Boss jock spinning stacks of facts

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

It was one thing – one incredibly corrupt thing – for private citizen Donald Trump to wait until after he’d returned to his side hustle as president of the United States to file a personal $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (that he himself just coincidentally again commanded), and then withdraw that suit in exchange for blocking the IRS from auditing his past taxes and creating an almost $2 billion fund to pay off people (like January 6 rioters) who had been “injured” by the allegedly corrupt Justice Department of the prior president.  The judge says that original lawsuit was a sham to set the stage for the “settlement” that tried to end it; she sanctioned Trump’s private lawyers for their part, and wondered where in the hell the Justice Department was in defending the IRS from these highly-Constitutionally-questionable claims.

That, and the small groundswell of opposition to the “settlement” from Republican members of Congress, made it seem that, just maybe, Trump had gone too far this time.  And it provided cover for two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to demand a written promise that those settlement terms would not be pursued before they would join the committee’s majority vote to send acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination for the job on to the full Senate.  It was a “promise” that they got this past weekend.  Or did they?

Critics, however, say the written assurances are a political solution to a political problem, rather than a legally binding document.

“This case was flagrantly illegal from the start and they’re clearly trying to find a political way out of it that gets the attorney general confirmed without giving up their legal rights to actually enforce this illegal settlement,” said Matthew Platkin, a Democratic former New Jersey attorney general. He is now in private practice, representing various people suing over the fund.

(snip)

One of the two documents Mr. Blanche released stated that the order creating the fund “is rescinded and shall have no force or effect.” The second document limits a provision that gave broad protection to Mr. Trump, his relatives, and “related or affiliated individuals” from tax audits. The new written order from Mr. Blanche says that the provision only covers the president, two of his sons and his company, and that it applies “only retroactively.”

[The senators] said in a statement that the documents assuaged their concerns, ending an intraparty stalemate that had stalled Mr. Blanche’s confirmation process for days. The senators added that they believed the department had “acknowledged in a binding written order” that the audit protections were limited, “addressing concerns that multiple of our Republican colleagues share.”

Mr. Platkin said that was clearly not the case. He pointed to the original wording of the documents that created what Democrats have called a slush fund that could be used to pay convicted rioters of Jan. 6, 2021, and other supporters of Mr. Trump who have been investigated, prosecuted or claim to have been mistreated by the federal government.

The original terms of the documents creating the fund said it “may be modified only with the written agreement of the parties” — a reference to Mr. Trump, his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., the Trump Organization and specific government agencies.

As of the time of this posting, there have been no written agreements to this modification signed by any of the Trumps, their businesses, or the government agencies involved.

Mr. Blanche’s order, however, is a government document signed only by him. “So absent any, a new executed agreement that they enter into, all of this is meaningless as a matter of law,” Mr. Platkin said.

For one, an order from the attorney general can be reversed by a future order from an attorney general, so in theory the fund could be revived by the same type of written document any time after Mr. Blanche is confirmed.

Senator Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, echoed those concerns in a statement, asserting that the new written promise did not prevent the administration “from bringing the slush fund back from the dead next week.”

As a matter of fact, last weekend the president promised he was going to do something he hardly ever does: get a law passed, one that would revive the “slush fund” because he’d “like to see [the January 6 rioters] compensated for their pain.”

Take this president’s “promise” with as much salt as you can stand, especially since it is a promise that will require him to work with Congress rather than just executive action a thing into being, the modus with which he is much more comfortable operandi ng.  In The New Republic, Matt Ford argues that TFG lacks any skill at all at legislating, but has set a new standard among politicians for using the office for the benefit of himself.

The only thing truly impressive about Donald Trump is his skill at corruption. This is not, strictly speaking, a good thing to be good at. Yet one cannot help but be awed at the talent that he possesses for abusing power and enriching himself. The last 10 years have seen more innovations in corruption by Trump than the 240 years of American history that preceded them.

Take, for example, his latest scheme to enrich himself and others at the expense of everyone else. Trump owns a social media company named TruthSocial…

(snip)

Last week, TruthSocial announced an extraordinary new “product”: Truth API, a version of his social media feed that gives subscribers “a direct, licensed, real-time feed of the platform’s most market-moving Truths.” (Truths is the hyper-Orwellian name that TruthSocial gives to posts.) In practical terms, it would allow Wall Street firms and other financial institutions access to Trump’s market-moving posts a handful of seconds before they reach the general public.

