Front Burner - Donald Trump’s very bad week

Episode Date: December 22, 2022

It’s been a historic week in Washington, D.C., for Donald Trump. On Monday, the January 6 House Committee wrapped up its investigation into the capitol insurrection and after months of speculation over whether they would, referred the former president for potential prosecution. And on Tuesday, a different U.S. committee voted to release six years of Trump’s secret tax returns. CBC’s Susan Ormiston has been covering this story. Today on Front Burner she joins us to unpack these two big developments and to explain what this could all mean for a Trump 2024 presidential run.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. If there's no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the resolution. Those in favor will say aye. Aye.

Ms. Cheney. Aye. Ms. Cheney. Aye. Ms. Lofgren? Aye. It's been a pretty bad week for Donald Trump on Capitol Hill. On Monday, the January 6th House Committee wrapped its investigation into the Capitol insurrection and after months of speculation over whether they would, referred the former president for potential prosecution.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are nine ayes and zero noes. Wrapping up their sweeping investigation, the January 6th committee concluding former President Trump was the, quote, central cause of the attack on the Capitol. No man who would behave that way at that moment in time can ever serve in any position of authority

in our nation again. He is unfit for any office. And on Tuesday, a different committee voted to release six years of Trump's secret tax returns. Well, I think the fundamental idea for us is that no one should be above the law, and especially a president of the United States. American people want to know if the president of the United States is making decisions based on their interests or the president's own financial self-interest. My colleague Susan Ormiston has been covering this story, and she's with me now to unpack these two big developments.

And we're going to talk about what this could all mean for a Trump 2024 run. Hi, Susan. It's great to have you. Hi, Jamie. Busy couple of days here. Oh, I bet. I bet. Right before the holidays, hey? Yeah. So let's start with the tax returns. On Tuesday, the House Ways and Means Committee voted to release six years of Trump's taxes from 2015 to 2020. And how did it come to be that a House committee finally was able to make this release happen? I feel like we have been talking about Trump's secret tax returns for years and years. We have. It's been a long and winding road. You know, Trump has resisted.

He's mocked releasing these returns. He's complained of unfair treatment. I don't mind releasing. I'm under a routine audit, and it'll be released. You know, the only one that cares about my tax returns are the reporters. OK, they're the only ones. You don't think the American public is concerned about that? No, I don't think so.

Deep down in the IRS, they treat me horribly. We made a deal. It was all settled until I decided to run for president. Tens of millions of dollars. I prepaid my tax. From the committee's point of view, this was a very significant development. Now, it isn't law, but it is practice in the United States that nearly every president releases their tax returns. But Trump just didn't for multiple years. But Trump just didn't for multiple years. And finally, after many legal battles, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared it and said that the Treasury Department could send these returns to Congress, which they did. And the vote this week was to release them. And that was the Supreme Court made that ruling not so long ago, Trump was just apoplectic about it. And part of this story deals with how the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS, didn't audit Trump's taxes when he was president, even though they should have.

And can you explain that part of the story to me? still some missing pieces in that mystery because, you know, Trump promised to release what he called beautiful tax returns once the IRS completed its audit, which we now know, Jamie, never happened. Not only was that not accurate, what Trump said, but it turns out the IRS didn't audit his returns. They didn't complete any during his first two years in office in spite of a rule mandating that they do. In fact, the first time that the IRS even looked at his tax returns was it was the same day a congressional committee sent a written request for information on the audits. And so they suddenly started auditing and then they never completed it and only assigned one agent to it. So there isn't reasonable explanation still about why these audits didn't happen. Huh. Huh. Interesting. The Republicans have been very against the release of these tax documents,

right? With the top Republican on this committee, Kevin Brady, saying it will set a dangerous new political weapon that even Democrats will come to regret. The majority chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee will have nearly unlimited power to target and make public the tax returns of private citizens, political enemies, business and labor leaders, or even the returns of Supreme Court justices themselves. It's a power to embarrass, to harass, or destroy Americans through disclosure of their tax returns. Is there a legitimate argument here that the Republicans are making? Or is this just like political spin? Well, it's all politics. I mean,

the Democrats did get the answers they were looking for about the IRS, that they didn't complete any audits of a president's tax returns. That's significant to them. But, you know, this has been political from the start. I mean, if you go back even to 2016, when Hillary Clinton was running against Trump, there was that infamous exchange. Or maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he's paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody's ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license.

And they showed he didn't pay any federal income tax. So that makes me smart. Zero. And then when Clinton speculated that Trump might have not paid any federal income tax for a lot of years, he said, well, that's because the government would have squandered the money. So this has been a long running political saga. So, yes, timing is critical.

