Judge reopens Trump IRS lawsuit to investigate ‘anti-weaponization’ fund
A federal judge in Florida reopened President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS to scrutinize a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” settlement fund created after the case was previously dismissed. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams cited concerns raised by 35 former federal judges, saying the plaintiffs-Trump and his family-dismissed the litigation to avoid judicial review and suggesting the settlement was “collusive from the start,” allegedly involving “deception.”
The anti-weaponization fund,announced by the Department of Justice,is intended to compensate people who claim thay were victims of federal government weaponization during the Biden management,and it has faced multiple legal challenges. Democrats have criticized the fund as a taxpayer-backed benefit for Trump allies,while the DOJ says claim review does not involve partisan criteria. Williams ordered the parties to respond to the former judges’ motion by June 12.
Under the original settlement, Trump and his family received protection from IRS tax audits, and the broader dispute traces back to a leak of Trump’s confidential tax returns by an IRS contractor during his first term; that contractor was later sentenced to prison.
A federal judge in Florida reopened President Donald Trump‘s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS on Friday to investigate the nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that resulted from the settlement.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, revived the case in response to a request from 35 former federal judges this week that she look into whether Trump took advantage of the system.
Recommended Stories
In her retelling of their argument, she said the plaintiffs, namely Trump and his family, “voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that ‘was collusive from the start’ and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement.” Williams also said they asserted the dismissal was “premised on deception.”
Their comments refer to the deal made between Trump and the IRS that established a $1.776 billion fund compensating victims who claim they were victims of federal weaponization during the Biden administration.
The Department of Justice announced the anti-weaponization fund this month, vowing to pay the alleged victims after they were denied justice. The fund, however, has been temporarily blocked by a separate federal judge. That ruling was also issued on Friday.
The fund is the subject of multiple lawsuits, including one filed in Washington, D.C., federal court by two police officers who worked during the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. Hundreds of pardoned Jan. 6 defendants are eligible for compensation.
Democrats have largely criticized the fund because they view it as a taxpayer-funded slush fund for Trump’s allies, but the DOJ says “no partisan requirements” are taken into consideration when reviewing eligible claims.
As the IRS case proceeds in court, Williams ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the former federal judges’ motion by June 12.
In exchange for dropping the lawsuit, Trump is no longer subject to tax audits by the IRS. Those tax benefits apply to his two oldest sons and family business as well.
Trump filed the lawsuit years after an IRS contractor at Booz Allen Hamilton leaked his confidential tax returns during his first term. The former contractor, Charles Littlejohn, was later sentenced to five years in prison for the unauthorized disclosure of the tax information.
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS DOJ’S $1.776 BILLION ‘ANTI-WEAPONIZATION’ FUND
The massive leak happened after Trump declined to voluntarily release his tax returns to the public. Traditionally, presidents have done so ever since former President Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal.
Last week, Trump said he “may release” his current tax returns “because they show I pay a lot of money.”
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