Why would anyone bother to pay for a few seconds’ advantage to read a Trump post? Because TMTG, the company that operates TruthSocial, can make money off it. Imagine, for instance, that Trump announces higher or lower tariffs against U.S. trading partners, a new bombing campaign against Iran, or his decision to support or oppose a publicly traded American company. A few seconds of lead time could allow firms with complex trading algorithms to cash in on market movements by Trump’s posts—all by handing him a small monthly slice of the profits.

(snip)

The scheme is functionally no different than if he asked for giant burlap sacks of cash from Wall Street executives in exchange for reading his executive orders the day before they are issued.

Trump has largely given up on anything resembling policymaking or governance during his second term. His legislative agenda is practically nonexistent, save for a constitutionally dubious bill to reshape American elections that is dead on arrival in the Senate. He has outsourced his foreign policy, which largely consists of being humiliated by the Iranian government over closures of the Strait of Hormuz, to Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Stephen Miller, Trump’s domestic policy guru, is largely running the mass-deportation portfolio without real supervision.

That gives Trump plenty of free time to devote himself to his two great loves. When it comes to remaking Washington, D.C., in his own image, Trump has had a mixed record of success. The Kennedy Center no longer bears his name, thanks to a court ruling, while the ruins of the East Wing are slowly being built over into a gaudy ballroom. The administration also plans on erecting a giant marble arch outside Arlington National Cemetery to honor Trump himself; the next Democratic president will likely demolish it as soon as they can.

When it comes to corrupt self-enrichment, however, there are no obstacles or guard rails. He has stuffed the Justice Department with his former (and, in a way, current) personal lawyers to end its post-Watergate tradition of independence. The Supreme Court ruled two years ago that Trump enjoys “absolute immunity” for any crimes committed in connection with his “core constitutional powers.” This anti-constitutional decision amounted to a blank check to collect bribes, kickbacks, and other forms of graft.

To that end, Trump has taken millions from various donors in exchange for pardoning a wide range of white-collar criminals. The Wall Street Journal reported in December that the rumored going price for clemency is at least $1 million. In one instance, Trump pardoned a Democratic member of Congress whose family had petitioned him for help and then lashed out at him on social media for not switching parties, implicitly suggesting a quid pro quo of sorts. (Texas Representative Henry Cuellar, the lawmaker in question, has denied any wrongdoing over his original bribery charges or the pardon he obtained from Trump.)

This is fairly unimaginative by Trumpian standards, of course. A more characteristic scheme is assigning a personal aide—Meredith O’Rourke, a fundraiser whom he reportedly calls his “princess of darkness”—to collect tens of billions of dollars in contributions from major corporations for various pet projects. The Journal reported last month that O’Rourke has taken to referring to Trump as “the boss” and telling the companies, many of whom have regulatory concerns in Washington, that “the boss wants this money.” Those companies have in turn donated hefty sums for the new White House ballroom, Trump’s planned presidential library, and more.

And the hits just keep on comin’!

The lipstick on a pig

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

The artificial intelligence that is squatting, uninvited, in my Google search engine is trying to reassure me.  There are people  involved in this equation, it says, and “absolute proof that leaves no room for denial does not exist in human  discourse” because people may deny an obvious conclusion if it hurts their feelings.  Or if, as we’ve seen, it casts the Mayor of MAGAtown in a less than a blindingly positive glow.  My conclusion is you’ve got to keep piling up the facts and remain confident they will lead, eventually, to the scales falling from the eyes of enough people to make a difference.  As may be happening now, both in the Senate’s consideration of the nominee for attorney general and in a federal judge’s finding that a Donald Trump lawsuit against the IRS “was manufactured simply to justify its settlement”.

In May we discussed the very clearly corrupt intentions of the lawsuit filed by private citizen Trump (and his elder sons and their businesses) against the Internal Revenue Service of the government run by President Trump, seeking $10 billion to punish the IRS for laxity in letting TFG’s personal income taxes be stolen and later published (by the New York Times) against his wishes during his first term.  He swore in the court filing that letting the public see his tax returns “caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”  But just as Judge Kathleen Williams began to question the legitimacy of Trump suing his own government – with Trump controlling the lawyers on both sides of a case in which there seemed to be no real conflict – Trump withdrew the suit (hoping to take away the judge’s control of the proceedings) and then his Justice Department announced a stunning settlement.

  • The creation of a tax-funded $1.8 billion fund to pay damages to persons who claim to have been victimized by the government under Democratic presidents, apparently to include those convicted (and later pardoned, by TFG) of offenses related to the treasonous assault on the Capitol on January 6; the fund was to be controlled by Trump-appointed trustees with no oversight permitted from Congress or the courts; and
  • The IRS would be barred, in perpetuity, from auditing any of the past tax returns of Trump or his elder sons or or any of their businesses, which I had characterized as “An after-the-fact non-disclosure agreement, shielding any evidence of any prior tax evasion” from use in court or from disclosure to the public.

