacity on behalf of the u. S. Government, which is why his private lawyers representing him in this. Notwithstanding in his principal briefing, he maintains he is bringing this as a private person and as the sovereign, which i dont think you can do. I will point out, finally, that all this concern about staying in state court, not only is there a federal concern and the obligation of staying the course to hear constitutional claims, but also dont forget that at the end of the day if the opponent does not get the relief he seeks and what he sees itself, they can go to the Supreme Court. That is the backstop. The worst convicted, it doesnt imply that you cant bring criminal proceedings until after the impeachment process has played out. And theres a conviction. What is your response to that . I understand the language and the implications of that. That is not here. We are here on the question of the subpoena, which was long settled at the beginning of 18 or seven. This is the olc memo. If we can argue about the implications of that versus other provisions, hypothetically if you want to entertain that kind of thing, you can invent the scenarios where you can imagine that it would be necessary, or a good idea for a sitting president to be subject to a criminal charge, even by the state while in office. If he did pull out and got on someone in fifth avenue, would be the impact of that . What local police to be disabled from restraining such a person or from processing such a person . Would we have to wait for an impeachment proceeding to be initiated . I dont think certainly, do well see most do not answer the questions. Im not sure that the texas supremacy clause as a way to answer this either. In the department of justice is brief, there seems to be differences between department of justice his position and mr. Trumps lawyers position. If you speak to . They seem to really that he is not reimburse in his official capacity for southern United States and i think thats a contradiction in which they take to say in what capacity hes trying to assert, he drives with it all the principles that dont belong in a private litigation, the other thing that is different in the doj briefly on or is that, they actually contemplate that the president in this position needs to respond to the subpoena that will allow it to be complied, with deposit that there should be this, test of on a red herring frankly, but what that means your honor. Why is it a red herring and how do you assess this. I will address that, what it means when they say, yes he has to respond by producing documents as long as some test is met, that means he is not immune from investigation from he has to comply, that is a fundamental contradiction to the absolutely immunity point its been advocated, here so its not only the nixon long line of cases standing against him but the doj itself is not supporting the position, with respect to the new suggestion from doj that there should be a particularly need test foreseen backward, i believe that what they are looking at there is the language, in nixon, and both those cases there were two issues presented to the court, first is whether a sitting president is subject to subpoena process, the answer was a quick yes on both cases, we say at this point it ends for, us that is a question before this court, secondly, in those cases, dont forget that the tapes at issue were taper hoardings of the president S Communications in the oval office with his top advisers over a long period of time which of course then raise the question of executive privilege and the question is whether there are some of colors of state more National Security discussed, that raised the need to make sure on those tapes got reviewed by a court, like a privileged review to make sure that those kinds of state privileged materials were segregated or from the materials that needed to be produced responsive to the subpoena, here we have not of that, it is all private business transactions, nobody has to see whether there are matters of state or National Security the need to be protected, there is no privilege that applies whatsoever, its all or, nothing we should get this and we should look at it, it is confidential, in our hands and there is no need to have a magistrate or someone trying to oversee production, i dont know what standard by which people try to veto things that are produced ball and not, its not that kind of analysis your honor. Now if we were to, disagree with your view as to whether this case should go to a federal forum on, yay i take it ultimately your view is that you can still prevail along the lines of some version of the alternative ruling. Yes your honor, our quest here, just so theres no confusion is that this court french estimate on both grounds, we think it is in the Public Interest to have rulings both on the younger immunity question or abstention question as well as the grounds for denying relief, so if abstention were not to happen here we would obviously escort to form the court on the basis of analysis, both on the irreparable harm tasks that ive touch on briefly but most importantly because of the lack of success. But with the District Court then have continued supervision of the case, in other words when we agree that it was properly dismissed russian dismissive because there may be other steps along the way for these important federal issues need to be resolved by a federal judge. Your honor, as i look at it standing here i think everything has been briefed and aired and the District Court certainly did not rule on this simply as a matter of preliminary injunction, ordering fall merits, i think if this court upheld that decision that there may be a trip to the Supreme Court but i dont think the District