Trump May Have Committed A Federal Crime That Has Nothing To Do With January 6th

According to legal expert and Harvard Law Professor, Donald Trump may have committed a "serious federal crime" if he directed the IRS to target his political enemies. Even after leaving office, Trump's time as President is still mired in scandals that are just now being revealed. But this one could be much harder to prove than any of the other criminal investigations into Trump, as Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains.

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Find our merchandise at Teespring

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

There is a possibility that Donald Trump could find himself in even more legal trouble, possibly facing very serious federal criminal charges for something that has absolutely nothing to do with January 6th or the 2020 election at all. And of course, I'm talking about the, uh, scandal that was revealed last week, the IRS scandal, where Donald Trump's political enemies, including James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Michael Cohen were all on the receiving end of very rare forms of IRS audits that only happened to, uh, well, in Comey's case about 8,000 people a year McKay about 30,000 people a year. So very rare. It's like being struck by lightning the day after you got struck by lightning, after you had just been struck by lightning, that's about how rare this would be. And we're not talking about your average run of the mill audits, where you have to go into your local IRS office, go over your numbers.

And then they say, okay, thank you. We're good to go by now, these audits, according to the reports, uh, force individuals to produce bank records, copies of checks, receipts, and letters effectively recreating their finances for the year. In question, the process takes months and often costs thousands of dollars in accountants fees. So again, not simple audits, these are very intense, very involved. They want every document you've ever had with regard to your finances for whatever year they're auditing you for. So where does Donald Trump come in his handpicked appointee to run the IRS? Char Charles Reig is the guy at the center of this scandal. And of course the inspector General's office has announced that they're going to, uh, you know, be investigating this. So maybe we'll get answers. Inspector general investigations usually are garbage anyway, but redig is the guy that Trump put in power to run the IRS.

Redig claims that he, of course doesn't control any of the audits that's done by the career civil servants, right? You know, the, the underlings, basically the other ones who pick these people, I got nothing to do with this. Fair enough, right? Maybe we'll fare that out during the investigation, but Harvard law professor and legal experts, excuse me, Lawrence tribe had this to say about the whole thing. He said, there's no coincidence for sure. Odds are 30,000 to one. This kind of political targeting is a serious federal crime. The question is who committed the serious federal crime, if a serious federal crime was in fact committed. Now, obviously all fingers right now, wanna point to Donald Trump, right? He's the, obviously the most obvious guy via guy, but could we prove that in order to pin any of this on Donald Trump, you would have to be able to

Show that Donald Trump specifically directed redig to direct his underlings, to audit these individuals, to make their lives miserable, which means you'd have to have it in writing. You'd have to have a text message in email, a DM, whatever it is, you've gotta have that hardcore smoking gun evidence in order to link Donald Trump to any of this. If you do not have that, if you only have witnesses saying, oh, well, I heard him say to do that. I'm not gonna cut it in a criminal trial. It's simply not. You've gotta have again, that hardcore smoking gun evidence.