Suppose Trump files an amended tax return for 2024 that claims a $1.776 B refund. Since the IRS can no longer audit his returns, they will have to give him his refund.
But again, is there any reason the next President can’t just overturn the decision to not audit him?
A settlement is an agreement. They are made out of Court. Sometimes they stay private; sometimes they need to be filed in Court. I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re getting at. I do agree there are many problems with this “settlement agreement”.
They don’t have to file the settlement agreement with the Court. Just inform the Court that the case was dismissed (which they did). However, by not filing/incorporating the settlement agreement into the dismissal, they might not get the Court’s blessing/cover and ability to enforce it later (I don’t think they care). But that won’t necessarily change the legality of the settlement agreement or not. Just that this particular Judge did not weigh in on it one way or the other.
For whether the settlement agreement is valid or not, it still needs to be an actual settlement that was meant for the Judgment Fund to pay. Any Judge can weigh in on that.
Agreed. Corruption in plain view. Litigation is the best most practical way to stop it.
I’m pretty sure they can, and it’s a meaningless bit of language. It’s just a potential excuse for Trump in the future to claim persecution. Or, maybe it gives him a plausible means to make an appeal and delay an audit, even maybe delay it indefinitely? (Or at least for however long Trump is still breathing.) That actually makes some kind of sense as a legal strategy, and tying things up in court forever is part of his MO.
Will the J6ers who are now in prison for unrelated crimes, up to and including murder and child molestation, be eligible for this money?
I don’t know the fine print, but there is a three year statute of limitations.
As for the next President deciding who the IRS audits, it would depend on whether said next President is a dictator like this one. If, as I hope, we return to democratic norms and the rule of law, that’s the reason why the next president can’t just tell the IRS what to do.
I believe they can apply. Doesn’t mean they’ll get it.
There’s supposed to be a five member board to decide who gets what.
Yes. For several reasons.
Big picture though, the May 18 settlement agreement with the 1.7B slush fund does not give Trump any audit protection from the IRS. In that agreement, which is the reason for the dismissal and settlement of the IRS lawsuit, it only gives Trump a formal apology. The slush fund money is given directly to other future claimants unrelated to the lawsuit.
The next day on May 19…in order to create and carry out the slush fund created on May 18…the acting AG Blanche creates a different “order”. In order to create and carry out the slush fund, Blanch must dismiss any and all prior or potential or whatever IRS problems and tax issues and no one can sue Trump or his kids for any past misconduct. Or, a tax pardon. How that has anything to do with a settlement agreement creating a slush fund for J6ers, which itself that has nothing to do with the underlying lawsuit against the IRS for leaking tax returns…it’s wild.
To answer the question, it doesn’t pardon future conduct. So in the future trying to take a $1.7B refund on money that was never yours is not a legal tax move and is not covered under the “order” or the settlement agreement.
Late: I mean, this assumes the May 19 “order” has any validity whatsoever. I’m just saying if it did, it doesn’t protect future conduct, only in the past. It was probably done now because of the midterms coming up and because of the unknown legality of a self pardon.
If everyone who voted for Kamala Harris applied for restitution, it might gum up the works a bit.
Does it specify anything that would prevent anyone unjustly targeted by ICE or other Trump thugs, within or outside the Trump DoJ, from applying for restitution? Because that could be a lot of people.
Acting AG Todd Blanche told Congress anyone could apply.
But only one gets paid. The one who was treated the most unfairly, the likes of which we have magnets wtf if they get wet hamerders.
There’s a difference between a POTUS demanding an audit and declaring that a person isn’t immune to the law. They could just make the immunity null and void via executive order and then let the IRS act on their own initiative.
It’s just a return to the norm.
until the SCOTUS says it’s all covered under Executive Privlege
You mean trump’s fellow travelers?
I hope everyone realizes the first - and only - application for relief from the fund will be Trump himself - after all - he’s had the most public ‘lawfare’ against him (that he wasn’t even convicted of).
Just replying to myself here… I’ve learned more in the meantime. This agreement that gives him immunity was done without any real process. There was no judicial review, none of the actual legal processes were followed. It’s fake and has no force of law. So, it doesn’t actually matter.
What does matter is that he is proceeding as if it’s legal, and he’s going to try to just illegally take this money and hand it out to people, presumably including himself.
Allison Gill, a lefty activist who posts under the name “Mueller, She Wrote,” has filed a claim to a portion of the slush fund----$8.647 million. (!)
She has a JD from George Washington U, though I don’t know if she’s admitted to the bar anywhere. But apparently she knows enough to create this filing. And she’s offering it as a template for anyone else who wants to file:
Heh, that’s great.
If the moron does get the money, I’m guessing that his board will not review a case.
I’m sure Donnie has made a list, and has checked it twice as to who will get this ‘g(r)ift’
I don’t recall if I saw this on the Dope, but the Onion is doing their best to keep up.
I’m just flabbergasted that he can access this type of funding without a congressional outlay.
If the Democrats can take a house of Congress, we can expect that this will be a huge topic for investigation; I imagine committee hearings would be televised. Absent subpoenas and possible indictments, we’ll never get a list of payees.