It took less than two weeks for the prospect of a “slush fund” of tax money being used to pay off the rioters who attacked police officers on January 6 to rouse some GOP members of Congress who had conveniently forgotten the concept of “checks and balances” among the branches of government, while always remembering the political power TFG holds over MAGA America.  Acting attorney general Todd Blanche told a House subcommittee that plans for that fund were dead.  Deceased.  Irretrievably unrevivable.  And you could take his word for it, although he refused to put this new part of the agreement in writing.  But the part of the agreement preventing the IRS from auditing the Trumps?  Oh, that would stay in effect.

Meanwhile, Judge Williams had re-opened the case to investigate whether the court had been deceived through the misconduct of lawyers.  She was prompted to that action by a letter from three dozen former federal judges who argued “that Mr. Trump’s settlement agreement raised serious questions about his ‘candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system.’”

Judge Williams said that she wanted to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr. Trump’s efforts to settle the lawsuit in a way that benefited him and his allies. If she succeeds in moving forward with her inquiry, it could ultimately result in questions being asked of the Justice Department leaders who signed the agreements to settle the suit — chief among them, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, and Stanley Woodward Jr., the No. 3 official in the department.

In her order, Judge Williams asserted that she was “empowered to investigate serious misconduct” in any case before her…”

Did she ever.  In mid-July,

A federal judge held [July 13] that President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS was manufactured simply to justify its settlement, including a multibillion-dollar “anti-weaponization” fund for political allies and a shield from IRS scrutiny.

“This lawsuit was not brought to vindicate rights; it was brought to manipulate the judicial process,” U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams wrote in a blistering 56-page ruling. “This was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law.”

The fact that the federal government did not ever counter arguments that the arrangement was unconstitutional —and that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche unilaterally canceled plans for the Anti-Weaponization Fund — were glaring signals that the lawsuit was not genuine, Williams said.

And furthermore,

Though the administration has argued that Trump had filed the lawsuit — a demand for a $10 billion payout for the leak of his tax returns — in his personal capacity, Williams said that explanation was untenable.

“The court declines to adopt or accept the credulous exercise of divorcing President Trump’s current job title from an understanding of what happened here,” she wrote. “The Lead Plaintiff and the Government are one, a fully realized unitary interest.”

Williams added that Trump could have brought the lawsuit while he was a private citizen but appears to have waited until he was reelected president and appointed his former lawyer to help lead the DOJ.

Trump is appealing that ruling, which is a “full-throated repudiation of Trump and his administration” that came just as Blanche’s nomination as attorney general was going before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Where, as luck would have it, sit two Republicans who object to provisions of the Trump/IRS lawsuit settlement AND who are ending their terms this year and so are beyond the reach of Trump’s political threats.  By earlier this week,

Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) had insisted that the Trump administration limit — in writing — central provisions of a controversial deal struck this spring between the Justice Department and the president to resolve a lawsuit he filed against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. DOJ was not able to provide the senators sufficient assurances to win their agreement to support Blanche.

The senators have said their votes for Blanche’s nomination hinge on their requested changes to the deal. A “no” vote from either one of them would be enough to sink Blanche’s nomination at the committee stage, given the expectation that all Judiciary Committee Democrats will oppose Blanche’s confirmation.

(snip)

Tillis, who opted not to seek reelection this year and has shown an increasing willingness to tangle with Trump, has expressed concern that the payout fund could end up rewarding defendants who attacked police during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Cornyn, who lost his reelection bid in May after Trump endorsed his primary opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, shared Tillis’s worries on the fund and has said he wants the administration to clarify, in writing, that the tax protections afforded by the deal do not apply to the Trump family’s future actions.

This resistance led to a rescheduling of the committee vote to next week.  Cornyn and Tillis had continued discussions with Blanche and reported some progress…until Blanche’s former law client couldn’t resist the urge to show everyone who is boss.

President Donald Trump threatened on Saturday to revive his controversial plan for federal payouts to people he says were “badly treated” by the Obama and Biden administrations, telling senators that he would “push hard” for legislation to fund the payments if they did not confirm his nominee for attorney general.

“It will immediately be back on the table, and I will get it done,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account, vowing to pass an “Anti-Weaponization Bill” should his nomination of Todd Blanche for attorney general fail in the Senate.

Trump added that he would keep Blanche as acting attorney general and blasted two GOP senators — John Cornyn (Texas) and Thom Tillis (North Carolina) — who have blocked the nomination from advancing over concerns about the fund.

It was not immediately clear what legislation the president was referencing, and the White House declined to elaborate on Trump’s post.

So, what do we have here:

  1. A man who ceaselessly brags about his business acumen (even though he is a man who ran casinos  into bankruptcy), but who swears in court that public disclosure of his tax returns causes him public embarrassment and tarnishes his business reputation.
  2. A man who, at any time in the years when he was not president of the United States, could have sued the IRS over its contractor’s theft of his tax returns that got leaked to the New York Times, but who didn’t do so until he was president again and thus controlled the governmental department that runs the IRS as well as the department that files lawsuits on behalf of the government.
  3. A man who claimed he really really deserved $10 billion dollars in compensation for real damages done to him, but who dropped the suit without argument when the judge began to question the suit’s legitimacy.
  4. A man who claimed not to know anything about the settlement of that lawsuit (sorta like he claimed not to know anything about Project 2025), but who was all on board with paying almost $2 billion dollars to people he had already pardoned for their crimes in attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6.  And still is, even after a federal judge found that the suit was just the lipstick put on the pig of an effort to legitimize a multi-billion dollar payoff to Trump supporters while shielding his possible past tax evasion from government scrutiny.
  5. A man who wants his former personal criminal defense lawyer to run the Department of Justice (so he can punish his political enemies), but who thinks nothing of bastardizing the legal procedure for putting him in that office in order to get his way after officials in another branch of government have the temerity to do their job instead of rubberstamping his edicts.

When a man’s actions tell you who he really is…it’s time to believe him.  Not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings, you know; just piling up some facts over here, boss…

Hey Houston, hope you’re happy with the new chief federal prosecutor who says there’s at least one religion that’s incompatible with our civilization

Pat Ryan 1 Comment

The Trump Administration has gamed the system to install without Senate confirmation a new U.S. Attorney in the nation’s fourth largest city, a man who has said he believes that hundreds of thousands of the residents of that district are unfit to be Americans because of their religious faith.  In a country where everyone is guaranteed freedom of religion by the U.S. Constitution, the new chief federal prosecutor for a district that is home to nine million people in an area bigger than 16 other whole states is on the record stating – without caveat – that “Islam is not compatible with Western civilization.”

This is probably not what the smug Trump spokesrobots had in mind when they smirked that “elections have consequences,” but they were right.

Each president of the United States is responsible for nominating people to serve in about 4000 government jobs, and you can assume that virtually all of those people share the president’s political views to some extent.  By law, there are about 1200 of these nominees who must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and that is generally easily done when the president’s party has a majority in the Senate, as the Republicans do now.  Barely.  And yet, this president – or more accurately, this president’s men, since this president himself is too uneducated in government operations and too disinterested in learning about the actual inner workings of government to have ever thought up this workaround on his own – has chosen to evade that requirement of confirmation in a number of cases after Senate Democrats “stymied some of the Trump administration’s more controversial picks. While the Senate confirmation process is intended to vet candidates for these high profile jobs, many of Trump’s picks have sidestepped that process.”  Including, now, Aaron Reitz, described by his new office here.  The Texas Tribune reports:

Aaron Reitz has been appointed the next U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas. Reitz previously worked as a top deputy to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and worked in the Trump Justice Department before running for attorney general earlier this year.

Reitz finished fourth, despite Paxton’s endorsement, in a crowded and expensive primary. The Marine Corps veteran ran on a militant platform of destroying the left, going after DEI and waging “counter-jihad” on radical Muslims.

(snip)

Reitz enters the position at a perilous moment. The U.S. attorney’s office is likely to be involved in deciding whether to prosecute anyone in relation to [last] week’s fatal shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Houston. The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General is leading the investigation, and the Harris County district attorney has vowed his own investigation, as well.

I wrote about Reitz’ campaign of anti-Muslim bigotry here.

It’s no surprise that this Administration would favor someone like Reitz for this job; it is becoming less and less surprising to learn how it has bent the rules of nomination and confirmation all out of whack to slide him into the post without him having to defend his odious beliefs in a public confirmation hearing.  Like he had to do in February 2025 when he was appointed to another top Justice Department post:

During a confirmation hearing in February 2025, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee pressed Reitz on a social media post where he said President Donald Trump should follow the lead of President Andrew Jackson and ignore a Supreme Court decision.

“There is no hard and fast rule about whether, in every instance a public official is bound by a court decision,” Reitz told the committee. “There are some instances in which he or she may be lawfully bound and some instances where he or she may not be lawfully bound.”

