theintercept--2020-10-15--Trump Boasts About Federal Task Force Killing Anti-Fascist Wanted for Murder in Portland

at a campaign rally in North Carolina on Thursday , the president of the United States boasted about federal agents killing an anti-fascist activist suspected of murdering one of his supporters in Portland , Oregon this summer , calling the suspect ’ s death without trial an example of his leadership .
“ We sent in the U.S.
Marshals , ” President Donald Trump said proudly of the federal task force that killed the suspect , Michael Reinoehl .
“ Took 15 minutes , it was over , ” he added .
“ We got him.
” It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken credit for the killing of Reinoehl , a self-described “ 100 % ANTIFA ” activist who was gunned down on September 3 , hours after Portland ’ s district attorney had indicted him for murder in the fatal shooting of Aaron J. Danielson , a right-wing activist , five days earlier , after a raucous pro-Trump car caravan .
Trump had bragged about the killing to Fox News last month , saying in an interview , “ the U.S .
Marshals killed him , and I ’ ll tell you something — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be .
There has to be retribution.
” Reinoehl was in fact killed by local officers in Washington state who were deputized as federal agents as part of a fugitive task force led by United States Marshals .
Multiple witnesses have come forward in recent weeks to dispute the claim from officers that they fired on Reinoehl instead of trying to arrest him because he pointed a gun at them .
The president ’ s latest comments stirred particular outrage online because video snippets from his rambling , only somewhat coherent monologue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who told reporters for The Oregonian , The New York Times , Oregon Public Broadcasting , and ProPublica that the officers had fired on Reinoehl without attempting to detain him .
A spokesman for the Thurston County Sheriff ’ s office in Washington , which is running a criminal homicide investigation into the suspect ’ s death , told The Oregonian on Tuesday that officers found a loaded handgun in Reinoehl ’ s front pocket , and his hand on or near the gun , after he was fatally shot .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s remarks on Thursday , posted on Twitter by Acyn Torabi , was viewed more than 3 million times , but showed just the last 17 seconds of Trump ’ s meandering , minute-long diatribe .
While there is no doubt that Trump did praise federal deputies for killing Reinoehl — as part of a riff about how quickly agents under his command could put an end to violence from left-wing activists — the full video of his remarks shows that the president appeared to be saying , in his own , fractured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced to intervene because local officials in Portland , who are Democrats , “ didn ’ t want to arrest him.
” In the abbreviated version of the video that went viral , it seemed to many viewers as if the president had said the U.S .
Marshals “ didn ’ t want to arrest him , ” and that he was endorsing an extrajudicial execution .
“ The Democrats smear decent Americans as racists , slander our nation as evil , indoctrinate our children and incite anti-American riots on our streets that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we did in Minneapolis , as we do wherever we go , but they have to invite us in , by law they have to invite us in , ” Trump told fans at the start of the remarks in Greenville , North Carolina on Thursday .
“ We want to go to Portland so bad , that one would take 15 minutes to set , 15 minutes , ” he added .
“ And the man that shot another innocent man , ” he continued , referring to Reinoehl .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed , instantly killed .
I said , ‘ What happened ?
’ ‘ Well , we haven ’ t arrested him , ' ” the president said , recounting an almost certainly imaginary conversation with Portland officials .
“ Two days , three days went by , ” Trump continued , describing the period during which Portland ’ s district attorney was , in fact , compiling enough evidence against Reinoehl for an indictment — including clear security camera images of the shooting .
“ We sent in the U.S .
Marshals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — 15 minutes it was over , we got him , ” Trump said .
“ They knew who he was , they didn ’ t want to arrest him .
In 15 minutes , that ended , ” the president said .
“ Anywhile , ” he added , slurring his words , “ they call themselves ‘ peaceful protesters . '
” Trump had leveled the same accusation against Portland officials the day that Reinoehl was killed .
Writing on Twitter that night , the president complained that the suspect had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video of the shooting and an apparent confession from Reinoehl himself in a television interview with Vice News .
When he posted that tweet , about 11:40 p.m. Eastern time , Trump was apparently unaware that Reinoehl was already dead .
The fugitive task force had moved in on the suspect almost two hours earlier , acting on a warrant for his arrest on a charge of second-degree murder obtained that day by Portland ’ s progressive prosecutor , Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt .
While Trump has subsequently suggested that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his tweet , the timing of when it was posted suggests that he was not in the loop on its actions .
The president ’ s tweet was not even posted until 13 minutes after the news of Reinoehl ’ s death had been reported by The New York Times .
In a statement the next morning , Attorney General William Barr expressed no qualms about the killing of the suspect , claiming that he had “ produced a firearm , ” and offering praise for the federal task force “ that located @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
”

In chilling remarks at a campaign rally in North Carolina on Thursday, the president of the United States boasted about federal agents killing an anti-fascist activist suspected of murdering one of his supporters in Portland, Oregon this summer, calling the suspect’s death without trial an example of his leadership.
“We sent in the U.S. Marshals,” President Donald Trump said proudly of the federal task force that killed the suspect, Michael Reinoehl. “Took 15 minutes, it was over,” he added. “We got him.”
"We got him," the president of the United States says proudly about the killing of a fugitive witnesses say federal deputies made no attempt to arrest before gunning down. pic.twitter.com/vdwXpRRbh2 — Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) October 15, 2020
It’s not the first time that Trump has taken credit for the killing of Reinoehl, a self-described “100% ANTIFA” activist who was gunned down on September 3, hours after Portland’s district attorney had indicted him for murder in the fatal shooting of Aaron J. Danielson, a right-wing activist, five days earlier, after a raucous pro-Trump car caravan.
Trump had bragged about the killing to Fox News last month, saying in an interview, “the U.S. Marshals killed him, and I’ll tell you something — that’s the way it has to be. There has to be retribution.”
Reinoehl was in fact killed by local officers in Washington state who were deputized as federal agents as part of a fugitive task force led by United States Marshals. Multiple witnesses have come forward in recent weeks to dispute the claim from officers that they fired on Reinoehl instead of trying to arrest him because he pointed a gun at them.
The president’s latest comments stirred particular outrage online because video snippets from his rambling, only somewhat coherent monologue suggested that he agreed with the witnesses, who told reporters for The Oregonian, The New York Times, Oregon Public Broadcasting, and ProPublica that the officers had fired on Reinoehl without attempting to detain him.
A spokesman for the Thurston County Sheriff’s office in Washington, which is running a criminal homicide investigation into the suspect’s death, told The Oregonian on Tuesday that officers found a loaded handgun in Reinoehl’s front pocket, and his hand on or near the gun, after he was fatally shot.
One widely shared excerpt from the president’s remarks on Thursday, posted on Twitter by Acyn Torabi, was viewed more than 3 million times, but showed just the last 17 seconds of Trump’s meandering, minute-long diatribe.
Trump: We sent in the US Marshals, took 15 minutes and it was over… They knew who he was, they didn’t want to arrest him and 15 minutes that ended pic.twitter.com/fJA5BsJVeF — Acyn (@Acyn) October 15, 2020
While there is no doubt that Trump did praise federal deputies for killing Reinoehl — as part of a riff about how quickly agents under his command could put an end to violence from left-wing activists — the full video of his remarks shows that the president appeared to be saying, in his own, fractured way, that the federal government was forced to intervene because local officials in Portland, who are Democrats, “didn’t want to arrest him.”
In the abbreviated version of the video that went viral, it seemed to many viewers as if the president had said the U.S. Marshals “didn’t want to arrest him,” and that he was endorsing an extrajudicial execution.
“The Democrats smear decent Americans as racists, slander our nation as evil, indoctrinate our children and incite anti-American riots on our streets that we could control in 25 minutes — as we did in Minneapolis, as we do wherever we go, but they have to invite us in, by law they have to invite us in,” Trump told fans at the start of the remarks in Greenville, North Carolina on Thursday. “We want to go to Portland so bad, that one would take 15 minutes to set, 15 minutes,” he added.
“And the man that shot another innocent man,” he continued, referring to Reinoehl. “This was an innocent man shot, killed, instantly killed. I said, ‘What happened?’ ‘Well, we haven’t arrested him,'” the president said, recounting an almost certainly imaginary conversation with Portland officials.
“Two days, three days went by,” Trump continued, describing the period during which Portland’s district attorney was, in fact, compiling enough evidence against Reinoehl for an indictment — including clear security camera images of the shooting. “We sent in the U.S. Marshals: took 15 minutes it was over — 15 minutes it was over, we got him,” Trump said.
