William K. Rashbaum and Benjamin Weiser

The ruling issued by Judge Victor Marrero of Manhattan federal court does not mean that the president’s tax returns will be turned over immediately. Trump’s lawyers quickly appealed the decision and the appeals court agreed to temporarily block the order.

The judge’s decision came a little more than a month after the Manhattan district attorney subpoenaed Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, for his personal and corporate returns dating to 2011. The demand touched off a legal showdown that raised new constitutional questions and drew in the Justice Department, which supported the president’s request to delay enforcement of the subpoena.

District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr.’s office has been investigating whether any New York state laws were broken when Trump and his company reimbursed the president’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, for payments he made in the run-up to the 2016 election to pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who had said she had an affair with Trump.

Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.

Trump’s lawyers sued last month to block the subpoena, arguing that the Constitution effectively makes sitting presidents immune from all criminal inquiries until they leave the White House. The lawyers acknowledged that their argument had not been tested in courts, but said the release of the president’s tax returns would cause him “irreparable harm.”

In his 75-page ruling, Marrero called the president’s argument “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.” Presidents, their families and businesses are not above the law, the judge wrote.

A lawyer for the president and a spokesman for Vance each declined to comment.

On Monday, a lawyer for Trump asked the appeals court to block the subpoena until it hears the whole case, plus an additional week to give the losing side time to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the arguments.

“This case presents momentous questions of first impression regarding the presidency, federalism and the separation of powers,” the lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge, wrote.

Vance’s office had asked Marrero to dismiss Trump’s suit, saying a grand jury had a right to “pursue its investigation free from interference and litigious delay” and rejecting his claim to blanket immunity. The judge was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

Trump’s lawyers have called the investigation by Vance, a Democrat, politically motivated. Vance has accused the president and his team of trying to run out the clock on the investigation.

Last week, lawyers with Trump’s Justice Department jumped into the fray, asking the judge to temporarily block the subpoena while the court takes time to consider the “significant constitutional issues” in the case.

The Justice Department, led by Attorney General William Barr, did not say whether it agreed with Trump’s position that presidents cannot be investigated. But, citing the constitutional questions, the department said it wanted to provide its views. A spokeswoman for the department declined to comment on the ruling Monday.

The Constitution does not explicitly say whether presidents can be charged with a crime while in office, and the Supreme Court has not answered the question.

Federal prosecutors are barred from charging a sitting president with a crime because the Justice Department has decided that presidents have temporary immunity while they are in office.

But in the past, that position has not precluded investigating a president. Presidents, including Trump, have been subjects of federal criminal investigations while in office. Local prosecutors, such as Vance, are also not bound by the Justice Department’s position.

As part of a temporary deal reached last month, Vance’s office agreed not to enforce the subpoena until two days after Marrero issued a ruling, which would give Trump a chance to appeal if he lost. But that agreement was to expire at 1 p.m. Monday.

The president and his lawyers have fought vigorously to shield his tax returns, which Trump said during the 2016 campaign that he would make public but has since refused to disclose.

Trump’s lawyers have sued to block attempts by congressional Democrats and New York lawmakers to gain access to his tax returns and financial records. They also successfully challenged a California law requiring presidential primary candidates to release their tax returns.

If Vance ultimately prevails in obtaining the president’s tax returns, they would not automatically become public. They would be protected by rules governing the secrecy of grand jury investigations unless the documents became evidence in a criminal case.

Trump’s accounting firm, which he sued along with the district attorney’s office to bar the company from turning over his returns, reissued the statement it released nearly three weeks ago when the lawsuit was filed, saying it “will respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations.”

This article originally appeared in

Trump Taxes: President Ordered to Turn Over Returns to Manhattan DA

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Monday rejected a bold argument from President Donald Trump that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations, allowing the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to move forward with a subpoena seeking eight years of the president’s personal and corporate tax returns.

<h1>NEW YORK — Paul J. Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, is now in the sights of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., whose office is set to bring charges against him. A federal jury in Virginia already convicted Manafort in a financial fraud scheme that could send him to prison for decades, and he has pleaded guilty in Washington to other federal charges.</h1>

But Vance’s prosecutors, who are said to be preparing charges to try to ensure that Manafort faces prison even if he is pardoned by the president, likely will face a pitched legal battle and a political firefight.

A federal jury in August convicted Manafort of using foreign accounts to hide millions of dollars from his political consulting work in Ukraine, tax fraud and lying to banks to obtain millions of dollars in loans. State charges, which would be brought by Vance, would be based on some of those same loans, which were issued by Citizens Bank in Rhode Island and Federal Savings Bank in Chicago, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

Manafort’s lawyers are almost certain to challenge any state charges on grounds of double jeopardy, and Vance, a left-leaning district attorney in a blue state, could face the inevitable accusation his prosecution of a member of Trump’s inner circle is politically motivated.

What is double jeopardy?

