The New York Times reported this weekend that Vance is considering filing charges against the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer, Allen H. Weisselberg. The first — but likely not the last — set of charges concerning Trump’s financial dealings may come as early as this week. These opening charges appear to center on the organization’s alleged failure to pay taxes on fringe benefits, a seemingly mild offense.
However, the reaction from Trump’s lawyers suggests they understand the peril their client may face. The Times reports: “At a meeting with senior officials with the Manhattan district attorney’s office and the New York State attorney general’s office, defense lawyers pointed to the harm that the business, the Trump Organization, could face if it were indicted, including damage to its relationships with banks and business partners, the people said.” Whatever the initial charges, any felony charge against a corporation may produce extreme financial complications, which is exactly why Trump’s lawyers are so frantic to stave off any charges.
Moreover, if one understands that the opening suit is an attempt to ratchet up pressure on Weisselberg to cooperate with investigators, the charges in and of themselves may be less significant than what follows. A recent Brookings Institution report details how this may pan out, identifying an array of serious charges that, depending on the evidence, could ensnare Trump. This could include any alleged falsification of business records (such as hush-money payments made to Stormy Daniels, with whom Trump had an affair), tax fraud, bank and insurance fraud, and enterprise fraud (a sort of RICO charge for involvement in a criminal enterprise).
The authors of the Brookings report also address a number of potential defenses Trump might raise. He may assert lack of criminal intent, argue any misrepresentations were not material and attempt to deflect blame, but as the report explains, “New York law does provide that a corporation may be held criminally liable for the criminal behavior of senior executives acting within the scope of their employment or on the behalf of the corporation, although it does not prevent prosecutors from also criminally prosecuting a high managerial agent in his personal capacity.”
The strength of Vance’s case depends entirely on the facts, but the Brookings authors leave little doubt that serious charges are at issue and, indeed, provide a road map for prosecutors, as well as the rationale. Vance himself has publicly stated that no one is above the law. The report concurs: “That principle strongly suggests that if there is powerful evidence of substantial wrongdoing to secure personal advantage — evidence of the sort that would plainly cause others to be held to account — it should lead to prosecution even in the unusual case of a former president, his company, and its employees.”
The report concedes that Trump and his enablers will claim any prosecution is political. However, state prosecutors may be the best situated to proceed: “As the lead law enforcement officials in the locale where Trump has for decades centered his business dealings, they bear the greatest public responsibility for the integrity of the law enforcement process as it concerns nearly all of the dealings apparently at issue. … We think that the ability of state authorities to engage on the unique facts of this situation is a great strength of our federal system.”
There is another factor that should compel Vance to consider the full range of available charges: The Justice Department has shown zero interest in holding Trump accountable for any offense — whether that is the attempted obstruction of justice laid out in the Mueller report; his effort to pressure Georgia election officials to “find” just enough votes to flip the state’s results; or his incitement to riot or commit insurrection on Jan. 6. Though Attorney General Merrick Garland may want to appear above the fray and avoid accusations of prosecutorial abuse, the refusal to bring meritorious charges against a former president sets a terrible precedent, encouraging future presidents to engage in misconduct.
In sum, the potential New York financial charges could be the only ones ever to be brought against Trump. The principle that no one is above the law therefore depends entirely on the judgment of New York state and city prosecutors. Building a case brick by brick may take time, but in laying the foundation with initial charges against Weisselberg and the Trump Organization, Vance preserves the opportunity to hold Trump accountable.
"Opinion" - Google News
June 29, 2021 at 11:14PM
https://ift.tt/3w3KBSj
Opinion | New York prosecutors must follow the facts as far as they go - The Washington Post
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment