# Trump's vulnerability to legal problems as President: How Severe? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872 "2017-01-22T21:15:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/1 "2017-01-22T21:15:46Z")
While flipping around between the Sunday morning news shows, I saw several times a commercial urging viewers to contact their Senators and ask them to confirm Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. As I do switch channels frequently I can’t guess how many times the commercial aired, but clearly it must have cost quite a bit to put it on so many times on so many stations. I had some distractions and regrettably didn’t catch the name of the shell group listed as sponsor, nor can I find the commercial online. But it was a doozy–one of the first claims made by the narrator is that ‘Jeff Sessions is a courageous champion of civil rights.’ (or words to that effect). Pretty jaw-dropping. Now, I’m sure that the NRA would be willing to contribute a few bucks to efforts to get Sessions confirmed–but it’s not as though Sessions is the ONLY Republican pick that would have been friendly to NRA goals and interests. Basically, _any_ GOP pick for Justice would have the NRA’s back. So I’m wondering—is Trump _himself_ paying to air these commercials? Is he that nervous about the possibility that some other Republican Attorney General— should Sessions be rejected and someone else drafted—might turn out to have some, well, _integrity_? Is Trump worried that some other GOP AG might direct the Justice Department to, you know, _investigate_ him? Whereas he’s confident that ol’ Jefferson Beauregard won’t…? There must be some explanation of the commercials (unless other Trump Cabinet picks have their own commercials, and I just haven’t caught them). Is potential action taken by the Justice Department figuring in Trump’s nightmares? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/2 "2017-01-22T21:58:44Z")
> [@](#): > > So I’m wondering—is Trump himself paying to air these commercials? Almost certainly not - that’s why we have PACs. As far as the idea that Trump has to have Sessions because anyone else would get him indicted, no, there’s no indication that this is the case. Any Attorney General would probably appoint a special prosecutor to investigate a President, so it hardly matters. If you want to think that Trump is teetering on the edge of impeachment for the duration, keep on dreaming. It might be better to recognize wishful thinking when it happens, but to each his own. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/3 "2017-01-22T22:04:39Z")
IMHO the chances are increasing by just acting as he has a lot to lose or get into legal problems if his taxes are released. They would very likely also show what he actually did with his troubled foundation. > **[After Trump Promised To Release His Tax Returns, Aide Says He Won't Because...](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-returns_n_5884e7cfe4b070d8cad32f89)** > > Seventy-four percent of Americans want Trump to release his tax returns. Therefore, he has calculated that his best option is to not release them, but that also does lead now to more questions and endless scrutiny. This is bound to fester and to become a big ball and chain/self inflicted wound with legal implications. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/4 "2017-01-22T22:08:45Z")
Yes, the almost gleeful ‘he won’t be releasing his taxes’ remarks from Trump’s people are less helpful to him than he realizes. I did finally find some mention of the pro-Sessions ad online, by the way: > [@](#): > > One of the outside groups supporting Jeff Sessions nomination as attorney general is running a TV ad in DC titled “Champion” that calls him a “civil rights champion” and associates him in images with Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John Lewis. It’s a remarkable re-write of Sessions’ life and career… [Jeff Sessions, Civil Rights Champion! - TPM – Talking Points Memo](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/jeff-session-45-committee-tv-ad) “45Committee” is the sponsor (which as a 501(c)(4) organization doesn’t have to disclose its donors). The linked page makes the ad-video available. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/5 "2017-01-22T22:15:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > … Any Attorney General would probably appoint a special prosecutor to investigate a President, … I have to say I wouldn’t like to bet anything of value that Sessions will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Trump. And the unlikelihood has little to do with Trump’s legal vulnerabilities (which seem rather substantial). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/6 "2017-01-22T22:27:54Z")