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin called Reitz’s appointment to the OLP “a danger to the rule of law,”; while some conservative lawmakers and scholars defended the stance amid debates about the power of district-level courts to issue nationwide injunctions on controversial issues.

Politico reported almost a year ago how the Administration is working around the requirement for Senate confirmation in the cases of some of its own nominees.  The law allows the Administration (any Administration, not just this one) to appoint an interim or acting U.S. Attorney to take over the job for up to 120 days while awaiting Senate confirmation of the permanent nominee.  If the Senate does not confirm the nominee after 120 days, the federal judges in the district can appoint someone to take over the responsibility of running that office, and that  person can serve indefinitely (no 120 day limit) until the Senate does finally confirm a nominee.  If the Senate never  does confirm a nominee – or an Administration never nominates anyone else for the job – the person picked by the judges can stay in place until they leave on their own or the president asks them to step down.  No Senate confirmation ever required.   Here’s how it’s worked in the Southern District of Texas:

  • Alamdar Hamdani was nominated by President Biden in November 2022, and was confirmed by voice vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee and then the full Senate that next month; he resigned at the end of the Biden Administration in January 2025…it is customary for most political appointees to resign so a new president can appoint a new person to the job.
  • Nicholas Ganjei was sworn in as the acting  U.S. Attorney in Houston in January 2025, the start of the second Trump Administration.  When no permanent nominee was named, the district judges in the Southern District of Texas voted, unanimously, on May 28 to make Ganjei the new permanent U.S. Attorney.
  • President Trump nominated Ganjei to be a federal judge in Houston in November 2025; he was confirmed by the Senate in February 2026 and started his new job in March 2026.
  • John Marck was appointed acting  U.S. Attorney in March 2026, succeeding Ganjei.
  • Then Marck was himself nominated to the federal bench on April 6, less than a month later, and he was confirmed to that new job June 24.  He left the U.S. Attorney’s office July 9 (last week).
  • On that same day, July 9, it was reported that the judges in the Southern District of Texas had voted unanimously to confirm Reitz as the new man.  With no 120-day limit, no Senate confirmation needed.

And so we have a new chief federal prosecutor in Houston who said just months ago, while running to be Texas attorney general, that Islam just doesn’t fit in with life in Houston…or Texas, or America, or anywhere in the Western world!  To quote me again from this past January:

He didn’t blast the individual Muslims who’ve committed acts of terror in Western nations, he didn’t accuse all Muslims of hating America, he didn’t even nonsensically claim – as Greg Abbott and others have – that Muslims in Texas are trying to build towns where only Muslims can buy property and their religious law will supersede Texas law, although he did do that later in the ad.  No, he relied on some unspecified religious and civilizational authority to proudly proclaim, as if there was ever any real doubt, that “Islam is not compatible with Western civilization.”  Without specifying why, of course.  Perhaps we can construe that he feels Muslims do not conform to the (unspecified) “Christian values” which he promises to defend from the Muslim “invasion” that has been supported by “politicians.”  (Do you wonder if the Christian value of recognizing that others may find their own path to God is one of the Christian values he’ll defend?)

That’s some pretty assertive, take-no-prisoners religious bigotry.  And just the dreary worldview that Christian nationalists – who by definition reject the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty for all  in the United States – are selling.

Do you still need to be persuaded of the importance of voting?

A sliver of dawn, a sleight of hand

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

Just two weeks ago the president who never stops impressing us with his corruptive instincts and self-serving interpretations of law and custom raised the bar like nobody’s ever seen before.  He went to court as a private citizen suing his own government for $10 billion in damages, then withdrew the suit in favor of the establishment of a multi-billion dollar fund he could control from the shadows that could make payments with taxpayer dollars (your taxes and mine) to anyone who claimed to have “victimized” by the Biden Justice Department, including the people convicted of crimes for storming the Capitol on January 6.  Turns out those “billion-dollar slush fund” headlines were too much, even for the cowed and subservient Republicans in Congress who had never before seen any Trump proposal they couldn’t love.  But so far, they still providing cover for another part of the “settlement” that’s just as corrupt and self-serving for you know who.

In the good news section, we have yesterday’s declaration by the acting attorney general “withdrawing a proposal to create a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people claiming to be victims of unfair prosecution, amid a revolt among Republicans who saw it as an ethical and political disaster.”  Even at that, though, the acting AG (and Trump’s former criminal lawyer) wouldn’t go as far as some members wanted.

Democrats repeatedly requested that Mr. [Todd] Blanche commit to rescind, in writing, his order creating the payout fund.

