A pardon for Mrs. (and maybe Mr.) Clinton?

[dasmiller]

Technically, any time you donate a box of garage sale books to the local library and take a 20 dollar charitable deduction, you are committing a crime, because you are really donating those books because it isn't worth the effort to try to get 10 bucks out of them at a garage sale. You have fraudulently filled out your tax return. Off to the slammer with you.

I'm not seeing the fraud there. I don't think the tax code actually says anything about the effort required to donate vs. sell. Are you saying it's fraud because the books are really only worth $10 because that's what they'd get at a garage sale? Because if they're worth $10 at a garage sale, they're probably more like $20 or $30 or Craigslist.

What's the fraud here?

 

[Bob001]

.....
Now, do you suppose Trump has never paid a penalty after his audits? Do you suppose those sorts of things, with literally millions of dollars of questionable deductions, business writeoffs, and the like, are not to be found all over his tax returns? Those are, technically, crimes.

Right now there are auditors poring over his tax returns at the IRS. The IRS is sill under the control of an Obama-appointed commissioner, who insists that she didn't pay extra attention to conservative groups
....

Trump's returns are enormously complicated (his little boy said they run to 12,000 pages) and are prepared by battalions of lawyers and accountants. It's hard to believe that Trump could have any personal criminal liability, especially if he pays the taxes and penalties that the IRS says are due.

And the IRS Commissioner is John Koskinen, who didn't have anything to do with the allegations against a previous lower-level official.

And that example of your box of books illustrates the complexity of the codes. Who says your box of books is only worth $10, not $20? Did you have them appraised? Did the IRS? Did anyone note how much each book sold for? You could sit down with a box of books and go to used book sites, and note the highest price that each of your books is being sold for. You might actually be surprised at some of the prices on out-of-print books. Add your labor and delivery costs. You could credibly argue that your box of books was worth hundreds of dollars, and the IRS would have a hard time proving otherwise.

And that's just a box of books. Imagine how vastly more complex the issues would be if they involved real estate values and depreciation, business expenses, value of trademarks, etc., etc., etc. There's plenty of room for debate on every individual point. Going after Trump for tax evasion would be a fool's errand times a zillion.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Pardons could be a good way to get back at enemies.

"my first act is to pardon person X. He knows why."

" I didn't do anything!"

"If that were true, then I would not have to pardon you."

 

[Darat]

Being Hillary Clinton.

That does seem to be the crime of which she is guilty.

 

[Stacko]

That does seem to be the crime of which she is guilty.

Can you pardoned for a crime that hasn't been legislated yet?

 

[MikeG]

By arguing against a pardon, you are implying that the alternative -- possible prosecution and potential conviction -- is preferable. I doubt Clinton would agree.

Why on earth would you think this a possibility?

 

[dasmiller]

Can you pardoned for a crime that hasn't been legislated yet?

If it hasn't been legislated yet, it probably can't be prosecuted, because it wasn't wasn't a crime when it was committed.

(that seems like common sense to me, but IANAL and there isn't complete overlap between criminal law and common sense. Or between my common sense and others' common sense. Or-

Oh, nevermind)

 

[Bob001]

Why on earth would you think this a possibility?

Gee, maybe because the President-elect told Clinton to her face that if he was President she'd be in jail, and numerous senior Republican officials -- including prospective AG Rudy Giuliani -- have said that Clinton committed crimes for which she should be prosecuted. Why on earth would you think this is not a possibility?

 

[Bob001]

Can you pardoned for a crime that hasn't been legislated yet?

No ex post facto law -- if it wasn't a crime when you did it, you can't be prosecuted later if the law changes.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto

 

[CORed]

Please stop with this ridiculous Nixon comparison.

I'm not suggesting that Hillary is similar to Nixon, just pointing out (as several others did) that pardoning somebody before they were convicted of anything has happened once before.

Obama could certainly pardon her, but doing so would be a tacit admission that she has done something criminal.

 

[BStrong]

How do you pardon someone who hasn't been found guilty in any court of law?

Perhaps immunity would be a better word.

 

[MikeG]

Gee, maybe because the President-elect told Clinton to her face that if he was President she'd be in jail, and numerous senior Republican officials -- including prospective AG Rudy Giuliani -- have said that Clinton committed crimes for which she should be prosecuted. Why on earth would you think this is not a possibility?

Two gibbering idiots who don't and won't have any control over who gets prosecuted.

 

[Bob001]

Two gibbering idiots who don't and won't have any control over who gets prosecuted.

I note that you are in the UK. Your system may work differently. In the U.S., the Attorney General most certainly has a strong role in determining who gets prosecuted for federal crimes, and the President appoints the AG, all senior Justice Dept. officials and every U.S. Attorney.

 

[The Big Dog]

Two gibbering idiots who don't and won't have any control over who gets prosecuted.

what in the hell are you talking about??

 

[ponderingturtle]

Gee, maybe because the President-elect told Clinton to her face that if he was President she'd be in jail, and numerous senior Republican officials -- including prospective AG Rudy Giuliani -- have said that Clinton committed crimes for which she should be prosecuted. Why on earth would you think this is not a possibility?

Because like so many of their campaign promises that was an empty one that no one with a brain would ever expect them to follow through with. Like how they got rid of their plan to ban muslims from entering the country.

You have to ignore so much of what they say, and only pay attention to the things they actually mean.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I note that you are in the UK. Your system may work differently. In the U.S., the Attorney General most certainly has a strong role in determining who gets prosecuted for federal crimes, and the President appoints the AG, all senior Justice Dept. officials and every U.S. Attorney.

Giuliani has already back tracked on the idea of her being prosecuted though.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/giuliani-christie-interviews-clinton-prosecutor/

That was just all noise for the sheep.

 

[Bob001]

....
You have to ignore so much of what they say, and only pay attention to the things they actually mean.

Yeah, great, but it's hard to know which is which. And Trump's AG could still appoint a special prosecutor who would drag the matter out for months, even years, quite publicly even if he ultimately says "no prosecution." Ken Starr never arrested anybody either.

 

[Bob001]

Giuliani has already back tracked on the idea of her being prosecuted though.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/giuliani-christie-interviews-clinton-prosecutor/

That was just all noise for the sheep.

From your link:

He added: "It's been a tradition in our politics to put things behind us. On the other hand, you have to look at how bad was it? Because suppose somebody comes along a year from now and is alleged to have stolen $50,000 from a charity -- and (Clinton) was never investigated for hundreds of millions."

That's not quite a ringing endorsement.

 

[Belz...]

what in the hell are you talking about??

He's talking about two gibbering idiots, namely Trump and Giuliani.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm not suggesting that Hillary is similar to Nixon, just pointing out (as several others did) that pardoning somebody before they were convicted of anything has happened once before.

Obama could certainly pardon her, but doing so would be a tacit admission that she has done something criminal.

It has happened many times before, and it wouldn't be such an admission.

Again I refer to Caspar Weinberger and George Schulz. When GHW Bush pardoned them, it was not a tacit admission they had done anything wrong. It was a tacit admission that they could face a politically motivated prosecution for something that was not a crime.