Hit enter after type your search item
Wzy Word

HERE ARE THE WORLD'S NEWS

Breaking Down Supreme Court Ruling On Trump Financial Records | NBC News

/
/
/
79 Views
img

>>> THIS IS A SPECIAL REPORT >>> THIS IS A SPECIAL REPORT

>> WE HAVE NEWS FROM THE SUPREME COURT TO IMPACT THE PRESIDENT AND POSSIBLY THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE THE JUSTICES RULED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPTS, AGAIN, AGAINST THE PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPTS TO SHIELD FINANCIAL RECORDS AND TAX DOCUMENTS FROM NEW YORK PROSECUTORS NBC JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT PETE WILLIAMS IS WITH US TO EXPLAIN PETE, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF CASES HAVING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT’S FINANCIAL RECORDS ONE WAS IN NEW YORK CITY, ONE WITH CONGRESS

WHAT DO WE KNOW? >> THE PRESIDENT MUST TURN OVER HIS TAXES TO THE GRAND JURY IN NEW YORK UNLESS HE CAN COME UP WITH THE SAME KIND OF ARGUMENTS THAT ANY OTHER PERSON WOULD BE ABLE TO RAISE AS AN OBJECTION IN COURT SO THE SUPREME COURT SENT THE GRAND JURY CASE TO THE LOWER COURTS, BUT IT TOOK AWAY ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS THE PRESIDENT MADE ABOUT WHY HE IS DIFFERENT AND SPECIAL, THAT HE IS IMMUNE FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS AND ALLOWING LOCAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TO SEEK THINGS FROM THE PRESIDENT WOULD SUBJECT A PRESIDENT TO HARASSMENT SO WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS IS OKAY NOW GO BACK TO COURT, MAKE THE SAME KIND OF ARGUMENTS ANYBODY ELSE WOULD MAKE ABOUT WHY YOU THINK THESE SUBPOENAS ARE INTRUSIVE IT PUTS HIM ON THE SAME STANDARD BASICALLY AS ANYBODY ELSE TRYING TO BLOCK A SUBPOENA, MAKES IT MUCH, MUCH, MUCH HARDER FOR THE PRESIDENT TO KEEP THIS MATERIAL OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE GRAND JURY IN NEW YORK ON THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA, THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO SENT THE CASE BACK

IT HAS SAID THE PRESIDENT ABSOLUTELY CAN’T SAY NO, BUT IT SAID IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA IS SO BROAD, THERE’S A TEST THE LOWER COURTS HAVE TO APPLY THEY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THIS IS TETHERED TO SOME LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE, THAT IT WON’T HARASS THE PRESIDENT IT SET OUT A SERIES OF STEPS THE LOWER COURTS HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTTOM LINE, CHUCK, NOTHING GETS RESOLVED IN THESE CASES UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION, THEY GO BACK TO THE LOWER COURTS WHOEVER LOSES THERE HAS THE CHANCE TO APPEAL

IT COULD GO BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT THAT’S THE FIRST THING SECOND THING, EVEN IF THE NEW YORK GRAND JURY HAD GOTTEN AN ABSOLUTE WIN, THAT WOULDN’T MEAN WE WOULD SEE THE RECORDS BECAUSE OF RULES OF GRAND JURY SECRECY EVEN IF HE GETS THE PRESIDENT’S TAXES AND CAN’T COME UP WITH GOOD OBJECTION WHY HE SHOULDN’T TURN THEM OVER, THEY DON’T BECOME PUBLIC THE ONLY WAY WE WOULD SEE THEM IS IF THERE’S SOMEONE INDICTED AND GOES TO TRIAL AND THE TAXES ARE INTRODUCED AS EVIDENCE

SO THOSE ARE THE TWO BOTTOM LINES NOTHING WILL RESOLVE BEFORE THE ELECTION WE’RE NOT SEEING — IF THE PRESIDENT TURNED OVER BUSINESS RECORDS TO CONGRESS, THEY MIGHT BECOME PUBLIC, BUT IT WILL BE MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS, POSSIBLY A YEAR, MAYBE TWO, BEFORE THIS IS RESOLVED IN COURT IT IS A MIXED DAY FOR THE PRESIDENT HE DOESN’T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, BUT THE IDEA THAT HE CAN PUT A BARRICADE AROUND THE WHITE HOUSE AND SAY NO, I DON’T HAVE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF YOU, THAT’S A DEAD LETTER NOW

>> ALL RIGHT COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, PETE COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, PETE FIRST ONE, ESSENTIALLY THE SUPREME COURT SOUNDS LIKE PUT DOWN A CHECKLIST ON WHAT ACCESS CONGRESS COULD HAVE, I ASSUME IT SETS NEW PRECEDENT FOR PRESIDENTS GOING FORWARD IS THAT WHAT THIS DECISION WILL END UP BEING WHEN IT COMES TO THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL TIES OF PRESIDENTS GOING FORWARD? >> ABSOLUTELY BOTH DECISIONS ARE PRECEDENT SETTING

WE’VE NEVER HAD BEFORE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS DEALT BEFORE WITH ISSUES OF WHETHER PRESIDENTS ARE IMMUNE FROM SUBPOENAS, THEY ANSWERED THAT IN THE NIXON CASE ARE PRESIDENTS IMMUNE FROM THE LEGAL PROCESS WHILE IN OFFICE, THEY ANSWERED THAT IN THE CLINTON CASE WE NEVER HAD A CASE BEFORE OF A STATE PROSECUTOR SEEKING MATERIAL FROM THE PRESIDENT AND THAT RAISED ALL SORTS OF SUPREMACY CLAUSE QUESTIONS AND EVERYTHING ELSE NUMBER ONE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THEY SHOT DOWN THE PRESIDENT’S TWO ARGUMENTS WHICH WAS PRESIDENTS ARE ABSOLUTELY, BECAUSE THEY CAN’T BE INDICTED WHILE THEY’RE IN OFFICE, THEY’RE IMMUNE FROM ANY PART OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS, INCLUDING SUBPOENAS

WE NOW KNOW THAT’S NOT TRUE SECONDLY, THE COURT LAID OUT A NUMBER OF TESTS THAT HAVE TO BE APPLIED WHEN CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT ARE AT ABSOLUTE LOGGER HEADS ARE THE SUBPOENAS NARROWLY FOCUSED? I THINK THE DEMOCRATS WERE THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES THESE ARE SUCH BROAD REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS, FROM THE PRESIDENT, HIS RELATIVES, OVER MANY YEARS ARE THEY SHARPLY FOCUSED, REQUESTS FROM CONGRESS

ARE THEY TIED TO LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE REMEMBER, CHUCK, THERE’S NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS CONGRESS HAS SUBPOENA POWER THE COURTS OVER THE YEARS SAID YEAH, CONGRESS NEEDS TO FIND THINGS OUT WHEN IT WANTS TO LEGISLATE WHAT TRUMP’S ARGUMENT HERE WAS IS THIS IS A FISHING EXPEDITION, YOU WANT ALL OF THIS TO POKE THROUGH IT, SEE IF YOU CAN FIND SOMETHING, GO A-HA THE SUPREME COURT MET HIM HALFWAY ON THAT ONE TO SAY THIS HAS TO BE TIED TO SOME LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE

>> AND PETE, QUICKLY, WHAT ARE THE MAKEUPS OF THE RULINGS?

Source: Youtube

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar