Logo
gwuqm7_wb5f29fos
President Donald Trump reportedly is reconsidering the $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" described in his May 18 settlement agreement with the IRS, which was designed to compensate people who claim they were targeted by the Biden administration for "improper and unlawful political, personal, and/or ideological reasons." That brazenly corrupt scheme, which provoked vigorous objections from Republican legislators and ran into two judicial roadblocks last week, "has become a distraction," an unnamed administration official told Axios.
Although "the president believes government was weaponized against people," that official added, "this isn't the time and vehicle" for addressing those grievances. In other words, doling out taxpayer money to Trump's allies under the pretext of a lawsuit that pitted the president against agencies he oversees turned out to be unexpectedly controversial. It's a mystery why Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche ever thought that plan was a good idea.
Trump sued the IRS and the Treasury Department in January, preposterously alleging that an IRS contractor's illegal leaking of his tax returns had caused "at least" $10 billion in damages. In addition to offering an improbable estimate of the injury he had suffered, Trump missed the statutory deadline for filing such claims. And although he argued that the IRS had failed to properly oversee its contractors, it was not clear whether the agency could be held liable for the crimes of someone it did not employ. But the Justice Department, which was charged with representing the IRS in court, never bothered to mount a defense.
That failure underlined the blatant conflicts of interest created by the case, both sides of which were represented by lawyers who work for Trump. "I'm supposed to work out a settlement with myself," Trump acknowledged a few days after filing the lawsuit.
That bizarre situation prompted Kathleen Williams, the federal judge overseeing the case in the Southern District of Florida, to question whether it involved a genuine controversy between adverse parties, as required for the lawsuit to proceed. Williams ordered briefing on that issue by May 20. The Justice Department dodged that order by announcing the settlement, which Williams never had a chance to review, two days before the deadline.
2 days ago

No replys yet!

It seems that this publication does not yet have any comments. In order to respond to this publication from gwuqm7_wb5f29fos , click on at the bottom under it