How much is Donald Trump's fortune? Does it have financial ties to Russia? What is behind the opaque loans granted by Deutsche Bank? How much tax did he pay? Does a President Have Absolute Immunity? Here are the main questions at the heart of this standoff between justice and elected Democrats on the one hand, and the White House on the other. And the United States Supreme Court, responsible for playing the arbitrators, seemed torn during the examination of the file, Tuesday. According to observers, the turn of the debates suggests a decision that could cut the pear in half. It must be returned by the end of June.
Coronavirus forces, the hearing took place over the phone. Claiming to be protected by his status as president, the republican billionaire opposes the transmission of a whole series of documents related to his affairs, demanded by parliamentary commissions and a New York prosecutor. This latest investigation into the payment of $ 130,000 to ex-porn star Stormy Daniels to buy his silence, a few weeks before the 2016 presidential election, over an alleged affair with Donald Trump.
"Not above the law"
"One of the fundamental principles of our Constitution is that the president is not above the law," said progressive judge Elena Kagan, speaking like her colleagues from her home because of the new coronavirus pandemic. But, at the same time, "we are concerned about the potential risk of harassment" of the tenant of the White House, recognized the conservative magistrate John Roberts during this hearing broadcast live.
Anxious to find the line of balance in this file likely to weigh on the separation of powers in the United States, the nine magistrates assailed the parties with questions. Exceptionally, they even largely exceeded the two hours allocated to the debates.
The first issue in the file is concrete: the court ruling may help lift the veil before the presidential election on November 3 on the affairs of Donald Trump, who unlike all his predecessors since the 1970s refuses to publish his tax returns. The billionaire, candidate for his re-election, made his fortune a campaign argument, but his lack of transparency feeds speculations on the extent of his wealth or on potential conflicts of interest.
"Presidential harassment"
After regaining control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, the Democrats tried to unravel the mystery: three commissions issued orders from April 2019 to the accounting firm Mazars and to the banks Deutsche Bank and Capital One to obtain the records relating to the affairs of the former real estate tycoon from 2010 to 2018.
At the same time, the Manhattan Democratic Prosecutor has made a similar request to the Mazars cabinet as part of an investigation into a possible violation of New York laws on campaign finance.
Posing as the victim of a "witch hunt" and "presidential harassment", Donald Trump went to court to block these injunctions. After losing at first instance and on appeal, he turned to the Supreme Court. During the hearing, his lawyers argued that he should be protected from any attempt at "harassment" so that he can perform his duties calmly. In the end, the court could therefore seek a compromise, for example by authorizing the targeted request of the New York prosecutor, but not that, more broadly, of the elected Democrats.
- World