总统唐纳德·特朗普美国在2020年的损失选举根据法律专家的说法，这可能会使他为击退一系列针对自己和公司的诉讼和调查所做的努力变得非常复杂，迫使他放弃过去四年来最有效的法律保护。
尽管特朗普在任职期间肯定没有逃脱法律审查，但他的律师在努力推迟或破坏各种调查和案件时，一再试图声称总统办公室实质上给予了他豁免权。在几起案件中，司法部代表特朗普进行了干预，为他的个人辩护律师提供了法律支持。
1月20日卸任后，特朗普将不得不改变这一战略，因为他面临着作为普通公民管理辩护的新现实，既涉及未决民事案件，也涉及可能具有民事和刑事影响的调查。
“毫无疑问，有许多积极的调查可能会涉及唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump):普通公民，并导致对他的起诉和起诉，”调查前总统理查德·尼克松(Richard Nixon)的水门事件特别检察部队前高级检察官理查德·本·维尼斯特(Richard Ben-Veniste)的律师说。
然而，专家们质疑对特朗普展开任何联邦调查的可能性，因为这可能会带来非同寻常的政治后果。特朗普目前可能面临的几乎所有法律威胁本质上都不是犯罪，指控前总统犯罪是前所未有的。
纽约的调查
特朗普可能面临的更重大的潜在法律威胁之一来自曼哈顿地区检察官Cy Vance，他在一年多前对特朗普的个人和商业财务展开了调查。
此案始于向涉嫌与特朗普有婚外情的女性支付款项，特朗普后来通过白宫发言人否认了这一点。
安德鲁·伯顿/盖蒂影像公司，文件
曼哈顿地区检察官小塞鲁斯·万斯在旧金山国际机场的全球网络安全研讨会上发言
该办公室没有明确说明正在调查哪些具体的不当行为指控，但万斯通过传票寻求价值8年的特朗普纳税申报表。
去年，总统拒绝了传票，声称作为现任总统，他不能受到刑事调查。
美国最高法院最近驳回了总统律师声称的广泛豁免权。
代表特朗普的DOJ随后在联邦法院坚称，传票过于宽泛，等同于政治骚扰。就在上个月，一个三人陪审团驳回了这一指控。政府已寻求最高法院的审查，最高法院目前正在考虑该申请。
纽约司法部长莱蒂西亚·詹姆斯(Letitia James月份单独宣布，她正在调查特朗普和特朗普组织是否不当操纵某些资产的价值，以获得贷款和税收优惠，否则他们将无权获得这些优惠。
调查包括涉及至少四处房产的问题，其中包括最初由《华盛顿邮报》前出版商尤金·迈耶在纽约州威彻斯特建造的七泉庄园。司法部长办公室的一名律师8月份表示，詹姆斯正在调查该房产的保护地役权，也就是限制土地用于保护目的的法律协议，以及该地役权是否被夸大了，“以便获得更大的税收减免，否则是允许的”。
总统的儿子埃里克·特朗普(Eric Trump)目前经营着这家公司，他在上个月的调查中出庭作证。美国广播公司新闻还获悉，总统的公司特朗普组织的几名关键成员也在詹姆斯的办公室接受证词。特朗普组织否认有任何不当行为。
受益于总统职位?
华盛顿特区和马里兰州的总检察长正在对特朗普提起诉讼，指控他非法利用总统职位为自己的个人财务谋利。
他们的诉讼指控特朗普违反了宪法的薪酬条款，该条款禁止接受外国政府的礼物，司法部长特别引用了外国顾客对特朗普在该国首都的酒店和其他财产的访问。
琳达·戴维森/华盛顿邮报
华盛顿特区特朗普国际酒店，2017年6月16日。
美国司法部(U.S. Department of Justice)起诉特朗普，阻止调查人员传唤特朗普相关企业的努力，并呼吁最高法院干预，但法院尚未决定是否受理此案。
不当性行为原告的诽谤诉讼
总统因诽谤被两名女性起诉，她们声称受到特朗普、萨默·泽沃斯和让·卡罗尔的性侵犯。
这两起案件都没有刑事指控，诉讼时效早已过期。
泽沃斯是《学徒》的一名参赛者，她声称特朗普在2007年两次在加州贝弗利山的一家酒店摸她。
卡罗尔，前Elle咨询专栏作家，声称他在20世纪90年代中期在百货公司更衣室强奸了她。
特朗普否认了这两项指控，但在这些否认中，这些妇女说他诽谤了她们。
总统试图辩称他在任期间免受此类诉讼，司法部试图干预卡罗尔提起的案件，但没有成功，但这一努力最近被一名联邦法官驳回。
司法部试图取代特朗普成为诽谤案的被告，引用了一项法律，该法律保护联邦雇员免受其工作期间实施的行为的责任。卡罗尔的律师辩称特朗普发表的涉嫌诽谤的言论超出了他作为总统的工作范围，之后一名联邦法官拒绝了这一尝试。
司法部尚未表示是否会对法官的命令提出上诉。
迈克尔·科恩、“封口费”事件和SDNY
特朗普的另一个潜在法律问题是一个与向涉嫌与特朗普有婚外情的女性支付“封口费”款项有关的案件。这些款项是由总统当时的律师迈克尔·科恩安排的。
作为他2018年8月在纽约南区美国检察官办公室认罪的一部分，科恩说，他是在当时的候选人特朗普的指导下行事的，当时他向成人电影女演员斯托米·丹尼尔斯付款，并与一家媒体公司安排为前《花花公子》模特凯伦·麦克道戈的故事付款。