“They knew who he was, they didn’t want to arrest him. In 15 minutes, that ended,” the president said. “Anywhile,” he added, slurring his words, “they call themselves ‘peaceful protesters.'”
Trump had leveled the same accusation against Portland officials the day that Reinoehl was killed. Writing on Twitter that night, the president complained that the suspect had not been arrested yet, despite witness video of the shooting and an apparent confession from Reinoehl himself in a television interview with Vice News.
Why aren’t the Portland Police ARRESTING the cold blooded killer of Aaron “Jay” Danielson. Do your job, and do it fast. Everybody knows who this thug is. No wonder Portland is going to hell! @TheJusticeDept @FBI — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2020
When he posted that tweet, about 11:40 p.m. Eastern time, Trump was apparently unaware that Reinoehl was already dead. The fugitive task force had moved in on the suspect almost two hours earlier, acting on a warrant for his arrest on a charge of second-degree murder obtained that day by Portland’s progressive prosecutor, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt.
While Trump has subsequently suggested that the task force was acting in response to his tweet, the timing of when it was posted suggests that he was not in the loop on its actions. The president’s tweet was not even posted until 13 minutes after the news of Reinoehl’s death had been reported by The New York Times.
In a statement the next morning, Attorney General William Barr expressed no qualms about the killing of the suspect, claiming that he had “produced a firearm,” and offering praise for the federal task force “that located Reinoehl and prevented him from escaping justice.”


theintercept--2020-10-18--Losing Could Expose Trump To Prosecution for Any Number of Crimes

Donald Trump loses on November 3 , it ’ s hard to imagine that he ’ ll ever be convicted of any crime , much less serve time in prison .
That ’ s because , first and foremost , no former U.S. president has ever seen the inside of a cell — and not because all presidents have faithfully followed the law .
Presidents accumulate huge favors owed , favors that they cash in , figuratively and literally , when they become former presidents .
On the modest end of the spectrum , 20 wealthy friends of Ronald Reagan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angeles , for him and Nancy to live in when he left office .
More significantly , ex-presidents receive political protection from their allies , as when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for anything whatsoever he ’ d done in office .
And beyond anything concrete that a president does for the factions that back him , those factions also strenuously oppose any consequences for their president ’ s actions for reasons of basic class solidarity .
If an ex-president can face consequences , that would suggest that people one step down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people at the top of U.S. society see consequences like Leona Helmsley saw taxes : They ’ re for the little people .
That said , stranger things than the prosecution of Trump have happened : for instance , Trump being elected president in the first place .
Trump is more vulnerable to prosecution than other presidents because he ’ s engaged in so many potential nontraditional presidential crimes .
With the invasion of Iraq , George W. Bush committed what the Nuremberg trials referred to as “ the supreme international crime ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But there was never any chance that he ’ d be punished for this , because the entire U.S. power structure agrees that American presidents have the right to do it .
Same for conducting thousands of drone strikes or torturing people around the globe .
By contrast , Trump has engaged in many comparatively small , shabby , possible criminal activities outside of his presidential duties .
Right now , Trump is protected from indictment under all federal laws because he ’ s president .
For decades , the Justice Department has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents ; former special counsel Robert Mueller agreed and explained that he never had the option to charge Trump because it would be unconstitutional .
And , whether or not this perspective is correct , Attorney General William Barr is a loyal hatchet man who would never take action against his patron .
It does seem , according to a recent Supreme Court ruling , that Trump could theoretically be indicted for violating state laws while in office .
In practice , however , that is extremely unlikely .
But if Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , much of his presidential shield will disintegrate .
He could try to pardon himself on the way out the door for all crimes he ’ s ever committed .
But no one knows whether presidents can do this , since none have ever tried ; in any case , it would only apply to violations of the federal code .
So let ’ s assume that Trump loses , he doesn ’ t pardon himself , and the state and federal justice systems suddenly become enthused like never before about treating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then become vulnerable to prosecution in the below ways we already know about — plus , in all likelihood , many , many others we don ’ t know about yet .
Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths not to release his taxes .
He also declared that any probing of his finances by Mueller would cross a “ red line.
” We now know that there ’ s a reason for his anxiety .
The U.S. tax code provides so many ways for billionaires — especially real estate developers — to legally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to illegally evade them .