Put simply, it is the legal principle that a defendant may not be prosecuted twice for the same crime. This tenet of American jurisprudence is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states: No person shall be “subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

New York state law provides even stronger protections against double jeopardy. But some exceptions exist. Double jeopardy applies once a jury is sworn in a criminal case, whether the defendant is convicted or acquitted. However, juries sometimes cannot decide on a verdict on a particular charge, which is what happened with several counts in Manafort’s federal case in Virginia. That could leave the door open for Vance’s office to pursue state charges — such as falsifying business records or mortgage fraud — in those instances.

“I don’t imagine when presented with someone whose career is alleged to have been as varied and crooked as Manafort’s, the DA’s office would have to stretch itself to find conduct that could be charged without violating New York’s double jeopardy provisions,” said Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia Law School professor.

Can the president pardon Manafort on state charges?

No. The U.S. Constitution confers broad authority on the president to issue pardons in federal cases. Indeed, the president can even pardon people before they are charged or convicted of a federal crime, although such actions are rare. (President Gerald Ford pardoned his predecessor, Richard M. Nixon, after Watergate, and President Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam draft evaders.) But the president has no power to do so in connection with state crimes.

Why people think Trump might pardon Manafort

Trump has repeatedly characterized Manafort as a “brave man,” and indicated that he had not ruled out pardoning his former top campaign official.

“It was never discussed, but I wouldn’t take it off the table,” Trump said in November in an Oval Office interview with The New York Post. “Why would I take it off the table?” the president added.

In the interview, Trump also likened the investigation by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, whose office brought charges against Manafort, to McCarthyism. “This is no better than McCarthy,” the president said, adding, “It’s a terrible thing.”

There will be (political) blood

Beyond the legal battle that would follow any charges against Manafort in New York, there could be political fallout.

Vance taking aim at a member of the president’s inner circle, whether he has been pardoned or not, could play into the narrative that the president and his allies have been subjected to partisan persecution — in the president’s words, a “witch hunt.”

For Vance, the decision to prosecute Manafort would play out before a very different audience. “I assume Vance is motivated in part by political considerations — his constituents expect him to do this,” said Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University School of Law.

“There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as he’s not doing it only for that reason. He has to also believe it’s the right thing to do,” Gillers said.

The case against Manafort also offers Vance something of an opportunity for redemption. He came under heavy criticism for failing to bring charges against Trump’s eldest children, Ivanka and Donald Jr., after an investigation into allegations they had lied to buyers of units at the Trump SoHo, a 46-story luxury condominium-hotel in Lower Manhattan. Vance defended his handling of the inquiry, saying he ended it largely because the victims would not cooperate with prosecutors after they reached a civil settlement with the Trumps and their business partners.

What happens to Vance’s charges if there is no pardon?

Vance’s office began building the case in order to ensure that Manafort would still be held accountable for his crimes, even if the president pardoned him for his federal convictions. The district attorney’s office is expected to seek charges and prosecute the case against Manafort regardless of whether Trump issues a pardon.

If no pardon is issued and Manafort is convicted on state charges, he almost certainly would serve a state prison sentence at the same time as his federal term. Manafort, 69, has not yet been sentenced on the federal charges.

Paradoxically, one legal expert suggested, Manafort might find himself in a position where a federal pardon portends a far more unpleasant outcome — the prospect of serving time in a New York state institution, where prison life is far more dangerous, dirty and grim.

This article originally appeared in <a id="041eb62c-9fc4-4eb8-af93-542d4436cebf" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/nyregion/manafort-pardon-trump.html">The New York Times</a>.

If Trump pardons Manafort, can state charges stick?

A federal jury in August convicted Manafort of using foreign accounts to hide millions of dollars from his political consulting work in Ukraine.

Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, was sentenced to three years in prison Wednesday, telling a judge that he initially admired Trump’s business acumen but ended up in a job where “I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds.”

The prison sentence was for what the judge called a “veritable smorgasbord” of crimes. They included arranging hush-money payments to two women who said they had affairs with Trump, tax evasion, making a false statement to a bank and lying to Congress.

Prison is a breathtaking fall for Cohen, a man who scrapped his way up from a seedy world where he ran a taxi fleet and practiced personal injury law to serve as a well-compensated fixer at Trump’s real estate company.

Here are our takeaways from the case.

A novel strategy may not have hurt

From the start, Cohen followed a risky and unusual legal strategy. He tried to cooperate with prosecutors in a bid for leniency, but he wanted to do it on his own terms, declining to discuss many topics.

He refused to sign a full cooperation agreement like most people sign when they agree to testify against their former partners in crime. That kind of deal would have required Cohen to admit to every crime he ever committed and to offer all the details he knew about the crimes of others.

He explained at his sentencing that he did so to end his legal ordeal quickly and to spare his family the glare of publicity over the years he would have spent testifying in other cases, waiting for a final decision on his fate. “I do not need a cooperation agreement to be in place to do the right thing,” he said.

