SCOTUS’ Tax Return Ruling & the Harassment of the Presidency

“Now we’re going to have a District Court of NY interfering with the presidency, with the endorsement of the SCOTUS,” Fitton stated in last week’s Weekly Update on the Supreme Court ‘Tax Returns’ Ruling. 

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the NY District Attorney’s right, “in theory” to subpoena the president for his tax returns gave “a lifeline to this out of control prosecutor, ”Fitton states. Seeking a right to unilaterally subpoena for the president’s records, the local authority’s efforts were directed at “harassing and distracting the president,” Fitton continues. Regrettably, Fitton argues, “according to this [Supreme Court] decision he may be subject to the whims of every district attorney in the United States.” 

The Supreme Court’s ruling confirms a “damaging way for partisans and well-meaning prosecutors to upend the president’s ability to do his job with  ‘criminal investigations’,” Fitton states – quoting Justice Alito. The court ruling, as Fitton describes, means “your decision of president can be overrun and thwarted by a district attorney in a land far, far away from you, accountable to virtually no one practically speaking.” 

“Justice Alito got it right,” Fitton continues. Here’s what the Justice stated in his dissent:

The scenario apparently contemplated by the District Court is striking. If a sitting President were charged in New York County, would he be arrested and fingerprinted? … This entire imagined scene is farcical. The “right of all the People to a functioning government” would be sacrificed. Does anyone really think, in a country where common crimes are usually brought before state grand juries by state prosecutors, that it is feasible to subject the president—and thus the country—to every district attorney with a reckless mania for self-promotion?”

In fact, establishing this new precedent which allows for the “harassment” of an elected president “runs into the constitutional system of government we have,” Fitton affirms. “District Attorneys run for office, they’re politicians,” he continues. “The president’s tax returns have already been reviewed. This is all political.” In conclusion, “the president needs to be president and can’t be bothered and harassed by the investigations of political hacks in local district attorneys.” 

Support Judicial Watch today to uphold the rule of law and defend our constitutional system. 

The post SCOTUS’ Tax Return Ruling & the Harassment of the Presidency appeared first on Judicial Watch.