19:19 GMT05 August 2020
Listen Live
    Opinion
    Get short URL
    7112
    Subscribe

    By a 7-2 margin, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected US President Donald Trump’s defense team’s argument that he is immune to criminal subpoenas and ruled to allow a New York prosecutor to view his financial records. According to one expert, at least two of the seven votes against Trump were likely surprising to him.

    David Schultz, professor of law specializing in election law at the University of Minnesota Law School, called the attention of Political Misfits hosts Bob Schlehuber and Michelle Witte to Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion, which Schultz said detailed two things: “case law has clearly demonstrated that presidents don’t have absolute immunity and that they have to be accountable for subpoenas, even in criminal matters.”

    Within the document, Roberts referenced the words of former Chief Justice John Marshall, who issued an 1807 decision declaring that the US president is not exempt from subpoenas.

    “At common law the ‘single reservation’ to the duty to testify in response to a subpoena was ‘the case of the king,’ whose ‘dignity’ was seen as ‘incompatible’ with appearing ‘under the process of the court,’” Roberts wrote. “But, as Marshall explained, a king is born to power and can ‘do no wrong.’ … The President, by contrast, is ‘of the people’ and subject to the law.”

    “When Bill Clinton was president of the United States, he had to honor subpoenas when he was being sued for sexual harassment,” Schultz noted, arguing that because of this history, the Thursday opinion did not come as a surprise to him.

    He added that “having also taught Constitution law for many years, this decision hit all the cases that I thought one was going to hit, in terms of making the argument” against presidential immunity.

    The US president’s Thursday tweets made it clear that he is not happy with the SCOTUS after the court ruled that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. may now see his financial records as part of grandy jury probe into Trump’s alleged payoffs to adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

    Schultz went on to point out that Trump is also likely angry because “among the people who joined in the opinion were [Associate Justices Neil] Gorsuch and [Brett] Kavanaugh: his two appointees to the Supreme Court.”

    “That must feel like a real stab in the back,” he declared.

    While the public is not able to get all the details of the case due to the closed-door nature of grand jury proceedings, Schultz noted that in addition to looking into a potential violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, the prosecution is also going to be examining whether Trump committed tax fraud “or any other types of fraud” while he was still living in New York.

    The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

    Related:

    Spy Satellite Reportedly Spots New Nuclear Site in North Korea Amid Freeze in Trump-Kim Talks
    Summit With Trump Might Not Happen This Year, Kim Jong Un's Sister Says
    Videos: NYC ‘Liberating’ 5th Avenue With ‘Black Lives Matter’ Mural Near Trump Tower - Mayor
    Former Trump Fixer Cohen Back in Federal Custody After Being Spotted at NYC Restaurant
    ‘Wall Street Wins, Working People Lose’: Unemployment to Persist as Trump Only ‘Goosing’ Markets
    Tags:
    Radio Sputnik, US Supreme Court, SCOTUS, SCOTUS, John Roberts, Donald Trump
    Community standardsDiscussion