“You started it, you established it in writing, so it just makes sense to rescind it in writing,” said Representative Grace Meng, Democrat of New York.

“I’m not committing to put anything in writing,” he said, adding that he would abide by his word and would take the request under advisement.

So, won’t sign, but you can trust him?  Right.  Some Republicans senators trust him so much that today they’re considering writing a ban on the fund into law! [6/5 Editor’s note: they tried, but they did not succeed. Later today Justice Department filings in two courts stated the fund is not going forward; I’m still not convinced.]

And just because Blanche “promised” this bad idea would be canned does not, I think, mean we should trust that it will.  The Trumpists usually come up with a backup plan to get whatever crazy thing they want; they are not the kind to throw up their hands and whisper “oops, my bad.”

Still, on its face at this point, I finally see a glimmer of a sign that Trump can be stopped: by the citizens who react so viscerally to such a poorly-camouflaged grift, who then empower the paper tiger members of Congress to for once do their —-ing jobs and stand athwart a runaway Executive and shout “Stop!”  The only people who seem unhappy about this development are those January 6 offenders-turned-pardonees who thought they’d stumbled onto a way to monetize their treason.

Another good news part is that the federal judge who originally felt she had no choice but to let this plan go ahead has had a change of heart.  After three dozen former federal judges argued “that Mr. Trump’s settlement agreement raised serious questions about his ‘candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system,’” Judge Kathleen Williams re-opened the case to investigate allegations that the court was deceived through the misconduct of lawyers.  All of whom, you’ll recall – both sides – are Trump’s lawyers.  Words like “collusion” and “fraud upon the court” are being summoned.

Before she closed the case, Judge Williams, an Obama appointee, had in fact questioned whether the lawsuit presented an actual conflict that she could adjudicate, given that Mr. Trump was on both sides of the suit, bringing claims against a federal agency that he controlled. When she closed it, she noted there was no “settlement of record,” but shortly after, the Justice Department released its agreement foreclosing the action.

In her brief but stern order on Friday, Judge Williams said that she wanted to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr. Trump’s efforts to settle the lawsuit in a way that benefited him and his allies. If she succeeds in moving forward with her inquiry, it could ultimately result in questions being asked of the Justice Department leaders who signed the agreements to settle the suit — chief among them, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, and Stanley Woodward Jr., the No. 3 official in the department.

In her order, Judge Williams asserted that she was “empowered to investigate serious misconduct” in any case before her, and ordered Mr. Trump’s lawyers to tell her by June 12 whether the lawsuit should be formally reopened because “the court was the victim of a fraud.”

She also wanted Mr. Trump’s lawyers to respond to the question of whether he had colluded with his own government to settle the case “to avoid judicial scrutiny.”

(snip)

In their filing…the former judges claimed that Mr. Trump had improperly used his suit against the I.R.S. as a way to obtain “unlawful private benefits” for himself and his family, and to create a fund that would dole out taxpayer money “without constitutional or congressional authority.”

They also argued that the president had tried to shield the deal from judicial oversight by rushing a settlement and “short-circuiting” Judge Williams’s ability to examine its terms.

Now, it wouldn’t be much of a good news/bad news set up if I didn’t have at least one bad news item to point out.  And it comes from right in the middle of the good news about the Trump Administration’s “aw shucks” reversal of the plan for a $1.8 billion fund to pay “victims” of political harassment by the Justice Department.  The Biden Justice Department only, of course.

But Mr. Blanche said he would leave in place [emphasis added] an order he signed last month that would, in effect, block the I.R.S. from investigating Mr. Trump, his family and his businesses for existing tax violations.

“Nothing has changed with that,” said Mr. Blanche, who added that the tax order would not shield Mr. Trump and his associates from future investigations.

Sleight of hand is a wonderful thing when used by magicians as entertainment, but it’s not so damn entertaining when our government distracts us with shouts of “nothing up my sleeve” while end-running Congress to legalize whatever tax evasion TFG might have committed in the past…you know, back in the time he gloated that not paying federal taxes “makes me smart.”

Trump and Republicans have offered zero clarity about the future of the other part of his slush-fund scheme: the grant of immunity from IRS scrutiny for Trump, his businesses, and his family members. Incredibly, this would “forever” bar IRS audits of past tax claims by the Trump clan or the Trump Organization. Democrats can try to make Republicans vote on that  towering act of corruption, which might prove politically even worse.