But federal prosecutors in Manhattan said his refusal to cooperate fully made it impossible to vet his criminal history or know how good a witness he would be. Calling him deceitful and greedy, they recommended in a scathing memo to the judge that Cohen be given a substantial sentence of about four years in prison.

Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian interference with the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign was involved, offered a more positive assessment of Cohen’s cooperation with his office, saying he had met with prosecutors there seven times and went “to significant lengths to assist” their investigation.

Still, as the sentencing started Wednesday morning, it was unclear which way Judge William H. Pauley III would lean. In the end he handed down a three-year sentence, more than what Cohen’s lawyers had wanted, but less than prosecutors had asked for. The judge said cooperation, even where it is not the product of a formal deal, should be encouraged where it helps to advance a criminal investigation.

We may hear from Cohen again soon

Court papers submitted in advance of Cohen’s sentencing outline some of the information he provided to Mueller’s office. The papers say Cohen’s information was “credible and consistent with other evidence obtained” by the special counsel and “has been useful in four significant respects.”

Among other things, Mueller’s office said in court papers that Cohen said an unnamed Russian offered him “government-level” synergy between Russia and Trump’s campaign in November 2015, months earlier than other approaches detailed in indictments secured by prosecutors.

Although the court papers provided few details about the information he provided, it seems clear that some or all of that material could very well end up surfacing in the not-too-distant future. It could wind up in one of the criminal cases that are anticipated in the coming months, or in a report Mueller is expected to produce at the conclusion of his inquiry.

The case is over — but not really

Cohen’s three-year prison term seems to signify the end of the federal case against him, but as Yogi Berra reputedly said, “It ain’t over till it’s over,” in more ways than one.

For starters, the investigation that resulted in the charges against Cohen and his guilty plea has now shifted to focus on Trump’s family real estate company and whether several executives there may have known about or played a role in the hush-money payments.

And some of the information Cohen provided to prosecutors has intensified that inquiry, a person briefed on the matter has said.

What’s more, Cohen has said he paid the hush money at Trump’s direction, and even though the prevailing view at the Justice Department is that a sitting president can’t be indicted, Manhattan prosecutors could still consider charging Trump after he leaves office. It is also possible they could seek his testimony while he is still president if the inquiry continues to focus on whether anyone else might have had a role in the crimes, the person briefed on the matter said.

‘Little to be admired’

The true nature of Cohen’s relationship with Trump has been hard to decipher amid the blizzard of news stories, court documents, presidential tweets and spin from defense lawyers for the two men.

Since April, when the FBI raided Cohen’s offices, Trump has minimized Cohen’s importance to his company before he became president, belittling his role and calling him “weak.” And Cohen, who once had traded on his relationship with Trump and boasted that he would take a bullet for him, has turned on his former boss of 10 years, most notably implicating him in the hush-money scandal.

But when Cohen addressed the judge before he was sentenced, he delivered his first extensive on-the-record comments about Trump since he pleaded guilty. While Trump has accused Cohen of essentially being a traitor, it was Cohen who spoke like a man not only betrayed but also tricked.

“I have been living in a personal and mental incarceration ever since the fateful day that I accepted the offer to work for a famous real estate mogul whose business acumen I truly admired,” Cohen told the judge. “In fact, I now know that there is little to be admired.”

He said he blamed himself for the conduct that had brought him before the judge. “I was weak for not having the strength to question and to refuse his demands,” he said of Trump.

Cohen seemed almost emboldened as he continued to speak openly about the man he said he had blindly served.

“Your Honor, this may seem hard to believe, but today is one of the most meaningful days of my life,” he said. “The irony is today is the day I am getting my freedom back as you sit at the bench and you contemplate my fate.”

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/nyregion/takeaways-michael-cohens-sentencing.html" id="f167c4f0-936c-3fc8-a42f-4dcaf28e844d">The New York Times</a>.

(Appearance)

4 Takeaways From Michael Cohen's Sentencing

Though the court papers provided few details about the information he provided, it seems clear that some or all of that material could very well end up surfacing in the not-too-distant future. It could wind up in one of the criminal cases that are anticipated in the coming months, or in a report Mueller is expected to produce at the conclusion of his inquiry.

The case is over — but not really

‘Little to Be Admired’

Politics

Local

World

News

Celebrities

Music

Movies

Entertainment

Sports 

Fashion

Beauty & Health

Relationships & Weddings

Food & Travel

Lifestyle

Domestic

International 

Business

About

Highlights

Selection Criteria

Jury

Terms And Conditions

FAQs

Pulse Influencer Awards

Courses

Careers

Explore categories

Read the latest news across entertainment, sports, business and more. Be first to receive exclusive updates with your free subscription straight to your phone. 

William K. Rashbaum and Benjamin Weiser

Articles written by the author

Trump Taxes: President Ordered to Turn Over Returns to Manhattan DA

If Trump pardons Manafort, can state charges stick?

4 Takeaways From Michael Cohen's Sentencing

4 Takeaways From Michael Cohen's Sentencing