In a joint document with a lower court judge, Trump’s lawyer cited the Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s written consent and said by Neil Gorsuch, The President “may make further arguments at his discretion, including whether the summons is too broad and will hinder the President’s ability to carry out his work.
Trump’s lawyer wrote: “The president intends to make some or all of these arguments in his upcoming Second Amendment.”
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the President could not dispense with the investigation of the State Grand Jury, which won the victory of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance. His office is investigating whether the president and his company have violated state law, which involves paying quiet money to women suspected of having a relationship with the president and reimbursing former fixer Michael Cohen.
Trump argued in the summary of the case that the District Court must wait until the Supreme Court makes a decision on the case, but Vance’s office disputes this view. “[T]Vance’s office wrote: “The Second Circuit Court has never lost its power to exercise this matter. The Second Circuit Court’s mission is to return this matter to the Court in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court, thereby giving the Court the power to take action. “
The District Attorney’s Office urged the District Court to proceed promptly and wrote: “In view of this continued concern about this potential possibility, the Court should conduct any Remaining litigation. Loss of key evidence and termination of limitation period.”
Vance’s office said the judge had rejected certain Trump arguments, including that the subpoena was politically motivated. Vance’s office pointed out that a few months ago, U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero discovered: “There is no maliciousness, harassment or any other unusual situation that requires fair relief.”
The district attorney’s office emphasized that the Supreme Court rejected the idea of raising the standard for state summonses issued to the current president, saying Trump was trying to “repeal the standard”.
Speaking of Trump’s proposal, the attorney for the office said: “Equally important, it ignores the fact that he has filed a substantially similar allegation in the amended complaint, but the court rejected it.”
Vance’s office once again turned to Marrero’s earlier ruling to question the underlying argument that compliance with subpoenas would be a heavy burden for Trump, who said the judge had previously rejected this idea.
Vance’s office described Trump’s suggestion that the discovery was “too early” and wrote that even if the president filed a revised complaint to stimulate the discovery, “the motive for discovering the district attorney is very irregular and inappropriate.”
The District Attorney’s Office said it would agree not to execute subpoenas seeking Trump’s eight-year tax returns and financial records from its long-term accounting firm Mazars USA by July 27, or if Trump filed a new lawsuit, it would not Will seek to execute the summons until 7 days after the court’s decision.
The two sides also agreed to speed up the process. If approved by the court, it may mean that the motion of the case will be completed in mid-August.
The matter was originally scheduled for a hearing in Marrero on Thursday morning.
This story has been updated with additional information.