In a few more days, even, the Republicans take control of the House. So this committee wanted to get at these records and release them. Whether or not they could be applied to any American citizen is kind of a side road because we're talking about a president. I know that it may be a few days before these actual tax returns are released, which I understand are thousands of pages and probably very hard to get through. And there apparently needs to be a lot of redactions of personal information. But this committee did release this report Tuesday night. And what did the report say about what might be in the taxes? I guess what might we expect to happen in the next days, weeks? Forensic accounting and lots of people pouring over these documents. But I think a top line

is that it is expected to confirm, and this summary said, that Trump repeatedly paid little given his income or nothing in some of those six years even as he was making tens of millions of dollars but he was able to whittle away that income by claiming steep business losses that offset that income and one member of the ways and means committee said that the return showed that there were these tens of millions of dollars that were claimed without adequate substantiation. So we haven't seen the returns, but they are questioning the losses that he claimed. Also, that he and Melania's income and payments fluctuated wildly over those six years. You know, the New York Times first reported in 2020 that he paid $750 in 2016 and 2017.

So this goes a little bit further and says in his last full year in office, he didn't pay any federal income tax. Right. Is it fair for me to say this is kind of building off the previous investigations we've seen in The New York Times, which essentially say that this is a guy that doesn't pay a lot of taxes and has found a lot of ways to not pay those taxes? Although you said earlier that his argument for that has been that he's smart. Yeah. The New York Times, you know, broke open this stuff in 2020. And as I say, that will be verified in some of these returns we expect. But I think what's key here is that this committee is trying to get at the idea that this is a rich man who paid little tax given his income and that there should be some kind of accountability for that, you know, in voters' minds. Okay, the vote by this one committee,

the Ways and Means Committee to release tax documents, I guess was the latest reminder this week of Trump's truly abnormal presidency. But the wrapping up of the January 6th committee was the other one, right? This is a totally different committee. So let's move on to that. much back and forth about whether they would. This bipartisan, though very Democrat-dominated committee voted unanimously to refer evidence of Trump's crimes to the Justice Department. And what crimes do they believe that he committed? So, Jamie, I think it's important, you know, to remind everyone that these are referrals.

They're not charges. Charges can only be laid by the Department of Justice. And so that's the step we're at. Today's parting message from the House January 6th committee reads like a criminal indictment, which is exactly what they're hoping comes of their work. This committee said we think that he committed these crimes and you should look into that, investigate it and charge him. So there are four things. One was obstructing an official proceeding. I mean, this was all about how he tried to prevent the electrical college votes from being verified by Congress on January

6th, urging that supporters go to Capitol Hill to get justice on that day. The whole purpose and obvious effect of Trump's scheme were to obstruct, influence and impede this official proceeding, the central moment for the lawful transfer of power in the United States. The second was conspiracy to defraud the United States. I mean, essentially lies about Trump being the true winner of the election, you know, the voting machine rigging, you know, continuing to say that he won fair and square to this day. Former President Trump did not engage in a plan to defraud the United States acting alone. He entered into agreements, formal and informal, with several other individuals who assisted him with his criminal objectives. The third was conspiracy to make a false statement. And this was about suggesting and trying to submit a fake slate of

presidential electors, according to the committee. And the last one really is the most important. And it's insurrection. It's language is inciting, assisting, or aiding or comforting an insurrection. An insurrection is a rebellion against the authority of the United States. It is a grave federal offense. So that's a broad sweep of actions, particularly saying that he didn't have to do it, but if he aided or comforted those who were doing it on his behalf, he would be guilty, according to the committee. And this charge is rare. It's aggressive. It hasn't been tried in any of the other criminal prosecutions of the people who were on the Hill that day and involved in the violence. And lastly, it's really

important because if he were convicted of insurrection, theoretically, he could be barred from holding federal office again in the U.S. Constitution. I understand this is the first time that Congress has ever recommended or referred charges to the Justice Department for a former president. And the Justice Department obviously doesn't have to act here. It's their decision whether they lay charges. And as we've talked about on the show many times, they are investigating Trump's role in January 6th. They have another investigation that deals with his handling of classified documents. But I guess I'm just wondering, Susan, like how might the fact that members of Congress clearly believe the former president committed serious crimes put more pressure on the DOJ to act in at

least one of these investigations like will it put pressure on them to to lay charges do you think I think there's two ways of looking at that Jamie one is yes a year and a half investigation a thousand witnesses a million pages of documents this was an extremely exhaustive investigation, which they are now turning over to the DOJ to plow through as it does its own investigation. So yes, there's the weight of that evidence now being forwarded to the Justice Department. That's pressure. But I think we need to be a bit wary too, because much of this evidence, many of the testimony that we heard so dramatically in these committee hearings, if it were to go to charges, this would all have to be challenged in court.

