Cspan, created by americas Cable Television companies as a Public Service and brought to you today by your Cable Television provider. Today, the u. S. Supreme court handed down rulings regarding access to President Trumps finances. In a 72 vote, justices ruled the Manhattan District Attorney connexus President Trumps financial records including tax returns. The court also ruled 72 to send back to lower courts a case concerning congressional subpoenas for President Trumps financial records. Read those decisions at cspan. Org. Up next, hear the oral argument case,e trump versus mass which deals with the Manhattan District Attorney getting access to trumps financial records. Argument next in versus 635, donald trump cyrus. Chief justice. R. May it please the court. No county District Attorney in our history has issued a criminal process against a sitting president , and for good reason. The constitution does not allow it. Immunity president ial is required by article to end accordingly, t
Argument next in versus 635, donald trump cyrus. Chief justice. R. May it please the court. No County District attorney in our history has issued a criminal process against a sitting president , and for good reason. The constitution does not allow it. Immunity president ial is required by article to end accordingly, the supremacy clause that beats any authority the da has under state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong. If not reversed, the decision weaponizes 2300 local das. An overwhelming number are elected in their fight accountable to constituents and thereby accountable to constituents. This would allow any da to harass the president and subject the president to prejudice, and state rent juries could issue compulsory process is in the forms of subpoenas targeting the president. This is not speculation, it is what has taken place in this case and the subpoena we challenged. We assert the subpoena does not serve a legitimate legislative purpose and were burdensome.
We will hear the argument is next in case 19635 donald trump versus cyrus vance. Nno County District attorney and that history has issued criminal process against the sitting president of the United States and fortit good reason, e constitution doesnt allow it. Temporary president ial immunity is constitutionally required by article two and accordingly, the supremacy clause to face any authority they have under that state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong and should be reversed. If not reversed the decision weaponizeon is 2300 local and or an overwhelming number of them are elected and thereby accountable to the local constituencies. The decision would allow any two giraffes, distract or interfere with the sitting president to the local prejudice that could influence prosecutorial decisions and those who can then utilize the criminal process in the form of subpoena targeting the president. This isnt speculation. It is what is taking place in the subpoena of the chall
Versus vance. Mr. Sekulow. No County District in the history has issued criminal process against the sitting president of the United States and for good reason. Accordingly the supremacy clause that beats any authority under the state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong and shall be reversed and if not reversed, the decision weaponize is 2300 local djs and an overwhelming number of them are elected to office and are thereby accountable to their local constituencies. The decision would allow anyone to harass, distract and interfere with a sitting president. Subject to local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions and at the same grand juries that can then utilize the process in the form of a subpoena targeting the president. This isnt mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in the case and with a subpoena that we challenge. In thand the argument we assertd that a subpoena didnt serve a legitimate legislative purpose and they were burdensome.
Versus vance. Mr. Sekulow. No County District in the history has issued criminal process against the sitting president of the United States and for good reason. Accordingly the supremacy clause that beats any authority under the state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong and shall be reversed and if not reversed, the decision weaponize is 2300 local djs and an overwhelming number of them are elected to office and are thereby accountable to their local constituencies. The decision would allow anyone to harass, distract and interfere with a sitting president. Subject to local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions and at the same grand juries that can then utilize the process in the form of a subpoena targeting the president. This isnt mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in the case and with a subpoena that we challenge. In thand the argument we assertd that a subpoena didnt serve a legitimate legislative purpose and they were burdensome.