Thread by @KlasfeldReports

Good morning from New York.

Trump’s attorneys go to court this morning to try to block subpoenas from Manhattan D.A. Cy Vance, in a case testing a sweeping assertion of executive power.

Covering it live at 9:30am for @CourthouseNews.

Background: courthousenews.com/no-tax-return-…

@CourthouseNews ICYMI: Last night, SDNY prosecutors filed an unusual motion stating they might support Trump's federalism arguments in this case.

Some ex-prosecutors from that district publicly reacted with surprise and criticism.

Doc: documentcloud.org/documents/6428…

Story: courthousenews.com/federal-prosec…

@CourthouseNews Prominent SDNY alum who sounded off on the district's surprising move in the Trump v. Vance case include @Mimirocah1, @eliehonig and @HarrySandick.

We'll see what, if anything, we'll learn about the development today.

@CourthouseNews @Mimirocah1 @eliehonig @HarrySandick The hearing is beginning and the attorneys are introducing themselves.

@CourthouseNews @Mimirocah1 @eliehonig @HarrySandick U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero starts things off by speaking about the SDNY letter he received last night in support of the temporary restraining order.

@CourthouseNews @Mimirocah1 @eliehonig @HarrySandick Vance assistant: "We did receive a statement. We were surprised to receive the statement last night."

He notes that it seeks a stay of three weeks.

He says that they "question" whether SDNY should be allowed to chime in at the "11th hour."

@CourthouseNews @Mimirocah1 @eliehonig @HarrySandick ADA Solomon Shinerock: "The statement [from SDNY] does not change our position."

@CourthouseNews @Mimirocah1 @eliehonig @HarrySandick Marrero lays out how the hearing will go forward and describes what the case is about.

"I note that the tax records and perhaps other financial documents... relate to years going back to 2011," the judge notes, pointing out that it's well before the Trump presidency.

@CourthouseNews @Mimirocah1 @eliehonig @HarrySandick Marrero lays out second issue: "Another set of issues implicate issues of federalism and comity."

Federalism vs. state law.

He asks Trump's attorneys to address precedent that federal judges should respect state proceedings.

@CourthouseNews @Mimirocah1 @eliehonig @HarrySandick Marrero notes that the DA's office notes that Trump's trying to insulate third parties.

He says the President's request rests on a claim "absolutely immunity" that extends not only to him but his private financial affairs and third parties.

@CourthouseNews @Mimirocah1 @eliehonig @HarrySandick Pointing out that Trump claim's absolute immunity from the criminal process, the judge asks a key question: "What is the definition of 'criminal process'?"

What does it encompass?

Marrero notes that the Supreme Court rejected a claim of absolute privilege in the Nixon case.

Trump's lawyer: "We are not here this morning seeking a permanent resolution of this dispute."

He wants a temporarily restraining order, and more broadly, an "orderly process" that gives Trump "a reasonable chance to appeal" any decision that might "alter the status quo."

Trump's attorney says that Vance's probe "perfectly parallels" multiple house investigations.

That this is a coincidence, he says, "is difficult to accept."

The Trump attorney appears to be William Consovoy, but will double check later.

Moving on...

Trump's attorney casts their claim as "temporary immunity" that exists only "while in office."

"That is a job for Congress through its impeachment power, if it so chooses to exercise it," he says, blasting "idea that New York or any state" could indict a sitting president.

Trump's attorney tackles U.S. v. Nixon, which he says was about a "general confidentiality privilege."

"I don't believe U.S. v. Nixon supports that position," he says.

Trump attorney: "The president has experienced from the New York Legislature amendment of state law specifically to target him," referring obliquely, it seems, to the tax return and double-jeopardy statutes.

Marrero presses him on the Clinton precedent.

"Far from being above the laws, the president is amenable to them" in his capacity as a citizen, the judge says, summarizing that precedent.

Trump's lawyer distinguishes this from the Clinton case because that was a civil action.

Marrero interjects that it's unclear that Vance is advancing a criminal probe of Trump.

Trump's attorney replies if there isn't, he would like to hear it.

Marrero adds of Trump's businesses: "What do the businesses have to do with the office of the presidency?"

Team Trump says that it's important that it be seen that the president "has the support of the nation."

Marrero, making a hypothetical: Assume that one of the businesses falsified taxes before Trump's presidency. Would those businesses be immune?

Trump's attorney says that if it were clear that Vance just happened to be investigating the businesses.

... it might be another story.

Marrero also asks about how their temporary immunity fares with statute of limitations issues.

Trump's attorney calls it an open question. "It's possible we could agree to toll."

Earlier, Trump's attorney call the balance of having presidential immunity from such investigations the cost of having a "unitary executive."

If Vance can do this, he says, "All 50 states can do this."

"That is untenable," he adds.

Marrero hearkens back to the case of Aaron Burr. Was it tenable to prosecute a vice president?

Trump's attorney gets into the weeds of the state prosecutions for shooting Alexander Hamilton, before saying it's different because the country can exist without a vice president.

Trump's attorney claims that the president has a "confidentiality right with his accountants."

One of Vance's subpoenas went to accounting firm Mazars.

Judge Marrero quotes this passage from Justice Jackson.

ADA Solomon Shinerock up to deliver arguments for Vance's side.

"The reason for our urgency rests on two concerns. First there is a sitting grand jury that is impeded in its duties" by this litigation.