曼德尔·颜/法新社，通过盖蒂图像，文件
在这张2019年2月28日的档案照片中，迈克尔·科恩是唐纳德·特朗普总统的前私人助理
检察官表示，这些款项是非法竞选融资计划的一部分，科恩表示，购买他们的沉默是“影响选举的主要目的”。
科恩告诉法院，他是在“与联邦办公室候选人协调并按照其指示”的情况下为这些封口费交易做出安排的，他指的是当时的候选人特朗普。
认罪协议令人难忘地将特朗普确定为“个人1”，引发了特朗普可能被视为该案中未被起诉的同谋者的担忧，以及当他不再受到总统的保护时，检察官是否希望对他提起诉讼。
目前还不清楚特朗普退出白宫后，在新的领导下，司法部是否会寻求重新考虑此事，尽管哈佛大学法学教授马克·图什内特告诉美国广播公司新闻，如果他们这样做，他将“感到震惊”。
“毫无疑问，他面临法律风险，从某种意义上说，可能是实质性的法律风险，某种程度上，就案情而言，”图什内说。“但你必须考虑到，标准的措辞是‘起诉裁量权’，即你决定提出哪些有充分根据的指控，我认为，对他提出指控是非常糟糕的行使裁量权。”
特朗普的税收法案
9月，《纽约时报》报道了总统20多年的纳税申报数据。根据这篇文章，国税局正在瞄准特朗普在2010年申请并收到的7290万美元退税。
《纽约时报》表示，他们获得的数据还显示，特朗普将在2022年缴纳1亿美元的税款，如果他在2010年的退款纠纷中败诉，他将被迫向国税局缴纳超过1亿美元的税款。
尽管特朗普和他的律师广泛否认了《纽约时报》调查的真实性，但他们没有否认与审计或即将到期的税单有关的具体细节，而是指责该报提供了特朗普纳税的“选择性画面”。
起诉特朗普的政治危险和“自我赦免”的问题
接受美国广播公司新闻采访的法律专家表示，如果检察官通过正在进行的调查或其他州的调查发现潜在的联邦违规行为，在新的领导下，司法部可能会考虑调查特朗普。
在竞选期间，拜登表示，对前总统进行这样的起诉“可能不太有利于民主”，但他补充说，如果对特朗普提起这样的诉讼，他不会干预。
“司法部不是总统的私人律师事务所，”拜登在8月份说。“司法部长不是总统的私人律师。我不会干预司法部的判断，即他们是否认为他们应该起诉任何他们认为违反法律的人。”
因此，这样一个充满政治色彩的决定很可能掌握在拜登最终选择的司法部长手中——权衡是否对一个在最近的总统选举中获得7100多万张选票的人提起公诉。
哥伦比亚大学法学院(Columbia Law School)法学教授丹尼尔·里奇曼(Daniel Richman)表示:“我预计，即使没有特朗普获得的支持的数量和性质，他们也会考虑到这一点，因为人们一直认为，对即将上任的政府来说，起诉即将离任的政府更像是香蕉共和国的事情。”“我不认为这只是选民的问题，我认为这也是关于和平和直接过渡的规范和期望。”
法律界的另一个话题是，特朗普是否可能在离任前先发制人地赦免自己，以此来抵消任何联邦调查的可能性。
在2018年俄罗斯调查的快速发展中，特朗普在推特上表示，他拥有“赦免自己的绝对权利”，尽管这一举措以前没有经过宪法检验。
专家们支持特朗普可以先发制人地赦免自己的观点，他们指出杰拉尔德·福特在理查德·尼克松被指控犯罪之前对他的赦免，以及美国最高法院19世纪的一项裁决，该裁决认为赦免“可以在犯罪“发生后的任何时候”进行，要么在法律程序进行之前，要么在悬而未决期间，要么在定罪或判决之后。”
“宪法中没有明确禁止自我赦免的语言，”哈佛大学法学教授图什内说。“但当然有一种背景原则，即任何人都不应成为自己案件的法官，自我赦免显然不符合这一原则。
“你必须有很大的信心，赦免会坚持下去，因为如果他这样做了，它不坚持，仅仅这样做将是对他不利的案件的一部分，”里奇曼说。
法律专家提出的另一个理论是，特朗普可能在1月20日之前辞职，副总统迈克·彭斯将接管总统权力，转而给予特朗普全面赦免。
然而，这一举措不会扩大到特朗普最终可能面临的任何州指控。
Out of office, President Trump could face new legal vulnerabilities
PresidentDonald Trump's loss in the 2020electioncould serve to significantly complicate his efforts to fight off a host of lawsuits and investigations into himself and his company, forcing him to shed what has been one of his most effective legal shields for the past four years, according to legal experts.
