EXPLAINER: How could the indictment hurt Trump's company?
NEW YORK (AP) — The criminal tax fraud charges unsealed against Donald Trump’s company Thursday are a blow to a business already reeling from canceled deals following the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on hotels and clubs.
The indictment may make it harder for Trump to strike new deals, get bank loans and bring in new money to his sprawling and indebted business.
The former president himself was not charged by prosecutors, but investigations are ongoing.
Here's a look at the company and the challenge it now faces:
-more-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/explainer-how-could-the-indictment-hurt-trumps-company/ar-AALFRER
What the Weisselberg indictment could mean for Trump
The Trump Organization and CFO Allen Weisselberg pleaded not guilty to charges of fraud and tax crimes on Thursday, the latest in the Manhattan D.A.'s criminal probe into the company and its longtime executive. But now that the indictment is on the table, how might Weisselberg, organization executives, and even former President Donald Trump fare as the case progresses?
For one thing, the indictment places Trump himself in "greater criminal jeopardy than ever before," writes Vice News, "and raises the possibility that prosecutors might later seek to expand the case by alleging that more Trump Organization employees were involved in the scheme." The former president denies any wrongdoing.
Weisselberg's future may hinge on his decision to cooperate (or not cooperate) with prosecutors, since, as former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara notes, the CFO's conviction appears likely. And the fact that he was "charged with conspiracy indicates that he faces years, not months, in prison," adds Jens David Ohlin, vice dean of Cornell Law School, per Vice. "Does that mean he will cooperate with New York prosecutors to spare himself?"
Legal analyst Daniel Goldman believes such a flip is unlikely, which might actually spare Trump.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-the-weisselberg-indictment-could-mean-for-trump/ar-AALFREK
Prosecutors aren’t targeting Trump’s company. They’re following the law.
Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, surrendered to authorities Thursday morning after a grand jury handed down indictments for him and the company. A Trump Organization spokesperson issued a statement claiming that Weisselberg “is now being used by the Manhattan District Attorney as a pawn in a scorched earth attempt to harm the former President. The District Attorney is bringing a criminal prosecution involving employee benefits that neither the IRS nor any other District Attorney would ever think of bringing. This is not justice; this is politics.”
That statement should sound familiar to anyone who has followed former president Donald Trump’s responses to the Mueller probe and his two impeachments. It’s another version of “It’s a witch hunt!” — a refrain Trump repeatedly employed as he tried to present himself as the victim of a politically motivated probe.
There’s a legal name for the defense that the Trump Organization is alluding to here: Selective prosecution. But when we recognize what selective prosecution is (and, more importantly, when it doesn’t apply), it quickly becomes clear that this statement is little more than hot air. If anything, in the process of providing a blustering, but legally meaningless defense, it seems to be acknowledging that the Trump Organization did engage in the alleged wrongdoing.
Trump is suing over a golf course. That could be a big mistake.
Selective prosecution comes into play when a criminal defendant has been arrested and charged based on an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification. The Supreme Court has held that selective prosecution exists where the enforcement or prosecution of a criminal law is “directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons … with a mind so unequal and oppressive” that the administration of the criminal law “amounts to a practical denial of equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.” This is key: The discrimination would have to be based on a category considered protected. Protected categories includes race, gender and religion; “former U.S. president” and “rich guy well known for shady business practices” are not protected categories.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinions-prosecutors-arent-targeting-trumps-company-theyre-following-the-law/ar-AALG14k
= new reply since forum marked as read