Court has to look at anything. Was it an preliminary . He dismissed the complaint, i think having the effect of entering parents decision on the injection, they complemented this. What about the next subpoena . Data which subpoenaed your honor . The one youre probably thinking about right now. Your honor. So do they file another action to some other institutions . Not if this court rules in favor affirms the opinion on it, i think that would be binding and i think on we are strong by daphne documents that we are seeking here but our investigation is proceeding, there are in fact other subpoenas outs and, no one should be surprised by, that is just that we dont think we should have our stand hands tied for not being allowed like reward and any other case to get some of the basic business documents that could shed light on whether there was criminality on is on. This case seems bound for the Supreme Court. I think both parties see it as an inevitability iran or, no further questions, thank you. , thank you your honor i think it is important to frame where we are and where my friends position is, it is lockstep with the District Court, there is no immunity for an official action of any kind, of the president could be indicted and arrested on while hes an office, they have not ruled out the president as a target of this investigation which would be the basis for shifting the ground for nixon forces on fitzgerald and the Third Party Doctrines of nixon versus the United States, in fact everything that we have heard this morning makes clear the president is a target, i dont think thats really an issue in dispute anymore, its clear that the District Attorney just wants the president s tax returns, we are objecting to the entirety of the subpoena, its this entire fishing expedition that is a problem here, there is no argument and my, friend i give him credit has tried on is it your view that they are not seeking the tax returns for a legitimate investigative purpose, they are doing this just to embarrass the president , is of the argument . We believe that there is evidence of, that and when pushed on this point, the response we got is impeachment is going the way we want the president said we could disclose it and other president s had, these are a policy disagreement not with the bases open investigation. The position is that District Attorneys from all around the countries. U. S. Attorneys have all the country youre gonna action bad faith. That is the concern . Like there it is an incentive, even clinton beat johnson, when the gates said that the court said a local flashers may apply differently, the court may agree or disagree but that was a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court. What is your view on the fifth avenue example, local authorities could not investigate or do anything about it . I think one is the president is removed from office, any authority, this is not a permanent community. Im talking about while in office, nothing could be done, that is your position . That is correct youve been gathering documents that could be used labor once the president leaves office. That can be done, i mean with respect to the president directly or through custodians. This grand jury is proceeding, we have not sought to have the integrity of the grand jury, which is the position he tried to take in his case, we are simply saying criminal process issue to a sitting president in which they have not ruled out that he is the target of an investigation falls comfortably with the money that has to be accepted. So it is really about the tax records . It is not your honor, it is about this subpoena, the president has complied with a multitude of requests from both federal and state officials, this is, about i really do you think youre on or, the other aspect of this subpoena really highlights the impropriety, there is no argument based on what we have seen that ten years of statements of Financial Condition are relevant, if i make one last point youre on or about the u. S. Governments position and nixon, two points, clinton to be jones answers the question about whether the president is in the capacity, he was represented in that case in a lawsuit based on an official contact that occurred before office by a private attorneys, Supreme Court said he can raise his immunity in that posture, he did not prevail in that case but he wasnt defeated by the nature when she proceed into the court, second the department of justice has said and i think their brief is clear on, this they are saying you can avoid the difficult constitutional questions that our argument raises by adopting the u. S. Forces in position, which might be applicable here, opposing the heightened standard it requires given the sensitivity of the office, that centered applies beyond privilege and this hopefully makes clear, if you measure this, this will be my final point, take this subpoena, the fact that it is copied apply and, expanding just put it and apply that standard, i think it is impossible to sustain a subpoena, if the court things the procedures are warranted, we dont think it, is to make an evaluation as to whether this subpoena meets the requirement to the particulars and if the court were to do that we would ask that the status quo be maintained because, we heard today that there is no promise that these records are going to remain sealed forever and that is all that is required to meet irreparable injury even putting aside the questions themselves. Thank you both here are grants, our panel is committed to proceeding deliberately, we have the feeling that you may be seeing each other again in washington, thank you for your argument, we will take a ten minute recess
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.