But Trump appears to have been up to the challenge .
Tax fraud seems to be a family tradition for Trump .
The Trumps set up a company in 1992 owned by Trump , his siblings , and a cousin who apparently did nothing except siphon money from the real estate empire of Donald ’ s father , Fred Trump , into the company ’ s pockets .
This allowed Fred to shower his children with millions of dollars in gifts without having to pay any gift tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out on any potential crimes in that situation .
But the recent New York Times investigation of Trump ’ s taxes revealed that he appears to have set up similar gambits to pass money along to his children tax-free .
His company deducted $ 747,622 in “ consulting fees ” for Vancouver and Hawaii hotel projects .
Meanwhile , a consulting company co-owned by Ivanka Trump paid her exactly the same amount , even as she was an employee of Trump ’ s company .
Millions more in consulting fees flowed to unknown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were indeed the recipients of this money , it should be close to a slam dunk case of tax fraud : It is against the law to get consulting fees from a company you are employed by .
The Times also uncovered potential criminal conduct in Trump ’ s treatment of a huge estate he owns in Westchester County , New York , outside the city .
Trump claimed that it is an investment property rather than a personal residence , allowing him to write off property taxes as a business expense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has operated the estate as a business .
Then there ’ s the issue of Trump ’ s peculiar $ 50 million loan to himself , and whether Trump wrote off hush money payments as business expenses , and much more that ’ s already in the public domain .
A thorough state or federal investigation would almost certainly uncover even more dicey tax behavior .
All this is why Michael Cohen , Trump ’ s former fixer who himself has pleaded guilty to multiple counts of tax evasion , recently said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sitting president to go from the White House straight to prison.
” Cyrus Vance Jr. , the federal prosecutor for Manhattan , is currently investigating what his office calls “ possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization.
” Beyond Trump ’ s taxes , Vance appears to be probing whether Trump provided insurers and banks with false statements about his financial position in order to receive lower premiums and interest rates on loans .
In certain circumstances , this would be illegal .
Campaign finance law is complex and confusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it involves paying off your mistresses to keep quiet ( allegedly ) .
The $ 130,000 received by Stormy Daniels almost certainly counts as a contribution to Trump ’ s campaign .
But it was also totally legal for Trump to donate as much money as he wanted to his 2016 candidacy , thanks to a 1976 Supreme Court decision .
The Daniels hush money should have been kosher if Trump had sent her lawyer the money himself directly and disclosed the purpose of the payment in FEC filings .
( He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it as something like “ legal expenses.
” ) Instead , Trump used Michael Cohen as a conduit , and Cohen could not legally give the Trump campaign more than $ 5,400 .
Causing Cohen to do so , together with potential related offenses , could plausibly create legal jeopardy for Trump .
Even more serious is the issue of Trump ’ s $ 10 million donation to his campaign on October 28 , 2016 , in the campaign ’ s final days .
Trump was then surprisingly low on cash , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payment of $ 21 million from a Las Vegas hotel he co-owns with a friend and political supporter .
If this was not a legitimate payout , it could constitute an illegal campaign contribution .
In addition , according to a new CNN report , Mueller and others at the Justice Department investigated for years whether the $ 10 million may have been provided by an Egyptian bank — but the probe was closed this July without subpoenaing Trump ’ s financial records .
Trump famously does business around the world , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more sleazy business than in the U.S. , and bribes are routinely expected and paid .
However , thanks to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act , it is illegal for Americans to participate in this , which leads to complaints from U.S. businesspeople that they are at a disadvantage .
Andrew Weissmann , one of Mueller ’ s senior prosecutors , notes in a new book that , because the Mueller investigation did not dig into Trump ’ s finances , “ we do not know whether he paid bribes to foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business interests.
” Glenn Kirschner , a former federal prosecutor , argues that Trump can and should be prosecuted for negligent homicide for his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic .
This would be controversial , to say the least .
But Kirschner is a serious person who served in the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office for the District of Columbia for 24 years , eventually becoming chief of the homicide section .
While Mueller believed that presidents can not be charged while in office , his final report emphasized that “ a President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office.
” It was for this reason , he wrote , that “ we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
” After Mueller ’ s report was released , over 1,000 former federal prosecutors stated that if Trump were not president , his conduct as described by Mueller would “ result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
” It ’ s hard to imagine a Biden administration deciding to prosecute a former president .
But , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2019 that if she were elected president , “ I believe that [ the Justice Department ] would have no choice and that they should ” pursue obstruction of justice charges against Trump .
Last and perhaps most importantly , Trump could be impeached — again .
While impeachment is a political rather than a criminal process , it should be mentioned here because , if Trump were successfully convicted in the criminal justice system , it would make it far easier for him to be impeached again in the House and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate .
And , oddly , there ’ s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says presidents can ’ t be impeached after leaving office .
This would not be a pointless exercise in revenge with Trump but a wise prophylactic precaution .
The punishment prescribed by the Constitution for impeachment and conviction includes “ disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor , Trust or Profit under the United States.
” In other words , an impeached and convicted Trump could never run for president again .

Even if President Donald Trump loses on November 3, it’s hard to imagine that he’ll ever be convicted of any crime, much less serve time in prison.
That’s because, first and foremost, no former U.S. president has ever seen the inside of a cell — and not because all presidents have faithfully followed the law. Presidents accumulate huge favors owed, favors that they cash in, figuratively and literally, when they become former presidents. On the modest end of the spectrum, 20 wealthy friends of Ronald Reagan bought a mansion in Bel-Air, Los Angeles, for him and Nancy to live in when he left office. More significantly, ex-presidents receive political protection from their allies, as when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for anything whatsoever he’d done in office.
Presidents accumulate huge favors owed, favors that they cash in, when they become former presidents.
And beyond anything concrete that a president does for the factions that back him, those factions also strenuously oppose any consequences for their president’s actions for reasons of basic class solidarity. If an ex-president can face consequences, that would suggest that people one step down the power ladder could too. And the people at the top of U.S. society see consequences like Leona Helmsley saw taxes: They’re for the little people.
That said, stranger things than the prosecution of Trump have happened: for instance, Trump being elected president in the first place.
Trump is more vulnerable to prosecution than other presidents because he’s engaged in so many potential nontraditional presidential crimes. With the invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush committed what the Nuremberg trials referred to as “the supreme international crime” of initiating a war of aggression. But there was never any chance that he’d be punished for this, because the entire U.S. power structure agrees that American presidents have the right to do it. Same for conducting thousands of drone strikes or torturing people around the globe. By contrast, Trump has engaged in many comparatively small, shabby, possible criminal activities outside of his presidential duties.
Right now, Trump is protected from indictment under all federal laws because he’s president. For decades, the Justice Department has held that it cannot prosecute sitting presidents; former special counsel Robert Mueller agreed and explained that he never had the option to charge Trump because it would be unconstitutional. And, whether or not this perspective is correct, Attorney General William Barr is a loyal hatchet man who would never take action against his patron.
It does seem, according to a recent Supreme Court ruling, that Trump could theoretically be indicted for violating state laws while in office. In practice, however, that is extremely unlikely.
But if Trump is defeated and extracted from the Oval Office, much of his presidential shield will disintegrate. He could try to pardon himself on the way out the door for all crimes he’s ever committed. But no one knows whether presidents can do this, since none have ever tried; in any case, it would only apply to violations of the federal code.
So let’s assume that Trump loses, he doesn’t pardon himself, and the state and federal justice systems suddenly become enthused like never before about treating the ultra-powerful like the powerless. Trump would then become vulnerable to prosecution in the below ways we already know about — plus, in all likelihood, many, many others we don’t know about yet.
Tax Fraud
Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths not to release his taxes. He also declared that any probing of his finances by Mueller would cross a “red line.” We now know that there’s a reason for his anxiety. The U.S. tax code provides so many ways for billionaires — especially real estate developers — to legally avoid taxes that it takes real effort to illegally evade them. But Trump appears to have been up to the challenge.
Tax fraud seems to be a family tradition for Trump.
Tax fraud seems to be a family tradition for Trump. The Trumps set up a company in 1992 owned by Trump, his siblings, and a cousin who apparently did nothing except siphon money from the real estate empire of Donald’s father, Fred Trump, into the company’s pockets. This allowed Fred to shower his children with millions of dollars in gifts without having to pay any gift tax.
