|
Does anyone else remember the kerfuffle over the Trump International Hotel in Washington from early in the first Trump administration? The hotel was located in the Old Post Office building, a federal property that the Trump Organization had leased in 2013 and continued to lease after Donald Trump became president. The idea that the president would benefit privately from an arrangement with an agency over which he had authority was scandalous, and we all got a nice little civics lesson on the emoluments clause of the Constitution. |
||
|
That all feels a bit quaint in hindsight. On Monday, Trump settled a $10 billion lawsuit he had filed against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns in 2019. Under the settlement, the Department of Justice established a $1.776 billion fund “to issue formal apologies and monetary relief” to those “who suffered weaponization and lawfare.” While the terms of the settlement dictate that neither Trump nor any of his family members can benefit, he has broad control over who does. If that sounds a little funny to you, or you’re wondering who might be on the receiving end of our tax dollars, let Kevin D. Williamson explain: |
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
On Tuesday, a day after the fund was announced, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche—Trump’s former personal lawyer—issued an addendum to the settlement banning the IRS from ever auditing the past tax returns of Trump, his family, or their businesses. In Boiling Frogs, Nick Catoggio had some thoughts on that: |
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
Is there any way that any of this is legal? For that we turn to Sarah Isgur and David French at Advisory Opinions. On Thursday’s episode, they run through the ways that the settlement could possibly pass legal muster. Sarah starts by asking what, exactly, the agreement is. Is it a settlement to Trump, who sued as a private citizen? Is it a class action lawsuit? Or is it money for “future claimants”? Those could all potentially be legal under certain circumstances, they agree. But they also agree that none of those circumstances reflect what is going on with this weaponization fund. And Sarah shares an even bigger concern about the long-term consequences: |
||
|

No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.