Last month, the judges unanimously rejected Trump’s bold claim that – as long as he serves as president – data about him is absolutely immune to demands from state or local prosecutors.
However, the Supreme Court said Trump can challenge the subpoena on other grounds. His lawyers did that last week, arguing that the subpoena of Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, is sweeping too broadly.
In the indictment that Vance filed with U.S. district judge Victor Marrero on Monday, the prosecution refuted that argument by noting that his office filed a largely secret statement with the judge last year, showing that the New York probe has a wide range of Matters related to Trump are investigating organization and not just confession from Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, that during the 2016 campaign, he orchestrated ‘hush money’ payments to women who claimed they had sexual encounters with Trump.
“The claimant’s argument that the Mazars subpoena is too broad fails for the additional reason that it is based on the false premise that the grand jury’s investigation is limited to so-called ‘hush money’ payments by Michael Cohen on behalf of claimant in 2016, Vance wrote, “This court already knows that this claim is fatally undermined by undisputed information in the public record.”
Vance’s petition goes on to note that in a court judgment last October, Marrero noted that the subpoena could be useful in investigating claims of “alleged insurance and bank fraud by the Trump organization and its officers.” The prosecution’s entry also cites news articles that allege that Trump routinely used different schemes to increase the value of his assets in obtaining loans and lower those values in paying taxes.
The lawsuit for Marrero now seems to have evolved into an intense race against the election clock, though Vance’s office makes sure she doesn’t discuss it in those terms and refers only to the urgency of the investigation. If the prosecution can obtain the tax and other financial information weeks or more before Election Day, he can face charges that could be politically damaging regardless of whether the President himself is listed as a defendant.
But if the lawsuit continues, Vance may not be able to take dramatic steps before early November.
At a telephone hearing last month, Marrero said he tended to continue the court battle even faster than the two sides had agreed. However, he eventually agreed to that schedule, which is considering another entry from Trump’s lawyers on August 14. The judge could make a decision soon after, based on the parties’ written arguments, or he could hold a hearing to further discuss the issues.