United States: Attorney Authorized to Access Donald Trump's Tax Returns

A federal judge in New York on Monday authorized the Manhattan attorney's access to Donald Trump's tax returns. The American president, who cultivates a great discretion on his fiscal situation, has been fighting for months against the communication of these documents.

Attorney Cyrus Vance wanted to obtain these statements Mazars firm in the context of an investigation into a payment made to the pornographic actress Stormy Daniels. It claims that the US president wanted to buy his silence on a supposed link that would have lasted from 2006 to 2007.

The president's lawyer, Jay Sekulow, indicates that Donald Trump will appeal the decision, which should delay the possible transfer to court of these documents.

"Democrats of the radical left have failed on all fronts, so now they are pushing Democratic prosecutors in New York (…) to pick up President Trump," responded the Republican billionaire on Twitter.

"Something like that has never happened to any (American) president before," he adds. Far from it ! "

Judicial immunity

On appeal, Donald Trump will seek in particular to assert the judicial immunity related to his function, which should allow him, he said, to block any request concerning him, even if it would have been made to a third party, the firm Mazars, which deals with his tax affairs, not himself.

In his highly argued, 75-page decision, Federal Judge Victor Marrero believes that this immunity "can not protect the president from any legal proceedings" or "place him above the law".

"Rogue", "cheater": Trump's former lawyer charges US president

The Doctrine of the Ministry of Justice, formalized in a memo dated 2000, wants that a president of the United States in exercise can not be pursued criminally because that would undermine, against the spirit of the Constitution, the capacity of the executive to perform his functions as defined by the Constitution ".

But Judge Marrero observes that this doctrine has never been formally tested in judicial proceedings, and that a blur remains. He also mentioned the arguments of some jurists that immunity would be valid for acts carried out in the framework of the presidential office, but not for others, particularly those carried out before being elected.