(snip)

Democrats tell me they’re moving to force votes in Congress that would effectively nullify the IRS immunity piece, as well. That provision is potentially an incredibly lucrative giveaway for Trump: It could benefit him to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. So one approach would be for Democrats to use “reconciliation”—the process that Republicans are using to pass the ICE funding, which enables Senate passage by simple majority—to push amendments that would nix Trump’s IRS immunity scam.

“We will do whatever we can to force a vote during the budget reconciliation process on this monarchical outrage and further plunder of the people,” Representative Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, emails me. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, said on the Senate floor Tuesday that Democrats are set to push an amendment that will “revoke” Trump’s and his family’s “free rein to commit tax fraud.”

Here a complication arises. Now that Trump seems to have put his slush fund on hold, Senate Republicans may drop any effort to nix it via legislation from the reconciliation process entirely. If so, that could procedurally preclude Democrats from offering any amendments involving the IRS settlement—including one nixing Trump’s IRS immunity scam.

(snip)

Now imagine if the public broadly understood that Trump has ordered his Justice Department to reach a deal exempting himself—and his businesses and family members—from a good deal of IRS examination. This could personally and directly benefit Trump by saving him enormous sums of money while quite consciously placing him and his cronies above laws that the rest of us must live under.

That’s another level of self-dealing entirely. And Trump is flaunting it with great relish. OK, then: Democrats should do everything they possibly can to ensure that vulnerable Republican incumbents own every last little bit of it.

We all know – or certainly should know by now – that the only person Trump cares about is himself.  If he could finagle a couple billion dollars to buy the continuing fawning adoration of his supporters, that’s fine; but the one part of this whole agreement he won’t give up willingly is the order to protect himself from the IRS.

You damn right nobody’s ever seen anything like this before

Pat Ryan 3 Comments

Do I have this straight: the president as a private citizen sued a department of his own government for billions of dollars, then dropped the suit as the Justice Department announced a fund that gives (essentially) him control of $1.8 billion to disburse at his whim, with no oversight, and the government agreed never to audit any of his prior income tax returns?  That doesn’t seem right…how did we get here?

As a candidate for president, who later was convicted of multiple dozens of felonies, he was asked to release his income tax returns as is customary in these elections, but said he was being audited and would release them once the audit(s) were complete.  (There is no law that prohibits the release of returns that are under audit, although some lawyers would urge their client not to while the matter is ongoing; the public release of tax returns is a nod to openness and to prove that the candidate will have no secret conflict of interest once in office.)

But then this candidate never did release his tax returns, and never gave any further reason why he chose not to do so.  (Some returns were released later by a House committee, though.)

The candidate (and we all know who I’m talking about) won the 2016 election, and later some of his federal tax returns were published after an investigation by the New York Times.  Those returns show the man who claims enormous wealth twice paid only $750 in federal income tax.  This same man had proudly boasted during the campaign that not paying taxes was an indication of his intelligence, rather than his greed or his unwillingness to pay his fair share of the operation of our nation’s government.

After the twice-impeached former president won re-election in 2024, which itself forced the termination of several other criminal cases against him due to a custom not to prosecute sitting presidents, he filed a $10 billion lawsuit – yes, TEN BILLION DOLLARS – against the Internal Revenue Service – yes, an arm of the same Executive Branch that he himself was now (again) the leader of – to recover for the alleged damages done to him by the Service’s alleged laxity in allowing his tax returns to have been published against his wishes.  That’s right: the president admits – he swears in the suit– that letting the public see his tax returns “caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”  Curious claim for such an outstanding and successful businessman, right, but there it is.

As the judge assigned to this case started to ask questions that indicated the suit may not have smooth sailing – that, for example, there didn’t seem to be any real conflict here if the president is suing his own government and he controls the lawyers on both sides – the president announced he has withdrawn the lawsuit.  As is his right.

But THEN, the president’s Justice Department – which has in this second TFG Administration brought shame upon itself and the nation for openly seeking revenge (under the cloak of “justice”) against the boss’ political enemies and those of the boss’ supporters – announced the creation of a giant (insert your own descriptive adjective here) fund controlled by the president’s supplicants that can be distributed by them/him, with no oversight from Congress or the courts, to those who claim damages from being victimized by a previous government of another party which had attempted (ineptly and too slowly, it turned out) to investigate allegations of lawbreaking by TFG himself.  And by his minions.

Mr. Trump’s decision to drop his suit against the I.R.S. appeared to be intended to strip Judge Kathleen M. Williams, who had been overseeing the I.R.S. case in the Southern District of Florida, of her appointed role in approving a formal settlement agreement. By dismissing the case in its entirety, Mr. Trump was able to reach an agreement with his own appointees [emphasis added] without risking the rebuke of an impartial and independent arbiter. Judge Williams, tacitly acknowledging her hands were tied, accepted the president’s dismissal of the suit and formally closed the case by the end of the day.