Election is over. Moved to Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/7 "2017-01-23T12:52:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > IMHO the chances are increasing by just acting as he has a lot to lose or get into legal problems if his taxes are released. They would very likely also show what he actually did with his troubled foundation. > > [After Trump Promised To Release His Tax Returns, Aide Says He Won't Because ‘People Didn’t Care’ | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-tax-returns_us_5884e7cfe4b070d8cad32f89) > > Therefore, he has calculated that his best option is to not release them, but that also does lead now to more questions and endless scrutiny. This is bound to fester and to become a big ball and chain/self inflicted wound with legal implications. Don’t you have to break the law before there are legal implications? If you mean Democrats are going to keep implying that Trump has done something illegal, sure, but they will do that anyway. Witness Harry Reid lying about Romney’s tax returns. Maybe CBS will publish some more forgeries, and the Democrats can run with that. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/8 "2017-01-23T13:31:26Z")
Apparently some people do believe that he’s [already broken the law](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-us-president-constitution-violate-accept-fireign-payments-russia-a7540951.html?cmpid=facebook-post) ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/9 "2017-01-23T13:55:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Don’t you have to break the law before there are legal implications? > > If you mean Democrats are going to keep implying that Trump has done something illegal, sure, but they will do that anyway. Witness Harry Reid lying about Romney’s tax returns. > > Maybe CBS will publish some more forgeries, and the Democrats can run with that. > > Regards, > Shodan Dan Rather, after a 30-year career of journalistic integrity, was a little overeager on one set of documents and lost his entire career as a result. But by all means, let’s pretend that it’s anyone’s MO to publish forged documents, eh? The reason the democrats keep implying that Trump has done something illegal is because [he’s very likely in violation of the emoulments clause from day one](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trumps-ethics-train-wreck/513446/). Indeed, there’s already a lawsuit underway to try to tamp that down: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/trump-foreign-payments-constitution-lawsuit.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/trump-foreign-payments-constitution-lawsuit.html) WASHINGTON — A team of prominent constitutional scholars, Supreme Court litigators and former White House ethics lawyers intends to file a lawsuit Monday morning alleging that President Trump is violating the Constitution by allowing his hotels and other business operations to accept payments from foreign governments. But by all means, let’s play the “normalization” game, that sounds like fun. It’s totally normal and acceptable for a sitting president to continue to be the head of a huge international corporation. It’s totally legal. And it’s not shady at all for the president’s children, who act as vice presidents to that company, to sit in on policy meetings with foreign leaders. That sounds about right, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/10 "2017-01-23T13:58:26Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Apparently some people do believe that he’s [already broken the law](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-us-president-constitution-violate-accept-fireign-payments-russia-a7540951.html?cmpid=facebook-post) From your link: > [@](#): > > In a statement, the watchdog alleges that since Mr Trump refused to divest from his businesses, he is now getting cash and favours from foreign governments through guests and events at his hotels, leases in his buildings, and valuable real estate deals abroad. I will bet you $500 that if this matter ends up being tried, the final federal appellate decision will be that the Emoluments Clause is not violated by Trump’s ownership of hotels or other properties that get guests and events, or leases in his buildings, or valuable real estate deals abroad. What do you say? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/11 "2017-01-23T14:00:06Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > The reason the democrats keep implying that Trump has done something illegal is because [he’s very likely in violation of the emoulments clause from day one](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trumps-ethics-train-wreck/513446/). Indeed, there’s already a lawsuit underway to try to tamp that down: I will bet you $500 that if this if this matter ends up being tried, the final federal appellate decision will be that the Emoluments Clause is not violated by Trump. What do you say? ---
**Author:** ![JackieLikesVariety](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackielikesvariety/32/296_2.png) [@JackieLikesVariety](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JackieLikesVariety)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/12 "2017-01-23T14:06:34Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Apparently some people do believe that he’s [already broken the law](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-us-president-constitution-violate-accept-fireign-payments-russia-a7540951.html?cmpid=facebook-post) the minute he took the oath put him in jail!! :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/13 "2017-01-23T14:16:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I will bet you $500 that if this if this matter ends up being tried, the final federal appellate decision will be that the Emoluments Clause is not violated by Trump. > > What do you say? Pass. I’m not a lawyer, and I doubt that these suits would have much success. But it’s not like there’s nothing there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/14 "2017-01-23T14:20:02Z")
> [@JackieLikesVariety](#): > > the minute he took the oath > > put him in jail!! :mad: For how long? What term of imprisonment do you think applies? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/15 "2017-01-23T14:25:02Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Pass. I’m not a lawyer, and I doubt that these suits would have much success. But it’s not like there’s nothing there. I guess it depends on what you think “nothing,” should mean. It’s an argument that sounds plausible to someone who doesn’t have any awareness of the basis for the clause’s inclusion in the Constitution, so in that sense, I agree there’s “something.” But I doubt that even the plaintiffs believe their claims are merited as a matter of historical precedent, and that’s ignoring the standing issue that must first be met. What the plaintiffs would genuinely be hoping for, I would guess, is a court willing to carve new interpretive ground. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/16 "2017-01-23T14:38:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Don’t you have to break the law before there are legal implications? Stewart Gibson at Forbes, a tax expert and tax crime litigator, differs. > **[Which Is The Trump Foundation's Bigger Crime, Self-Dealing Or Keeping It Secret?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2016/11/28/which-is-the-trump-foundations-bigger-crime-self-dealing-or-keeping-it-a-secret/#5b85ebaa4a14)** > > The foundation’s admission – made under penalty of perjury – that earlier tax returns were false raises a legitimate question about whether the signers knew they were false at the time. > [@](#): > > His private foundation just admitted what the press has been reporting for months: that in 2015 it engaged in what the tax code calls “prohibited transactions” and what the rest of us call self-dealing. More importantly, Trump’s foundation admitted that it had engaged in self-dealing in years before 2015. This will require the filing of additional tax returns reporting those prohibited transactions, and the payment of excise taxes to the IRS on them. It could also require the insiders to repay the foundation, and require the foundation to undo those transactions, or face a 200% excise tax. > > No big deal, right? > > Wrong. You see, the foundation filed tax returns for earlier years in which it claimed that it had not engaged in self-dealing. The people who signed those returns for the foundation did so under penalty of perjury. And knowingly signing a materially false tax return is a felony that is punishable by a prison sentence and a hefty fine. The foundation’s admission – also made under penalty of perjury – that those earlier returns were false raises a legitimate question about whether the signers knew they were false at the time. > > This is not the same thing as a wage-earner who mistakenly relies on a local tax return preparer to claim a deduction for eating lunch at a restaurant. Organizations like the Trump Foundation are run by sophisticated business people and advised by highly qualified tax and legal professionals. When they check the yes or no box for self-dealing on the foundation’s tax returns, they are supposed to know whether the foundation did, in fact, engage in self-dealing. And it is reasonable to believe that they did know. > > … > > But whether or not the IRS ever investigates and prosecutes the people who signed the foundation’s false tax returns, there is a bigger crime here. And that is the crime of secrecy, of privileged people who will soon be running our nation’s government, deciding that they can do whatever they want on their taxes, the laws be damned – and that their tax dealings are none of the public’s business. > > On January 20 Donald Trump will take essentially the same oath of office that I took when I joined the civil service in 1977. He will swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. One way to assure the American people that he is fulfilling that oath is to open his tax returns to public scrutiny. > [@Shodan](#): > > If you mean Democrats are going to keep implying that Trump has done something illegal, sure, but they will do that anyway. Witness Harry Reid lying about Romney’s tax returns. Reid is no longer around, we have to deal with the liar in chief. > [@Shodan](#): > > Maybe CBS will publish some more forgeries, and the Democrats can run with that. And since Rather got sack for that malarkey one should then look at Trump having to explain why he will not be transparent to the American people. BTW Nixon also expected to get away with not releasing his taxes, did not work for him. [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-02/nixon-s-failed-effort-to-withhold-his-tax-returns](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-02/nixon-s-failed-effort-to-withhold-his-tax-returns) > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, Nixon was eager to take every deduction imaginable. In a memo written that year, the presidential aide John Ehrlichman wrote his deputy, Edward Morgan, telling him that Nixon believed “a public man does very little of a personal nature. Virtually all of his entertainment and activity is related