The statute of limitations has run out on any potential crimes in that situation. But the recent New York Times investigation of Trump’s taxes revealed that he appears to have set up similar gambits to pass money along to his children tax-free. His company deducted $747,622 in “consulting fees” for Vancouver and Hawaii hotel projects. Meanwhile, a consulting company co-owned by Ivanka Trump paid her exactly the same amount, even as she was an employee of Trump’s company. Millions more in consulting fees flowed to unknown persons. If Ivanka and her siblings were indeed the recipients of this money, it should be close to a slam dunk case of tax fraud: It is against the law to get consulting fees from a company you are employed by.
The Times also uncovered potential criminal conduct in Trump’s treatment of a huge estate he owns in Westchester County, New York, outside the city. Trump claimed that it is an investment property rather than a personal residence, allowing him to write off property taxes as a business expense. But there is little evidence that Trump has operated the estate as a business.
Then there’s the issue of Trump’s peculiar $50 million loan to himself, and whether Trump wrote off hush money payments as business expenses, and much more that’s already in the public domain. A thorough state or federal investigation would almost certainly uncover even more dicey tax behavior.
All this is why Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer who himself has pleaded guilty to multiple counts of tax evasion, recently said that Trump “may soon be the first sitting president to go from the White House straight to prison.”
Bank and Insurance Fraud
Cyrus Vance Jr., the district attorney for Manhattan, is currently investigating what his office calls “possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization.” Beyond Trump’s taxes, Vance appears to be probing whether Trump provided insurers and banks with false statements about his financial position in order to receive lower premiums and interest rates on loans. In certain circumstances, this would be illegal.
Photo: Corey Sipkin/AFP via Getty Images
Campaign Finance Violations
Campaign finance law is complex and confusing in the best of times but especially when it involves paying off your mistresses to keep quiet (allegedly). The $130,000 received by Stormy Daniels almost certainly counts as a contribution to Trump’s campaign. But it was also totally legal for Trump to donate as much money as he wanted to his 2016 candidacy, thanks to a 1976 Supreme Court decision. The Daniels hush money should have been kosher if Trump had sent her lawyer the money himself directly and disclosed the purpose of the payment in FEC filings. (He probably could have gotten away with classifying it as something like “legal expenses.”)
Campaign finance law is complex and confusing in the best of times but especially when it involves paying off your mistresses to keep quiet (allegedly).
Instead, Trump used Michael Cohen as a conduit, and Cohen could not legally give the Trump campaign more than $5,400. Causing Cohen to do so, together with potential related offenses, could plausibly create legal jeopardy for Trump.
Even more serious is the issue of Trump’s $10 million donation to his campaign on October 28, 2016, in the campaign’s final days. Trump was then surprisingly low on cash, and around this time he received an unusual payment of $21 million from a Las Vegas hotel he co-owns with a friend and political supporter. If this was not a legitimate payout, it could constitute an illegal campaign contribution. In addition, according to a new CNN report, Mueller and others at the Justice Department investigated for years whether the $10 million may have been provided by an Egyptian bank — but the probe was closed this July without subpoenaing Trump’s financial records.
Bribery
Trump famously does business around the world, including in countries where real estate is an even more sleazy business than in the U.S., and bribes are routinely expected and paid. However, thanks to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it is illegal for Americans to participate in this, which leads to complaints from U.S. businesspeople that they are at a disadvantage. Andrew Weissmann, one of Mueller’s senior prosecutors, notes in a new book that, because the Mueller investigation did not dig into Trump’s finances, “we do not know whether he paid bribes to foreign officials to secure favorable treatment for his business interests.”
Negligent Homicide
Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor, argues that Trump can and should be prosecuted for negligent homicide for his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. This would be controversial, to say the least. But Kirschner is a serious person who served in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia for 24 years, eventually becoming chief of the homicide section.
Obstruction of Justice
While Mueller believed that presidents cannot be charged while in office, his final report emphasized that “a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.” It was for this reason, he wrote, that “we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.”
After Mueller’s report was released, over 1,000 former federal prosecutors stated that if Trump were not president, his conduct as described by Mueller would “result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.” It’s hard to imagine a Biden administration deciding to prosecute a former president. But, on the other hand, Kamala Harris said in 2019 that if she were elected president, “I believe that [the Justice Department] would have no choice and that they should” pursue obstruction of justice charges against Trump.
