Trump Takes Tax Fight To The Supreme Court; Texas Appeals Court Block Rodney Reed Execution.
BLACKWELL: Welcome back. 35 minutes after the hour now. President Trump, he wants to take his fight to keep his financial record secret to the Supreme Court. Now, the president is trying to block Mazars from complying with a subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney's Office, and also, from Congress, getting his tax returns from the Treasury Department. Just yesterday, the president's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to put a hold on an appeals court ruling allowing congressional subpoena to move forward while they wait for the court to weigh in. Now, the president's lawyers argue that "Given the temptation to dig up dirt on political rivals, intrusive subpoenas into personal lives of presidents will become our new normal in times of divided government no matter which party is in power. All right, CNN Legal Analyst, Elie Honig is back with us. Let's start here, Elie. Are these cases that you expect that the Supreme Court will have to take up or can they just let the lower court decision stand?</s>HONIG: So, the Supreme Court does not have to take any case that they get to decide which cases they take. They're very sparing in which cases they do take. They take a very low percentage, usually under five percent of the cases presented to them. On the one hand, these cases obviously are vast significance -- constitutional significance. They have to do with the balance of powers and the balance between state and federal authorities. So, they're the kind of weighty issues that the Supreme Court likes to take. On the other hand, the Supreme Court looks for cases that A, are close calls, and B, are disputed, where we have different outcomes in different geographic regions of the country. And neither of those apply here. So, I think it's a close call whether the Supreme Court takes either of these cases. And if the court does not take them, then the rulings of the court appeals stand and the tax returns go over to either the D.A. or Congress, depending on which of the two cases we're talking about.</s>BLACKWELL: OK, so, let's split them up. Let's start here with the New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance. He's investigating whether the president or his employees failed or falsified, I should say, business records to hide these alleged payments to Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal. Would it be customary for the court to, through their decisions, deny a grand jury evidence like this?</s>HONIG: No. Traditionally, prosecutors like the Manhattan D.A. have very strong, very broad subpoena authority. As a prosecutor, all you have to show if you're issuing a subpoena is just some nugget, some kernel of information to think that it could be relevant to a criminal investigation. So, I don't think I ever had a subpoena suppressed or blocked in 14 years as a prosecutor. So, prosecutors have an awful lot of leeway in what their -- what they subpoenaed -- it's necessary for the criminal process. So, it is quite rare for courts to step in and block them.</s>BLACKWELL: Yes. So, in this case, I want to be clear that the president is not the subject of the subpoena.</s>HONIG: Right.</s>BLACKWELL: It's his accounting firm, Mazars. So, the president's legal team in their petition, they wrote this. "That the grand jury subpoena was issued to a third-party custodian it does not alter the calculus. If it did, every local prosecutor in the country could easily circumvent presidential immunity." Of course, that broad presidential immunity that his attorneys are claiming is at the center of this case. What do you think?</s>HONIG: Yes. So, actually, the fact that the D.A. issued the subpoena to a third party to Mazars, actually helped the D.A. in court. Because the court said, President Trump, you're not even part of this. This is between a prosecutor and a bank and accounting firm. President -- and the president here is making the argument, well, if that's the case, then, D.A.'s can get whatever information they want by not going to the person whose taxes it is, but by going to the accounting firm. And I think the answer is that's life, that's how it goes. If a bank has your records, then we can subpoena the bank -- we, prosecutors, can subpoena the bank for those records.</s>BLACKWELL: Yes, and apparently, if Congress wants personal records or the tax records of an individual, the Treasury shall -- according to the law, shall furnish those. So, there's that law in the book for the second case here. And the court typically recognizes Congress's broad investigative authority. What's your expectation in that case?</s>HONIG: Yes, Victor, I think that one's going to go Congress's way. As you said, the statute is very clear here. Shall means shall, it means this is not optional. It doesn't mean shall, but only in circumstances. And I think the broad lesson coming out of both of these cases, Victor, is that Congress and prosecutors have very broad authority to, at least, investigate not just -- well, not just any person, but the president. And the president, there are some ways that the president does get special treatment under our Constitution. But, this argument that the president has been advancing of, I can't even be investigated while on office, the courts have firmly rejected that.</s>BLACKWELL: All right. We'll see what happens. Elie Honig, thanks so much.</s>HONIG: Thanks, Victor.</s>PAUL: Well, he was set to be executed really in just a few days at this point. After more than 20 years on death row, Rodney Reed's case is getting a second look now. What happens in his fight to prove he's innocent now? That's next.