to his ‘business.’” That meant that virtually any expense – “wedding gifts to congressmen’s daughters, flowers at funerals, etc.” – could be written off. > > This attitude apparently carried over to charitable contributions, too. In 1970, Nixon proceeded to donate his papers, but ordered Morgan to backdate the deed of gift to March 27, 1969, before the law made it illegal for him to take the deduction. > > But this wasn’t known at the time. In 1973, however, as the Watergate scandal put a spotlight on the secretive president, tax experts called for the IRS to audit Nixon. The agency refused. Then in early October, an employee at an IRS service center in West Virginia leaked information about Nixon’s tax returns showing that the president had only paid $792.81 in federal income taxes in 1970 and $878.03 in 1971, but reported income in excess of $200,000. The explanation, of course, was the fishy charitable donation. > > In a press conference on Nov. 17, 1973, Nixon faced questions about the leak and his tax returns. He defended the donation of his papers, and belatedly welcomed a thorough investigation of the issue, adding: “People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook.” > > Facing overwhelming pressure, Nixon agreed to turn over his tax returns to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation. As the panel’s members interviewed Nixon’s aides, suspicion of the president grew. > > The Democratic chairman, Representative Wilbur Mills, raised the possibility that Nixon’s tax avoidance could lead to his ouster from office. The revelation that Nixon’s aide had backdated the deed of gift was hardly the only damning detail the committee provided. In the end, Nixon was hit with a tax bill of $471,431 plus interest. > > By this time, revelations of far greater wrongdoing connected to Watergate had surfaced, and he would resign four months later. But the tax issue wounded him, seriously eroding his credibility. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/17 "2017-01-23T14:47:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Stewart Gibson at Forbes, a tax expert and tax crime litigator, differs. > > [Which Is The Trump Foundation's Bigger Crime, Self-Dealing Or Keeping It Secret?](http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2016/11/28/which-is-the-trump-foundations-bigger-crime-self-dealing-or-keeping-it-a-secret/#5b85ebaa4a14) I missed anywhere in your cite that Trump broke the law. > [@](#): > > Reid is no longer around, we have to deal with the liar in chief. Reid is gone, but his spirit lives on. > [@](#): > > And since Rather got sack for that malarkey one should then look at Trump having to explain why he will not be transparent to the American people. I’m not following your logic - Rather and CBS used forged documents, therefore Trump should be convicted of something? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/18 "2017-01-23T15:31:04Z")
Every reference in this thread to someone saying Trump broke the law is a complete irrelevance. A political lawsuit by someone who hates Trump? Happens every administration. A journalist doesn’t like Trump? Well of course he doesn’t. Who cares? People don’t like Trump not divesting his holdings? No law against it. Articles and opinion pieces on the Internet are not worth the paper they aren’t printed on. This is all the buzzing of gnats. Even evidence Trump broke the law’s irrelevant. He can’t be impeached unless Republicans want to impeach him, and they don’t care if his charity broke the law and probably wouldn’t care if he was proven he raped someone. We are a long, long way from 1974, when Congress actually cared about Presidents breaking the law. When someone **who can actually have influence in starting impeachment proceedings** says they’re really thinking about it, then it’s a story. Not before. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/19 "2017-01-23T15:44:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I missed anywhere in your cite that Trump broke the law. So then nothing that the Clinton foundation did was an issue for Clinton. > [@Shodan](#): > > Reid is gone, but his spirit lives on. Even before he was there, all the Democrats and even Republicans realized we are nation of laws. > [@Shodan](#): > > I’m not following your logic - Rather and CBS used forged documents, therefore Trump should be convicted of something? > > Regards, > Shodan Glad you see that your point was nonsense then. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872/20 "2017-01-23T15:52:02Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > We are a long, long way from 1974, when Congress actually cared about Presidents breaking the law. > > When someone **who can actually have influence in starting impeachment proceedings** says they’re really thinking about it, then it’s a story. Not before. Yes, I do see that, but the bleeding had to start somewhere, too bad for Trump that it is starting now. The point here is that as I noted this issue \*\*can \*\*be put under the rug by the Republicans, except that it will pop up every tax season and like Nixon I do not see Trump managing to avoid stepping on another land mine and triggering all the munitions. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-vulnerability-to-legal-problems-as-president-how-severe/777872.md?page=2)