Should Biden pardon Trump

[Jon Miller]

The thing is that such IRS things are often a slap on the wrist for someone with billions or even approximately a billion.

But Trump might actually only have a few hundred very illiquid millions, or even less than that. What might have been a slap on the wrist for a real billionaire might be major for Trump.

JM

[Berzerker]

I assume much of his money is tied up in real estate

and I'm not sure a pardon would help him, he'd likely be facing state and local legal problems

[Dauphin]

BTW, the houses on Trump's Westchester golf courses are classified for tax purposes as condos. They draw a 25% reduction in property taxes due, because condo's are assessed on rental income projections, whereas houses are assessed on fair market value, and so produce different assessable values. The properties are not rented by Trump, they are owner occupied, but I understand they were structured this way to make them more attractive to homebuyers.

The 'condos': https://goo.gl/maps/gA9qBJSBBUiSsQzL6

Another property, which I believe is under investigation for tax fraud involved Trump purchasing a property for about $7m, and then declaring a fair market value of $300m some 15 years later. The valuation was made as part of a $21m tax write off whereby he donated part of the land for conservation. He also used the valuation to attempt to obtain loan financing.

[Dauphin]

It's also worth noting that independent property valuations performed by professionals are seldom out by more than a factor of two, compared to actual sales prices.

[BeBMan]

I think Biden's first exec action will be to make communism state religion, while outlawing all others

[Gertrude]

Prosecuting a former official could set a very dangerous precedent.

If a President were to be pursued, after leaving office, for revenge or for political purposes that could have a cascade effect with it becoming routine to prosecute former Presidents.

The prospect of prosecution would also give sitting Presidents reason to explore the possibility of a coup to stay in power.

Those desirous of prosecuting Trump should be careful of the potential consequences of their wishes.

[Uncle Sparky]

Which is why they should continue with tax and racketeering charges... those investigations go back way before he was President.

[BeBMan]

So ppl can't be indicted before they did actually something, but on top presidents have immunity while in office, and should get quasi-immunity afterwards, so actually: always?

The main reason why democracies introduced limited terms (as opposed to unlimited rule in monarchies, dictatorships etc) was to make accountability a thing.

[Gertrude]

So ppl can't be indicted before they did actually something, but on top presidents have immunity while in office, and should get quasi-immunity afterwards, so actually: always?

The main reason why democracies introduced limited terms (as opposed to unlimited rule in monarchies, dictatorships etc) was to make accountability a thing.

I am not arguing in favour of absolute and permanent immunity. I am suggesting that prosecution should not be driven by political motives nor should it be seen to be driven by political motives.

If he is prosecuted the decision to prosecute should be made by law enforcement officials, not by partisan senators, congressmen or White House officials.

To prosecute is to enter uncertain waters. To not prosecute for actual offenses is to enter uncertain waters.

BTW Nixon could have been prosecuted. The pardon issued by President Ford created controversy. It is not clear to me whether Ford should have pardoned Nixon however I can see it was not a clear cut decision.

[Dauphin]

Law enforcement is often elected (in the U.S.). Try removing politics from that quagmire.

[Proteus_MST]

Law enforcement is often elected (in the U.S.). Try removing politics from that quagmire.

Likewise it seems like the ruling party has a lot of power in selecting judges and, at least with regards to the supreme court, due to the fact that the supreme court judges are elected for a lifetime, has the power to influence jurisdiction for a long time (even long after the time that they have lost power and remain nothing but a foot note in history).

Maybe one of the important changes that will have to be made would be, to actually appoint supreme court judges for no longer than maybe 10 years.