“The district court should not have approached” the matter in this way, they added. The investigation by Mr. Vance’s office began in 2018, focusing on hush-money payments that were made before the 2016 presidential election to two women who said they had had affairs with Mr. Trump. During the legal wrangling over the subpoena, Mr. Vance’s office suggested that its inquiry was broader, and that it also was examining possible financial and insurance crimes. After Judge Marrero issued his ruling last month, Mr. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that he was the victim of “the greatest witch hunt in history” and he predicted that the case would end up before the Supreme Court again. In oral arguments seeking that stay, William S. Consovoy, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, suggested that if the returns were turned over, there would be no way to undo the harm to the president if he ultimately prevailed in the case.

Source: New York Times September 12, 2020 00:12 UTC