Re-Impeachment
Last and perhaps most importantly, Trump could be impeached — again. While impeachment is a political rather than a criminal process, it should be mentioned here because, if Trump were successfully convicted in the criminal justice system, it would make it far easier for him to be impeached again in the House and then, unlike last time, convicted in the Senate.
And, oddly, there’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says presidents can’t be impeached after leaving office. This would not be a pointless exercise in revenge with Trump but a wise prophylactic precaution. The punishment prescribed by the Constitution for impeachment and conviction includes “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” In other words, an impeached and convicted Trump could never run for president again.
Correction: October 20, 2020
Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story mistakenly referred to Cyrus Vance Jr. as a federal prosecutor. The story has been updated to reflect that he is the district attorney for Manhattan.


theintercept--2020-10-18--Losing Could Expose Trump to Prosecution for Any Number of Crimes

President Donald Trump loses on November 3 , it ’ s hard to imagine that he ’ ll ever be convicted of any crime , much less serve time in prison .
That ’ s because , first and foremost , no former U.S. president has ever seen the inside of a cell — and not because all presidents have faithfully followed the law .
Presidents accumulate huge favors owed , favors that they cash in , figuratively and literally , when they become former presidents .
On the modest end of the spectrum , 20 wealthy friends of Ronald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Los Angeles , for him and Nancy to live in when he left office .
More significantly , ex-presidents receive political protection from their allies , as when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for anything whatsoever he ’ d done in office .
And beyond anything concrete that a president does for the factions that back him , those factions also strenuously oppose any consequences for their president ’ s actions for reasons of basic class solidarity .
If an ex-president can face consequences , that would suggest that people one step down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people at the top of U.S. society see consequences like Leona Helmsley saw taxes : They ’ re for the little people .
That said , stranger things than the prosecution of Trump have happened : for instance , Trump being elected president in the first place .
Trump is more vulnerable to prosecution than other presidents because he ’ s engaged in so many potential nontraditional presidential crimes .
With the invasion of Iraq , George W. Bush committed what the Nuremberg trials referred to as “ the supreme international crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But there was never any chance that he ’ d be punished for this , because the entire U.S. power structure agrees that American presidents have the right to do it .
Same for conducting thousands of drone strikes or torturing people around the globe .
By contrast , Trump has engaged in many comparatively small , shabby , possible criminal activities outside of his presidential duties .
Right now , Trump is protected from indictment under all federal laws because he ’ s president .
For decades , the Justice Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sitting presidents ; former special counsel Robert Mueller agreed and explained that he never had the option to charge Trump because it would be unconstitutional .
And , whether or not this perspective is correct , Attorney General William Barr is a loyal hatchet man who would never take action against his patron .
It does seem , according to a recent Supreme Court ruling , that Trump could theoretically be indicted for violating state laws while in office .
In practice , however , that is extremely unlikely .
But if Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office , much of his presidential shield will disintegrate .
He could try to pardon himself on the way out the door for all crimes he ’ s ever committed .
But no one knows whether presidents can do this , since none have ever tried ; in any case , it would only apply to violations of the federal code .
So let ’ s assume that Trump loses , he doesn ’ t pardon himself , and the state and federal justice systems suddenly become enthused like never before about treating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would then become vulnerable to prosecution in the below ways we already know about — plus , in all likelihood , many , many others we don ’ t know about yet .
Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths not to release his taxes .
He also declared that any probing of his finances by Mueller would cross a “ red line.
” We now know that there ’ s a reason for his anxiety .
The U.S. tax code provides so many ways for billionaires — especially real estate developers — to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to illegally evade them .
But Trump appears to have been up to the challenge .
Tax fraud seems to be a family tradition for Trump .
The Trumps set up a company in 1992 owned by Trump , his siblings , and a cousin who apparently did nothing except siphon money from the real estate empire of Donald ’ s father , Fred Trump , into the company ’ s pockets .
This allowed Fred to shower his children with millions of dollars in gifts without having to pay any gift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run out on any potential crimes in that situation .
But the recent New York Times investigation of Trump ’ s taxes revealed that he appears to have set up similar gambits to pass money along to his children tax-free .
His company deducted $ 747,622 in “ consulting fees ” for Vancouver and Hawaii hotel projects .
Meanwhile , a consulting company co-owned by Ivanka Trump paid her exactly the same amount , even as she was an employee of Trump ’ s company .
