Start News Comprehensive investigation into Trump’s financial records

Comprehensive investigation into Trump’s financial records

tiburi / Pixabay

The Manhattan prosecutor’s office continues to insist on the inspection of US President Donald Trump’s financial records. She is apparently hoping for evidence of possible insurance and bank fraud by Trump’s company and employees there, according to a letter from prosecutor Cyrus Vance to a court yesterday.

So far, it has been known that investigations by Vance’s authority revolved around alleged hush money payments that Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen is said to have paid to porn star Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) and former Playmate Karen McDougal. Both women claim to have had affairs with Trump, which he denies.

In his letter, the prosecutor did not explicitly explain the subject and the aim of his investigation. However, he rejected Trump’s lawyers‘ assumption that the investigation was limited to the alleged hush money payments. „Undisputed“ media reports about „potentially extensive and lengthy criminal behavior at the Trump organization“ made it clear that his authority had a legal basis to request financial documents from Trump’s accountant Mazars, Vance said.

Trump lawyers: Subpoena issued with „malicious intent“

The prosecutor’s office had ordered Mazars to issue financial documents from Trump and his companies. Trump tries to prevent this and was drawn to the US Supreme Court in the legal dispute. The Supreme Court ruled in early July that the President was not exempt from the obligation to provide evidence in criminal proceedings when requested to do so. In doing so, the court basically granted the Manhattan prosecutor the right to inspect financial documents as part of an investigation. The details now have to be clarified in the lower instance.

Trump’s lawyers had asked a New York court last week to prevent the prosecutor from executing the punitive order to provide Trump’s financial records. The Subpoena was „incredibly comprehensive“ and „with malicious intent“, they argued.