SLUSH FUND BOMBSHELL: Judge Blasts Trump, Lawyers In Blistering Decision

Rules IRS Suit 'Improper' — Wants Attorneys Disciplined

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams has recommended disciplinary action against Trump’s lawyers over the IRS lawsuit that led to the creation of a nearly $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund.

In a blistering decision, Judge Williams called the Trump claims “risible” and accused them of saying “the quiet part out loud”:

And while it is true that President Trump had a legal right to bring a suit for the unlawful disclosure, any remedy would be circumscribed by the legal guardrails applicable to all litigants: the statute of limitations, naming the appropriate defendant, and pleading special recoverable damages.

Notably, had President Trump (and his then-lawyers Alina Habba and Todd Blanche) brought this lawsuit in a timely fashion while he was a private citizen, this litigation understandably might have been resolved in a 109-day time span. But that is not what happened. Instead, President Trump did not pursue his claims until he once again occupied the White House and had appointed his former lawyer, and the former lawyer of persons who are putative beneficiaries of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to prominent positions in the DOJ.

These officials then negotiated on behalf of the United States, with his current lawyers, including his former White House Counsel to reach a “settlement.” It is risible to suggest that there was ever adverseness between the Parties.

In dismissing the non-parties’ claims of collusion, Plaintiffs reveal the true position of the Parties and say the quiet part out loud: “Regardless of whether Plaintiffs had ever filed this action, the Government and Plaintiffs still had the power to resolve all disputes between the parties.” (DE 89 at 15).

The power to resolve was never a question before this Court. Whether Executive Branch actors can privately agree to give themselves and their former clients blanket immunities and billions of dollars in tax monies for legally undefined grievances was never an issue advanced to this Court.

The question is whether the Parties could do so by claiming to be adverse and engaging the legitimacy of a court proceeding. The answer is a resounding “no”: the Lead Plaintiff and the Government are one, a fully realized unitary interest.

Because “Plaintiffs have no answer for the fact that the [L]ead Plaintiff, President Trump, directs and controls the Defendants[,]” this “renders this lawsuit non-adversarial, collusive, and jurisdictionally improper.” See DE 94 at 4.

And because this fact was so obvious and so insurmountable, the Court finds that this matter was brought for an improper purpose—to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a “settlement” that had no viable basis in law or fact.

The judge also ordered that all of the attorneys — including Acting Attorney General Blanche — should have her order referred to their respective State Bar agencies “where disciplinary proceedings are currently ongoing.”

Read the full 56-page decision here:

Gov

420KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download