Cy Vance Is Moving, Apace -- And Looking At Trump Matters Going Back To At Least 2011...

This is bad news for Trump -- and his Trumpers. Grand Jury proceedings are held in strict secrecy in felony matters, but the NY Atty. is allowed to mention that the matters under review are broader, and stretch much further back in time, than just 2016 campaign hush money payoffs -- to blunt Trump's renewed claims (already rejected at every level where they were previously heard) to absolute immunity (or, alternatively, that the subpoena just duplicates the Congressional one, as a pretext). Mr. Vance goes on to indicate, by way of affirmative defenses, to help dismiss Trump's complaint, that the 2011 era matters may include "ordinary" (but still) felony bank fraud, for which none of Trump's Article II claims would matter (since it all predates his run for office, and involves simply financial criminal exposures -- and evidence his accountant already holds -- from his own files).

And that's just what Mr. Vance did this afternoon, in Manhattan -- in a nearly 28 page memo of law. He makes the point, that Trump cannot just continually make the same rejected, baseless legal claims. At some point very soon, the able trial judge is going to agree with Mr. Vance, and say that Trump is subject to the "every man's evidence" rule, at right -- especially so where it is his accountant that must make the delivery -- Trump need not miss even one hole of golf(!), hunting for papers. New York seeks only the tax papers Mazars prepared FOR Trump. Here's the bit, but it is increasingly likely he will face felony bank fraud or tax fraud charges, in 2021. And some of those carry. . . 20 year stints:

. . . . [7-2, The US Supreme] Court held that flexible procedures designed to avoid significant interference with Article II functions do not modify the substantive legal standards a President must meet to prevail on a challenge to a state grand jury subpoena calling for non-official records. Slip Op. at 21 (“[T]he President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.”). Such challenges must still be analyzed under the existing legal standards that apply to everyone. See, e.g., id. at 16 (citing Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 611 (1975)); id. at 21 (reaffirming the applicability of “established legal and constitutional principles”). And a state criminal subpoena for a President’s private papers need not be any more “tailored” than if it were issued to a private citizen:

[The Clinton] Court concluded, ‘[w]hile such distractions [private, political, and some as a result of official duty] may be vexing to those subjected to them, they do not ordinarily implicate constitutional ... concerns.’ The same is true of criminal subpoenas. Just as a ‘properly managed’ civil suit is generally ‘unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of’ a President’s time or attention, two centuries of experience confirm that a properly tailored criminal subpoena will not normally hamper the performance of the President’s constitutional duties. . . .

“[B]urdens on the President’s time and attention stemming from judicial process and litigation, without more, generally do not cross constitutional lines. . . .” [C]iting Slip Op. at 12-14; Clinton, 520 U.S. at 704-05. . . .

Buckle up, buttercup! This crooked pig's days of freedom, on the hoof -- are now headed inexorably toward. . . the slaughterhouse -- and his ultimate incarceration. . . is drawing closer, day by fateful day. Onward.

नमस्ते