While Trump certainly hasn’t escaped legal scrutiny during his time in office, his attorneys, in their efforts to delay or derail various investigations and cases, have repeatedly tried to claim the office of the presidency essentially granted him immunity. In several cases, the Justice Department has intervened on Trump's behalf, throwing its legal firepower behind his personal defense attorneys.
Upon departing office on Jan. 20, Trump would have to shift that strategy as he faces the new reality of managing his defenses as a private citizen, both with respect to pending civil cases, as well as investigations which could have both civil and criminal implications.
“There's no question that there are a number of active investigations that could implicate Donald Trump: private citizen, and lead to his indictment and prosecution,” said attorney Richard Ben-Veniste, a former top prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force that investigated former President Richard Nixon.
Experts questioned, however, the likelihood of any federal investigation into Trump being launched given the extraordinary political fallout that could come as a result. Nearly all of the current legal threats Trump could face are not criminal in nature and charging a former president with a crime is unprecedented.
Investigations in New York
One of the more significant potential legal threats Trump could face is from Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, who opened an investigation more than a year ago into Trump’s personal and business finances.
The case started over payments to women who had alleged affairs with Trump, that he later denied through a White House spokesperson.
The office has not spelled out clearly what specific allegations of wrongdoing it is investigating, but Vance sought, through a subpoena, eight years’ worth of Trump’s tax returns.
Last year, the president resisted the subpoena claiming, that as a sitting president, he could not be criminally investigated.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected the broad immunity claim that the president’s attorneys asserted.
The DOJ, on Trump’s behalf, then asserted in federal court that the subpoena was too broad and amounted to political harassment. Just last month, a three-judge panel rejected that claim. The government has sought review with the Supreme Court, which is now considering that petition.
New York Attorney General Letitia James separately announced in August that she was investigating whether Trump and the Trump Organization improperly manipulated the value of certain assets to secure loans and obtain tax benefits to which they otherwise would not have been entitled.
The investigation includes questions about involves at least four properties, including the Seven Springs estate in Westchester, New York originally built by Eugene Meyer, a former publisher of the Washington Post. James is investigating the estate's conservation easement, otherwise known as a legal agreement that limits use of land for conservation purposes, and whether it was inflated "for the purpose of taking a larger tax deduction that would otherwise have been permitted," a lawyer in the attorney general's office said in August.
The president’s son, Eric Trump, who is currently running the business, sat for a deposition in the investigation last month. ABC News has also learned several key members of the president's company, the Trump Organization, also sat for deposition with James' office. The Trump Organization has denied any wrongdoing.
Benefitting from the presidency?
Attorneys general in both Washington, D.C., and Maryland have an ongoing lawsuit against Trump alleging he unlawfully used the office of the presidency to benefit his personal finances.
Their suit accuses Trump of violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which prohibits accepting gifts from foreign governments, with the attorneys general specifically citing foreign patrons to Trump’s hotel in the nation’s capital and other properties.
The U.S. Department of Justice Trump sued to block investigators efforts to subpoena Trump-related businesses his business and appealed for the Supreme Court to intervene, but the court has not yet decided whether to take up the case.
Defamation lawsuits from sexual misconduct accusers
The president is being sued for defamation by two women who have alleged they were sexually assaulted by Trump, Summer Zervos and E. Jean Carroll.
There are no criminal charges associated with either case and statutes of limitations have long since expired.
Zervos was a contestant on “The Apprentice” who alleged Trump groped her in a Beverly Hills, California, hotel on two occasions in 2007.
Carroll, a former Elle advice columnist, alleged he raped her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.
Trump has denied both accusations, but in those denials, the women said he defamed them.
