The New York prosecution opens the door to try Trump for tax fraud, according to ‘The New York Times’

Jair Bolsonaro backtracks and in a few hours repeals a decree that would open doors to the privatization of health

Brazil's president had signed the order on Tuesday. Faced with harsh criticism, even in his environment, he reversed the decision. The Brazilian president,...

The pessimistic message from Europe on the second wave of coronavirus: “We are in this for long”

Brussels called on the EU governments to be "brave" to take new and drastic measures to "save lives".Wednesday, October 28, 2020 will go down...

The last hour of the elections in the United States, live | A former National Security official, the “anonymous author” of the article...

More than 70 million people have already voted early | Texas Has Increased Youth Turnout, With Attendance Six Times Higher Than 2016 Election...

The Russian embassy, ​​of ‘joke’ for the supposed 10,000 soldiers offered to Puigdemont: “With ‘Mosca’ planes …”

"Be careful, the information that appeared in the Spanish media about the arrival of 10,000 Russian soldiers in Catalonia is incomplete," the Russian embassy...

The Russian embassy laughs about sending soldiers to defend the re

The Russian embassy in Spain has ironic about the alleged plot between the Catalan independence movement and Vladimir Putin's Russia to defend the...

Investigators have been trying to get the tax returns of the president of the United States for more than two years

The Manhattan attorney general’s office indicated on Monday that it would have a sufficient basis to investigate President Donald Trump and his businesses for tax fraud, according to the newspaper. The New York Times, based on court documents. The office headed by Cyrus Vance, which has been battling for more than two years with the president to obtain his tax returns and certify the transparency of his businesses, assures for the first time in a new document that various information and public testimonies would justify the formation of a Grand Jury to rule on various crimes, including insurance embezzlement, falsification of financial documents, and tax fraud.

According to the Times, through the documents presented in the Court, “even if the Grand Jury were only proving the certainty of the public allegations, the rest of the information would help to fully justify the scope of forming a grand jury in this case.”

Last year, Vance’s office filed a subpoena seeking to obtain eight years of tax returns from the president. But a federal appeals court earlier this month granted a stay on the order that asked to delay making public the taxes paid by Trump. The beginning of this immense soap opera has its germ before the 2016 elections for the payment of two women who claim they had sex with the New York tycoon.

As the New York newspaper reports, Vance, a Democrat, has never revealed the magnitude of the criminal investigation carried out by the prosecution, arguing that it must keep the secrecy imposed by the Grand Jury. According to the president’s lawyers, the investigation should be stopped as it is based on political motives.

Last July, the Supreme Court decided that Trump could not block the financial and tax information that the Manhattan Prosecutor’s Office demanded of him, resolving with the ruling a legal battle that the president has led to the end to not make his accounts public. However, that decision did not mean the return to the lower courts of a parallel demand from Congress, which made it clear that almost certainly no data will be public until after the November elections.

Trump’s lawyers, in the case of the Manhattan District Attorney, put on the table the “immunity” of the president while in office. The constitutional interpretation of the US Department of Justice establishes that the presidents are not prosecutable and therefore must undergo prosecution processes. impeachment or political trials in the Senate, such as the one held over the Ukraine scandal. “No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to provide evidence when required in a criminal process,” said then John Roberts, president of the Supreme.


Related Articles