(snip)

Money for the fund will come from a special, unlimited account available to the Justice Department for settling lawsuits. That pool of money gives the department the authority to make monetary settlements without needing approval from Congress. A group of five people, selected by Mr. [acting attorney general Todd] Blanche, will oversee the operations of the fund, though Mr. Trump can fire its members at will. It will stop processing claims on Dec. 15, 2028, weeks before Mr. Trump leaves office.

Creation of the fund, which could be used to compensate Trump supporters who ransacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is sure to please a president who has demanded not only retribution but recompense. But it could create major political problems for congressional Republicans already dealing with the political ballast of his unpopularity — and who will now be forced to say if they support or oppose allocating taxpayer cash to his allies at a time when many Americans are struggling economically.

AND, the agreement attempts to protect itself by claiming up front that no arm of Congress or the courts, or anyone else on this planet or any other, in perpetuity, has any legal right to try to do anything at all about it.  (We’ll see about that: two police officers who were in the Capitol on January 6 have already filed suit to block creation of the fund.  I bet there will be others.)

AND MORE THAN THAT, this agreement also bars the IRS from auditing TFG’s previous tax returns, or those of his sons, or their companies.  For ever.  (A get out of jail free card?  An after-the-fact non-disclosure agreement, shielding any evidence of any prior tax evasion?)

Is that about it?  What should we think about all this?

“This is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history,” said Donald K. Sherman, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit legal watchdog group that has been critical of the administration.

But others disagree, including some of the nearly 1600 people indicted for their role in the January 6 attack who have already been pardoned or had their convictions dismissed.  By TFG.  They could be getting a payout from the government they attacked.

Some felt that the fund validated their self-image as victims of the government. Others felt elated — albeit somewhat stunned — at the prospect of a payout. And not a few felt a bit confused at how the process of filing claims and receiving checks could play out.

“So many questions,” said Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the far-right Proud Boys who was sentenced to 22 years on a seditious conspiracy conviction arising from the riot. “But it’s a good direction.”

From the “most corrupt ever” reactions, to the folks annoyed by the nuisance of filling out the application, a more pertinent question (or impertinent, if you are TFG) would be, is this legal?  The answer is, I think: we will see.

The whole enterprise was a jarring shock to the conventional understanding of the constitutional system, raising what legal experts said were profound questions about presidential power. If the arrangement is allowed to stand, they said, Mr. Trump will have managed simultaneously to thwart Congress’s power of the purse and the ability of the courts to police the separation of powers.

(snip)

Professor [Samuel] Bagenstos, who served as the general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget and of the Department of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration, wrote in January about the danger posed by the Judgment Fund.

“An administration that wished to spend money on projects or beneficiaries not authorized by Congress,” he wrote, “could simply encourage its desired recipient to bring a lawsuit against the United States and then settle that lawsuit (no matter how frivolous) by making a payment from the Judgment Fund.”

While Congress has ceded power to the executive branch, it could also reclaim it. Indeed, Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, said on Tuesday that he expected lawmakers to scrutinize how the president’s lawsuit had been ended.

(snip)

A Justice Department news release on Monday said that the “plaintiffs” — that is, Mr. Trump and his family — “will receive a formal apology but no monetary payment or damages of any kind,” a provision the White House used to defend the fund. Still, the opportunity to help direct payments approaching $2 billion to allies has value.

So does the elimination of the threat of an audit. In 2024, The New York Times reported that Mr. Trump could face a tax liability of more than $100 million.

The deal was open to question for other reasons.

The I.R.S. had plenty of defenses to Mr. Trump’s suit. For instance, it might well have been barred by the statute of limitations.

Nor was it clear that the agency was liable for the acts of Charles Littlejohn, a former I.R.S. contractor who pleaded guilty to leaking Mr. Trump’s tax information and whose actions Mr. Trump had cited as a reason he had been wronged by the government.

The sum Mr. Trump sought was also roughly equal to the agency’s annual budget.

And the suit was palpably collusive, ordinarily a reason for a judge to toss a case.

Tuesday’s addendum to the settlement, the codicil purporting to immunize Mr. Trump and his family, raised its own legal questions.

(snip)

Even under the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision conferring broad immunity on Mr. Trump for his official acts, purely private conduct, as the filing of a tax return would seem to be, is fair game for prosecution after a president becomes a private citizen. It is not clear whether the addendum could block a future administration from pursuing such a claim.