Shinerock: "Our very presence here in an official capacity... offends" the principle of comity for state prosecutors.

He says the subpoena "certainly calls" for docs that pertain "both to the president and a variety of third parties and individuals."

Shinerock takes on the insinuation that the DA's office coordinated with House committees: "I have had no contact with that committee in this litigation or any other."

Shinerock: "We have addressed in the brief the questions of the broad presidential immunity that has been claimed by the plaintiff in this case."

He argues that the decision should rest entirely on the Younger abstention, that is, federal respect for state investigations.

Shinerock says that New York courts present an adequate forum for the litigation of any constitutional issues.

"We've demonstrated the bona fides of our grand jury investigation," he adds, slamming "unfounded" speculation about it by Trump's legal team.

Judge Marrero asks Shinerock about a Supreme Court precedent on the so-called Younger abstention issue on federal respect for state law: Sprint v. Jacobs.

It was a case where the unanimous court found it didn't apply.

Shinerock notes that the Trump Organization already complied in part with the DAs investigation, and others, questions why Trump's attorneys only made these immunity claims now.

Marrero addresses an earlier point about the urgency of moving ahead with the subpoenas now, the key issue with Trump's request for a restraining order.

"To what extent is the grand jury sitting on its hands" because this case is pending.

Shinerock, after consulting with his colleagues on its status, affirms that the grand jury's "work is impeded to some degree" even if they can probe other matters.

But that's not the issue, he says.

"They need to show an extraordinary need for immediate equitable relief," Shinerock said, referring to Trump's legal team. "They fail to meet that burden."

Trump's attorney William Consovoy's back up:

District Attorney concedes that the president is a "target" and the issues are "tricky."

He adds that the DA did not say that the president has an avenue for relief.

Tackling the Nixon precedent, Consovoy says: "The reason that we have guidance from the Supreme Court in Nixon, is that the subpoena was stayed."

He notes that there's a 1 p.m. deadline for a subpoena.

Vance assistant: "What they're looking for today is additional delay... Some temporary immunity for however long."

"What that means if they get further delay is they win and we lose."

Vance assistant: "We just want to go home and do our grand jury work."

Marrero asks whether that work would be impeded if he issued a stay for 10 days or so.

Vance assistant: "There's no such thing as a motion to have the government cogitate."

Vance assistant: "The real game plan is to take a stay whenever possible."

At every stage, they will appeal and seek a stay at the

"They are envisioning an at least monthlong or longer process."

Consovoy: I think what I heard the District Attorney stay is that we have to hurry here because we need to indict the president while he's in office.

Vance assistant says the probe is of a "variety" of parties.

Marrero: "Assuming we were to agree that a short stay would be appropriate..."

"What if we agree that the U.S. Attorney should be able to have, let's say, Monday" to submit their position.

Vance assistant: "My fear is that this will be extended again and again."

Vance assistant skewers threat of harm to Trump of the "submission of confidential materials to a confidential grand jury to be held in secret."

He calls that as fanciful as notion that the Southern District of New York can be "annexed by Ukraine."

Marrero asks Trump's attorneys whether they can't agree to allow subpoenas for info related to third parties while they litigate tax returns and other materials related to the president.

Consovoy goes on tangent.

Marrerro: "You're not answering my question."

Consovoy says he'd have to consult with his client.

"It's impossible for me to negotiate in open court," he says, adding he'd be happy to meet and discuss reaching a "middle ground."

ADA: "They can't be in a position to dictate to us what is too close to their client," adding that he doubts negotiations would be fruitful.

Marrero says it might be more fruitful with a court-appointed magistrate.

ADA: Right now, we're in the very early stage of wanting to review materials.

Consovoy: "We've offered to meet and negotiate... The district attorney does not want to discuss it."

Marrero compares the process he's envisioning to the discovery dispute in the Michael Cohen case.

ADA: I'm aware of that case, and I'll comply with any process the court puts in place.

Marrero asks whether the ADA would be willing to stay the subpoena until next week to give the SDNY U.S. Attorney's office a chance to submit their position, maintaining the status quo.

"Also, if you can agree on some form of rolling disclosure," on matters that don't implicate Trump's privileges, to accommodate interests by both parties.

ADA Dunne says he'll comply with court's order.

Marrero interjects he's trying not to order but reach agreement.

Dunne replies that his position is it doesn't belong in federal court.

Marrero asks whether that means DA's office might appeal if he issues that order.

Dunne says the DA might consider that.

BREAKING

Marrero: "I am inclined to grant the U.S. Attorney's office to grant a few days" until Monday.

SDNY's 11th hour entry appears to have been deciding factor.

@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews Marrero then throws a curveball: the subpoena is only stayed by "one day."

If parties don't resolve by then, parties will come back to court tomorrow to decide what to do by U.S. Attorney's deadline.

The subpoena is stayed, for now, but Marrero says that he's not inclined to drag this out.

He tells the parties to go home, "sober up," and try to find some way to accommodate the concerns of both sides.

Here's my roundup of what happened in the subpoena-fight hearing for @CourthouseNews.

In short, Trump and SDNY (in the same corner) get some breathing room, though less than they wanted. Michael Cohen-style discovery dispute may be coming.
courthousenews.com/trump-gets-bri…

@CourthouseNews Just filed in Trump v. Vance:

A letter from Trump's accounting firm Mazars saying, essentially, that they don't have a dog in this fight and don't take a position in the litigation.

Look for another update to the story later in the day.