[U] "Sir, This Is STILL A... Taco Bell -- Put. The. Chalupa. Down." -- Trump's Suit To Challenge NY Subpoena Is Dumped

UPDATED @ 2 PM EDT: Trump's newest mid-day motion for a stay (six pages, here) of the below subpoena. . . asserts there has been "no appellate review" -- of these issues. It is comedic, actually. That claim is plainly. . . false. This matter went all the way to the Supremes -- where the highest court in the land has already ruled against these same claims. This. . . should be bounced. We will know in seven days, after the administrative stay expires. End update.

Cy Vance's subpoena for Trump's financial records may now move forward. But Trump filed an immediate appeal. No word yet on whether the Will the Second Circuit will grant a request to stay the immediate documentary delivery effect of the delivery of the subpoena? I'd doubt it.

With Bannon perp walked this morning -- this is decidedly good -- and expected, news. Here is the able USDC Judge Victor Marerro's spot-on 102 page(!) opinion out of Manhattan, and a bit:

. . . .In determining whether a subpoena’s demands are relevant to a legitimate purpose, courts should not attempt to predict the probable results of the investigation; “[i]nstead, the inquiry should [center] on whether the material sought by the subpoena was related to a legitimate objective of the Grand Jury investigation.” In re Vanderbilt, 448 N.Y.S.2d 3, 5–6 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1982). As noted above, the Grand Jury may legitimately “investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.” R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. at 297; Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 701 (grand jury’s work “may be triggered by tips, rumors, evidence proffered by the prosecutor, or the personal knowledge of the grand jurors”); see also People v. Doe, 445 N.Y.S.2d at 777; In re Bick, 372 N.Y.S.2d 447, 450 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1975) (“In other words, absent abuse of power a grand jury has a broad scope of inquiry.”). . . .

The Court is not persuaded that the SAC states a claim for relief on these grounds, and it does not interpret high respect for the President to compel even more liberal leave to amend than Rule 15 already affords. Justice does not require granting leave to replead under these circumstances. Justice requires an end to this controversy. . . .

Smiling ear to ear, on this finely sunny August morning.

नमस्ते