And Trump's lawyers will also be going over all this testimony and saying, well, maybe there's stuff here that you didn't present that actually makes him look quite legal and quite fair to Donald Trump. So the Justice Department may feel a bit more pressure, although it says it cannot respond to political pressure. But it also is going to be super cautious, overcautious, one person told me, about any charges against Donald Trump, knowing what that could unleash legally and really politically. Okay. And along with these recommendations for criminal investigation, members of the committee spoke earlier this week on the dais at Congress. There was a 154-page executive summary of a final report released. I wonder, Susan, if you could just reflect on some of the big takeaways here for you. I think it was more like a summary of what this committee has been saying in its public hearings for many months now.

That their straightforward conclusion, they said, was that the central cause of the January 6th riots was Donald Trump and many others followed him and that none of the events would have happened without him. I mean, in this summary, they outline 17 findings from their investigation that Trump knew the fraud allegations he was pushing were false, and he continued to give them oxygen and amplify them. And a lot of testimony about that. His advisors were telling him, his lawyers were telling him that there was no fact, no basis for the fraud, the big lie, and he continued to speak about it publicly and still is. to speak about it publicly and still is. And that Trump believed then, they said,

and continues to believe that he's above the law, said the committee, that he isn't bound by the Constitution and any checks on presidential authority. So it's that, you know, straightforward conclusions that are in this summary based on the evidence that they've gathered over the last year and a half, really. This committee is nearing the end of its work. But as the country, we remain in strange and uncharted waters. Ours is not a system of justice where foot soldiers go to jail and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass. Justin from the January 6th committee announcing moments ago they anticipate their final report will now

be released tomorrow. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people, and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income. That's not a typo,

50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. Search for Money for Cops. As somebody who watches this closely, what did you make of this committee, which was really historic and I think it's maybe fair to say conducted itself in a different way than other committees we've seen, right? Like it was really arresting at times. It was dramatic. You know, these public hearings with dramatic testimony unknown until that day did cause a stir, certainly politically in Washington and beyond. The testimony was at were very emotional about what this whole investigation had done to them.

There were people who worked for Trump who came forward and said they were worried about what was going to happen. There was a lot of drama. So this is really, in a way, anticlimactic because we've seen so much. This is really, in a way, anti-climatic because we've seen so much. But I think, you know, Liz Cheney, the Republican, one of two on the committee, who really stood up and said, we believe that we must investigate fairly. She said this week, again, that based on their evidence, anyone who conducted behavior like this in the United States should never again be allowed to run for the presidency. So clearly saying to Americans, don't get swept up in this Trump game again. We talked about how the Republicans are likely going to shut down this committee. And we also talked about how they were very against the release of the decision or the vote to release Trump's taxes.

How are they reacting so far to the criminal referrals that are coming from from the January 6th committee? Well, clearly, they're saying that this is a political scam. This is about Donald Trump and about actually going after him once again. And when we look at the real folks, he says, don't get it when they come after me. People who loveces the idea that, you know, the left is after Trump and gives them almost more oxygen in their argument going forward. So it really cuts two ways in how this is being seen. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's interesting to see him this week kind of double down on the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen. He's still really on that. Susan, there have been suggestions that one of the reasons why Trump decided to run in 2024 was because it could protect him against prosecution. And I wonder if you could explain that to me. Like, how would running for and or becoming president a second time protect him from being charged with crimes? him from being charged with crimes? Well, from the legal analysis that I've read, I'm not a lawyer, there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence that running for the nominee or running for president would protect him, would give him any additional legal protections in these investigations.

You know, for sure, it creates a more complicated political and practical environment for investigators and may influence supporters or fundraising, but legally, it doesn't protect him. Unusually, maybe for some, it also doesn't suggest that he couldn't run, that some of these charges, even if he were convicted, do not by themselves suggest that he couldn't run for a second term as president of the United States. Barring that one on insurrection, which by many people's account would mean under the Constitution that he would not be allowed to run again or hold the presidency again. And perhaps the only thing that is certain is that these midterm elections where he did lose and the Republicans lost and did much more poorly than many expected, that has continued to follow him around as people looking at him and saying, is he a loser and not the winner that we need going into the next election?

So we will see. But, you know, worth reminding people that these investigations by the DOJ are going to take a long time. So there's a long trail ahead before there's any certainty on whether Donald Trump faces criminal charges. any certainty on whether Donald Trump faces criminal charges. Okay. So you're telling me we're probably going to be talking about Donald Trump a lot in 2023, too. Susan, thank you so much for this. You're welcome. All right, that is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.