The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Split decisions on Trump financial records

by Seth Johnson
Posted 7/09/20, 12:50 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled for and against President Donald Trump in separate decisions about the release of his financial records. A 7-2 vote decided each case, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting and Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinions.

What happens now? In Trump v. Vance, a prosecutor in New York City may obtain financial information from the president’s accounting firm, meaning a higher standard isn’t required to subpoena a sitting president in a criminal case. Prosecutor Cyrus Vance’s inquiry into payments from the president’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to women who claimed to have had extra-marital affairs with Trump will continue under the oversight of a grand jury. Because grand jury proceedings are secret, the president’s financial records likely won’t become public anytime soon.

The justices also blocked three congressional committees from issuing four subpoenas for financial records in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLC, sending the case back to the lower courts for continued litigation. They told those courts to give careful consideration to the case’s potential to affect the separation of powers in the federal government.

Dig deeper: Read Harvest Prude’s report on the cases’ oral arguments.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Seth Johnson

Seth is a graduate of the World Journalism Institute student course.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
    Posted: Fri, 07/10/2020 12:17 pm

    I don't understand why this is a criminal case. Trump paid women off that he had affairs with. Men do that all the time. How is that criminal? He didn't use gov't money to pay them off like some in DC did. Where are the lawsuits against them? 

    Is it criminal because he isn't from California?

    Obama did WAY MORE criminal stuff than that, and NOTHING. 

    Someone needs to nip this Trump Derangement Syndrome in the bud. I think Palin can feel Trump's pain. Obama's people hounded her with frivolous lawsuits, and then wouldn't let anyone give her money to pay for them.

    This says a lot about our "justice" system.

    Is that why Obama hung out with Putin and Castro so he could learn more about using his Dems to control us? 


  • not silent
    Posted: Fri, 07/10/2020 02:59 pm

    I'm a little confused.  Are you asking why it's a problem if our president had affairs and paid off the women to keep quiet?  Or are you asking why it's a CRIMINAL matter? 

    I don't know enough about the law to know if paying someone off is a "criminal" matter or not, but surely I don't have to spell out why it's a problem. If it's true that "men do that all the time," then I must be really naive and we apparently we have worse problems in this country than I thought!

    I guess I'm also confused about why the standard being used is what a previous president may have done.  As Christians, aren't we supposed to use the Bible as a standard?  

    This isn't an attack.  I'm just confused.

    Posted: Fri, 07/10/2020 12:40 pm

    The Dems are looking for something else to prosecute Trump for, not the lame excuse about money to women.