Millions more in consulting fees flowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ siblings were indeed the recipients of this money , it should be close to a slam dunk case of tax fraud : It is against the law to get consulting fees from a company you are employed by .
The Times also uncovered potential criminal conduct in Trump ’ s treatment of a huge estate he owns in Westchester County , New York , outside the city .
Trump claimed that it is an investment property rather than a personal residence , allowing him to write off property taxes as a business expense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has operated the estate as a business .
Then there ’ s the issue of Trump ’ s peculiar $ 50 million loan to himself , and whether Trump wrote off hush money payments as business expenses , and much more that ’ s already in the public domain .
A thorough state or federal investigation would almost certainly uncover even more dicey tax behavior .
All this is why Michael Cohen , Trump ’ s former fixer who himself has pleaded guilty to multiple counts of tax evasion , recently said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first sitting president to go from the White House straight to prison.
” Cyrus Vance Jr. , the district attorney for Manhattan , is currently investigating what his office calls “ possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization.
” Beyond Trump ’ s taxes , Vance appears to be probing whether Trump provided insurers and banks with false statements about his financial position in order to receive lower premiums and interest rates on loans .
In certain circumstances , this would be illegal .
Campaign finance law is complex and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially when it involves paying off your mistresses to keep quiet ( allegedly ) .
The $ 130,000 received by Stormy Daniels almost certainly counts as a contribution to Trump ’ s campaign .
But it was also totally legal for Trump to donate as much money as he wanted to his 2016 candidacy , thanks to a 1976 Supreme Court decision .
The Daniels hush money should have been kosher if Trump had sent her lawyer the money himself directly and disclosed the purpose of the payment in FEC filings .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classifying it as something like “ legal expenses.
” ) Instead , Trump used Michael Cohen as a conduit , and Cohen could not legally give the Trump campaign more than $ 5,400 .
Causing Cohen to do so , together with potential related offenses , could plausibly create legal jeopardy for Trump .
Even more serious is the issue of Trump ’ s $ 10 million donation to his campaign on October 28 , 2016 , in the campaign ’ s final days .
Trump was then surprisingly low on cash , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unusual payment of $ 21 million from a Las Vegas hotel he co-owns with a friend and political supporter .
If this was not a legitimate payout , it could constitute an illegal campaign contribution .
In addition , according to a new CNN report , Mueller and others at the Justice Department investigated for years whether the $ 10 million may have been provided by an Egyptian bank — but the probe was closed this July without subpoenaing Trump ’ s financial records .
Trump famously does business around the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an even more sleazy business than in the U.S. , and bribes are routinely expected and paid .
However , thanks to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act , it is illegal for Americans to participate in this , which leads to complaints from U.S. businesspeople that they are at a disadvantage .
Andrew Weissmann , one of Mueller ’ s senior prosecutors , notes in a new book that , because the Mueller investigation did not dig into Trump ’ s finances , “ we do not know whether he paid bribes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his business interests.
” Glenn Kirschner , a former federal prosecutor , argues that Trump can and should be prosecuted for negligent homicide for his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic .
This would be controversial , to say the least .
But Kirschner is a serious person who served in the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office for the District of Columbia for 24 years , eventually becoming chief of the homicide section .
While Mueller believed that presidents can not be charged while in office , his final report emphasized that “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaves office.
” It was for this reason , he wrote , that “ we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
” After Mueller ’ s report was released , over 1,000 former federal prosecutors stated that if Trump were not president , his conduct as described by Mueller would “ result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
” It ’ s hard to imagine a Biden administration deciding to prosecute a former president .
But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in 2019 that if she were elected president , “ I believe that [ the Justice Department ] would have no choice and that they should ” pursue obstruction of justice charges against Trump .
Last and perhaps most importantly , Trump could be impeached — again .
While impeachment is a political rather than a criminal process , it should be mentioned here because , if Trump were successfully convicted in the criminal justice system , it would make it far easier for him to be impeached again in the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convicted in the Senate .
And , oddly , there ’ s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says presidents can ’ t be impeached after leaving office .
This would not be a pointless exercise in revenge with Trump but a wise prophylactic precaution .
The punishment prescribed by the Constitution for impeachment and conviction includes “ disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor , Trust or Profit under the United States.
” In other words , an impeached and convicted Trump could never run for president again .