Trump complains of 'political prosecution' after SCOTUS rulings on financial records

President TrumpDonald John TrumpBiden to nominate Linda Thomas-Greenfield for UN ambassador: reports Scranton dedicates 'Joe Biden Way' to honor president-elect Kasich: Republicans 'either in complete lockstep' or 'afraid' of Trump MORE on Thursday complained that he was being treated unfairly and subject to “political prosecution” after the Supreme Court ruled that New York state prosecutors could subpoena his financial records while blocking Democrats from accessing his tax returns for the time being.

In a series of tweets, Trump also repeated his long-held grievances regarding former special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) MuellerCNN's Toobin warns McCabe is in 'perilous condition' with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting The Hill's 12:30 Report: New Hampshire fallout MORE’s investigation into his campaign’s contacts with Russia, which dogged the first two years of his presidency and ensnared six of his associates. He lambasted the investigation as a “witch hunt” and accused the previous administration of “spying” on his campaign.

“The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!” Trump tweeted Thursday, less than a half-hour after the rulings were issued.


“Courts in the past have given ‘broad deference’. BUT NOT ME!” Trump tweeted.

The justices in a 7-2 ruling upheld a subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. for eight years of Trump’s financial records, including personal and corporate tax returns. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by the liberal justices and Justices Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughCOVID-19: Justice Alito overstepped judicial boundaries Defusing the judicial confirmation process The magnificent moderation of Susan Collins MORE and Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchCOVID-19: Justice Alito overstepped judicial boundaries Defusing the judicial confirmation process Reinvesting in American leadership MORE, both of whom Trump nominated to the bench.

The justices rejected Trump’s claim of “absolute immunity” in the ongoing criminal investigation in New York state led by Vance.

In the second ruling, the Supreme Court blocked House Democrats’ subpoena for Trump’s tax returns, sending the matter back to the lower courts for more consideration of the separation of powers issues related to the congressional subpoena for information belonging to the president. The ruling means that Democrats will not obtain Trump’s financial records for the time being.

In both cases, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined the majorities and fellow conservative Justices Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasDefusing the judicial confirmation process Will the Supreme Court take ObamaCare off life-support? The overlooked significance Kamala Harris brought to the Biden-Harris ticket MORE and Samuel AlitoSamuel AlitoAlito to far-right litigants: The buffet is open No thank you, Dr. Fauci COVID-19: Justice Alito overstepped judicial boundaries MORE dissented.

As the president expressed his dissatisfaction, his personal attorney Jay SekulowJay Alan SekulowBiden faces politically thorny decision on Trump prosecutions Trump cannot block grand jury subpoena for his tax returns, court rules Now, we need the election monitors MORE welcomed the twin rulings, saying Trump’s lawyers planned to raise additional constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts.

“We are pleased that in the decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the President’s financial records,” Sekulow tweeted. “We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts.”