The president has unsuccessfully tried to argue he is immune from such lawsuits while in office and the Justice Department sought to intervene in the case brought by Carroll, but that effort was recently rejected by a federal judge.
The Justice Department tried to substitute for Trump as the defendant in the defamation case, citing a law that shields federal employees from liability for conduct committed in the course of their jobs. A federal judge rejected the attempt after Carroll’s attorneys had argued Trump made the allegedly defaming statements outside the scope of his job as president.
The Justice Department has not said whether it will appeal the judge's order.
Michael Cohen, the 'hush money' affair and the SDNY
Another potential legal issue for Trump is a case related to the “hush money” payments to women who have alleged affairs with Trump. The payments were arranged by the president's then attorney Michael Cohen.
As a part of his August 2018 guilty plea with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York, among the charges to which he pleaded guilty, Cohen said he acted at the direction of then-candidate Trump when he made a payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and arranged with a media company to pay former Playboy model Karen McDougal for her story.
Prosecutors said the payments were part of an illegal campaign finance scheme and Cohen said buying their silence was "for the principal purpose of influencing the election."
Cohen told the court that he made the arrangements for those hush money deals “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” referring to then-candidate Trump.
The plea agreement memorably identified Trump as “Individual 1,” raising the specter that Trump might be considered an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, and whether, when he no longer has the protection of the presidency, prosecutors might want to pursue a case against him.
It’s not clear whether the Justice Department, under new leadership, might seek to revisit the matter, following Trump’s exit from the White House, though Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet told ABC News he would be “shocked” if they did so.
“There's no question that he's at legal risk and probably, in some sense, substantial legal risk, sort of, on the merits,” Tushnet said. “But you have to take into account the standard language is ‘prosecutorial discretion’ about which well-founded charges you decide to bring and I think it would be a very bad exercise of discretion to bring charges against him.”
Trump's tax bill
In September, the New York Times reported on more than two decades worth of tax return data for the president. According to the article, the IRS was zeroing in on a $72.9 million tax refund Trump applied for and received in 2010.
The Times said the data they obtained also showed Trump has a $100 million tax payment coming due in 2022 and more than $100 million more that he would be forced to pay the IRS should he lose his dispute over the 2010 refund.
While Trump and his attorneys have broadly denied the veracity of the Times investigation, they have not denied specific details related to the audit or the tax bills coming due and instead accused the paper of offering a “selective picture” of Trump’s tax payments.
Political dangers of prosecuting Trump and questions of a 'self-pardon'
Legal experts who spoke to ABC News said it’s possible the Justice Department, under new leadership, would consider investigating Trump if prosecutors see potential federal violations surface through the ongoing or other state investigations.
During the campaign, Biden said such a prosecution against a former president would be “probably not very good for democracy” but added he would not intervene if such a case was brought against Trump.
“The Justice Department is not the president's private law firm,” Biden said in August. “The attorney general is not the president's private lawyer. I will not interfere with the Justice Department's judgment of whether or not they think they should pursue the prosecution of anyone that they think has violated the law.”
Such a politically fraught decision, then, would instead likely be in the hands of Biden’s eventual pick for attorney general -- weighing whether to mount a public case against an individual who netted more than 71 million votes in the most recent presidential election.
“I would expect that they would take that into consideration even without the numbers and nature of the support for Trump just because it’s always been thought of to be more of a banana republic thing for the incoming administration to prosecute the outgoing administration,” said Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia Law School. “I don’t think it’s just about voters, I think it’s also about norms and expectations of a peaceful and straightforward transitions.”
A separate conversation in legal circles is whether Trump might seek to neutralize any potential for a federal investigation by preemptively pardoning himself before leaving office.
During the fast-moving developments of the Russia investigation in 2018 Trump tweeted he had “the absolute right to PARDON myself,” though such a move has not been constitutionally tested before.
In bolstering the idea Trump could preemptively pardon himself, experts point both to Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon before he was charged with a crime as well as a 19th century ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court where it held that a pardon "may be exercised at any time after" the commission of a crime, "either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction or judgment."
“There's no language in the Constitution explicitly prohibiting a self-pardon,” Tushnet, the Harvard law professor, said. “But of course there is a sort of background principle that no person should be a judge in his or her own case and a self-pardon clearly is inconsistent with that principle.
“You'd have to have a lot of confidence that the pardon would stick because if he does it and it doesn't stick the mere doing of it would be part of a case against him,” Richman said.
A separate theory legal experts raised is that Trump could resign in the days before Jan. 20 and Vice President Mike Pence, assuming the powers of the presidency, would instead extend Trump a full pardon.
Such a move, however, would not extend to any state charges Trump might eventually face.
