Joe: Ken, a few weeks ago you wrote a column about Trump, who is in legal danger on several fronts. Since then, the Manhattan prosecutor has issued a 24-page indictment containing criminal charges against Donald J. Trump’s family business and its CFO Allen H. Weisselberg.
I’ve got a question for you. The indictment, which can be read online, accuses the Trump Organization and Weißelberg of running a 15-year tax evasion program with perks and bonuses that are off the books. This includes, for example, two Mercedes car leases, his grandchildren’s school fees and the rent for a luxury apartment. Weisselberg reportedly received indirect and hidden compensation of $ 1.76 million that enabled him to evade hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes.
Many conservative writers, including some from the Wall Street Journal, say, “Hey, so what?” They consider a “criminal” persecution under such circumstances to be wrong and harsh. Bret Stephens, a Conservative who previously worked at the WSJ but now writes for the New York Times, recently said: “I’m a little skeptical about the charges. After all this investigation, is that the worst thing you can think of? …. It seems to be the kind of sneaky and unethical corporate self-dealing that usually results in serious civil but no criminal charges. “
Do you agree? If the allegations are proven, should the remedy be to pay some civil penalties but let the CFO go?
Ken: I agree with these conservative writers along with Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz (an old-school liberal Democrat) on this point. City district attorney files tax evasion charges after IRS forwarded the filing? Dershowitz predicts that the overtly political case will be dismissed. In an interview with Fox, Dershowitz lowered the criminal charge of 15 years of unpaid taxes to $ 1.76 million against a company that manages billions. Perks that are shown as business expenses and not as compensation are controversial.
According to Dershowitz, this is to be done in a sit-down negotiation between the government and Trump Corp. be enclosed. This topic once again shows the unrestricted power of the public prosecutors according to the grand jury system, which has often appeared in our columns. And again, a criminal complaint is filed against a close employee who aims to squeeze him so far that he whistles to the big boss. Even the left media have chosen not to push this too hard; this time we hear nothing of the “walls that close” and “drip, drip, drip”. At this point, Trump is likely saying the famous line from Rocky II – “Is that all you got?”
Joe: Well, “Is that all you have?” Alan Dershowitz is Rudy Giuliani’s legal advisor and a close confidante of Trump. His disparaging views on the criminal charges in this case are to be expected. When handling the appeal for Leona Helmsley, who was sentenced to four years in prison for tax fraud, he didn’t even argue that her sentence was wrong. Helmsley’s crime, and the crime featured in this indictment, is the type of crime that super-rich people think they can get away with. Let’s forget about Dershowitz. He does not add anything to this discussion.
What is amazing is that many people in this country actually believe that it is hard and wrong to prosecute a wealthy accountant and CFO of a large corporation for failing to pay taxes for 15 years. No big deal. This way of thinking highlights the difference between big bucks and everyone else. The sum total of these types of scams is more than most people make in their lifetime. People have gone to jail for smoking a joint or shoplifting in a clothing store. Any further thoughts on that?
Ken: I still believe that the amount in question is a small thing when you look at the big picture. If the average American full-time employee earns $ 50,000 a year for 30 years, it comes to $ 1.5 million. The prosecutor received over 1 million pages of documents as a result of his subpoena, and I believe that the cost of the investigation so far has exceeded the tax owed. Keep in mind that $ 1.75 million as personal income would result in a tax liability of approximately $ 600,000. The cost of prosecuting the case if it comes to trial will slightly exceed the cost of the investigation.
Unfortunately, this is another purely political action that could end up largely dependent on the acting judge’s policies. As for Dershowitz’s policies, if an attorney represents a murderer, it doesn’t mean the attorney is one; if he represents a Republican, that doesn’t make him one either. Dershowitz said he was concerned about law and justice, not politics.
Speaking of Rudy Giuliani, he is also under the control of a politically motivated investigation into his business in Ukraine while he was representing Trump. I hope Giuliani can quote NCIS TV character Gibbs when he said, “Is that all you have?” Meanwhile, the Biden family is creating the appearance of inappropriateness as it appears to be influencing the world. Are you looking for a Hunter original?
Joe: They say that “the amount in question is a minor consideration when you look at the bigger picture” and the cost of law enforcement. Let’s look at the big picture of law enforcement in the US. For example, in Kankakee County, prosecutors are paid by the county. The district also pays for the “defense” in many cases. Not long ago (I don’t know what it is today) about 75% of all criminal cases ended up in the prosecutor’s office. Why? Because almost all of the accused are penniless and do not have enough money to pay for their defense.
As for government costs, in the event of a mad defense, the PD must file a petition with the court for money to hire an expert. All of these costs and salaries are borne by the taxpayers and the county. So my point is that now a New York white-collar crime case is surfacing with a man (who makes over $ 800,000 a year on perks) in New York, and you’re upset that the prosecution has to pump out a lot of money to bring him to court to face alleged tax fraud? That happens in the US with criminal cases.
Fortunately, the government does not have to pay for Weißelberg’s defense. They then sadly say “this is another purely political action”, suggesting that the case could “largely end up on the politics of the acting judge”. I’m missing that. This column must end due to the number of words. If you’d like, we can discuss these topics in more detail in the next column.
Dr. Ken Johnston has been an ENT surgeon in Kankakee since 1976. He was active in several local councils and in clubs and organizations. He has lived in Bourbonnais since 1981. He can be contacted through the Daily Journal at [email protected] or directly at [email protected].
Joe Yurgine is a practicing attorney, Of Counsel with Corboy & Demetrio, Chicago. He can be contacted through the Daily Journal at [email protected] or directly at [email protected].