He can't pardon himself (or Ivanka) for tax fraud in New York

Ivanka Trump, daughter and senior adviser to President Trump, said Thursday evening that two fraud investigations into her father and his businesses in New York are "100% motivated by politics, publicity and rage."

The probes are two of several legal entanglements likely to intensify when Trump leaves office and loses immunity from prosecution.

"This is harassment pure and simple. This ‘inquiry’ by NYC Democrats is 100% motivated by politics, publicity and rage," Ivanka Trump tweeted. "They know very well that there’s nothing here and that there was no tax benefit whatsoever. These politicians are simply ruthless."

  Fox

And, BTW, when did Ivanka become a ghostbuster?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  Or is that her prison jumpsuit?

Specifically at issue are hefty consulting fees, some of which were reportedly collected by Ivanka Trump. The investigations conducted by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both Democrats, have been going on for a while; recently, however, new subpoenas were reportedly served on the Trump Organization for records specifically relating to the questionable consulting fees.

[...]

While the cries of unfair harassment and politically-motivated investigations are nothing new from the Trump family, the statement, “there was no tax benefit whatsoever” is a head-scratcher. In essence, Ivanka reveals a defense strategy with those utterly unnecessary six words; when there’s a pending investigation or prosecution, public statements about the substance of the case are about as ill-advised as it gets.

[...]

One method Trump reportedly used to reduce his taxable income was by deducting millions in consulting fees as legitimate business expenses. Documents showed that Ivanka Trump was the recipient of hundreds of thousands of such consulting fees. In fact, the Times reported that a 2017 disclosure filed by Ivanka Trump showed that she reported $747,622 in consulting fees–a figure that “exactly matched consulting fees claimed as tax deductions by the Trump Organization for hotel projects in Hawaii and Vancouver, British Columbia.”

This could be a problem, as Ms. Trump was an executive officer both of the company making the payment and the company doing the consulting. When a key person is on both sides of such a transaction, tax deductions could be illegal if the payments were inflated. However, at this point, it’s premature to speculate on the strength of any particular allegation–or even the existence of any allegation against Ivanka as an individual.

That’s why it’s so odd that the First Daughter opted to comment so specifically and so publicly.

[...]

[W]ithout knowing what, if any, charges might be levied against her, jumping into the specific reasons why a particular deduction was legal makes no sense—particularly when such statements are made by a non-tax lawyer.

  Law and Crime

Well, she is her father's daughter, you know.

Furthermore, the substance of Ivanka’s statement–that “there was no tax benefit whatsoever”–is bizarre in its own right. If the Trump Organization appropriately and legally deducted reasonable consulting fees paid to Ivanka, that deduction would indeed be a tax benefit.

[...]

Is she suggesting the questioned deductions were never actually made? That she herself didn’t receive any tax benefit? That the payments were reasonable and therefore legal? Who knows. What is clear is that Ivanka just made some defense lawyer’s job a little harder.

Like father, like daughter.

Now, if or when the case comes before whatever tribunal for which it is destined, someone will have the lamentable task of explaining why Ivanka’s statement does not constitute some sort of admission. Although Ivanka’s tweet denies wrongdoing, it does so by delving into the mechanics of tax law–denying the receipt of a benefit, as opposed to receiving a payment in the first place. Given that there aren’t even any pending charges against Ms. Trump (yet?), commenting in any way about the underlying facts of a potential criminal investigation is unwise to the extreme.

[...]

[T]here may well come a time when Ivanka’s legal interests and her father’s legal interests diverge. Questionable tax choices made by Donald Trump constitute just such an opportunity. It’s early days for Ivanka to align her defense strategy with that of her father. Rather than jumping in to defend her dad’s every tax move, it would have made far more sense for Ms. Trump to say nothing at all.