Politics

[SaintPanzer]

So, I ran across this today. May be behind a paywall, but I believe you get three or so "free views" each month:

The Speech Police Are Worse Than We Thought | National Review

The rise in speech-related offenses in the U.K. can be explained more by new laws than by any increase in objectively harmful conduct.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[rookhawk]

I'm running a mini-experiment that applies across many different types of threads on this forum, humor me.

I predict that @Big_Easy is left handed.

Don't ask me why, I just have a hunch.

 

[RLD]

The IRS is part of the executive branch.



Trump controlling the IRS in 2026 is inconsequential. The crime and the cause of civil action happened prior to Trump taking office and the conviction for the crime happened during the Biden administration.

I, and I think the American judiciary, have to disagree with you on this.

Since Trump currently controls the IRS, he was, effectively, negotiating with himself. It is a classic conflict of interest for someone holding a government office.

Regardless of the merits of the case, he was in a clear conflict position, and did nothing to deal with that. While Trump withdrew the case, the judge never approved the settlement (whether they have to is still an open question) and was quite critical of how the whole process was handled.

Both practically and ethically this creation of a large slush fund is a problem waiting to happen, and from what I am hearing a large part of the Republican opposition to it, is not arising from pure ethical concerns, but practical ones. Because if this thing gets created, you know it is only going to be 15 minutes before James Comey, or Letita James are going to file claims against it and some judge is going to order the fund to make pay-outs to them as well. And if some Jan 6 schmuck who got in criminal trouble later gets a payment you just know that is going straight into Democrat ads.

The concept is flawed, and the execution is going to be a huge mess if they can get the money allocated. This is almost classic kleptocracy and many Repubs are going to avoid it like the plague for the same ethical/practical reasons that caused them to kill the "Arctic Frost" legislation.

 

[Tanks]

I'm running a mini-experiment that applies across many different types of threads on this forum, humor me.

I predict that @Big_Easy is left handed.

Don't ask me why, I just have a hunch.

Hey now!!!!

 

[mdwest]

I, and I think the American judiciary, have to disagree with you on this.

Since Trump currently controls the IRS, he was, effectively, negotiating with himself. It is a classic conflict of interest for someone holding a government office.

Regardless of the merits of the case, he was in a clear conflict position, and did nothing to deal with that. While Trump withdrew the case, the judge never approved the settlement (whether they have to is still an open question) and was quite critical of how the whole process was handled.

Both practically and ethically this creation of a large slush fund is a problem waiting to happen, and from what I am hearing a large part of the Republican opposition to it, is not arising from pure ethical concerns, but practical ones. Because if this thing gets created, you know it is only going to be 15 minutes before James Comey, or Letita James are going to file claims against it and some judge is going to order the fund to make pay-outs to them as well. And if some Jan 6 schmuck who got in criminal trouble later gets a payment you just know that is going straight into Democrat ads.

The concept is flawed, and the execution is going to be a huge mess if they can get the money allocated. This is almost classic kleptocracy and many Repubs are going to avoid it like the plague for the same ethical/practical reasons that caused them to kill the "Arctic Frost" legislation.

The judge, Kathleen Williams, dismissed and closed the case on May 18th, when Trump and the DOJ jointly agreed to drop the case.

No settlement terms were presented to the judge... so there is no need for the judge to "approve" anything.. No judge will ever approve this settlement...

Maybe there is some requirement in the Canadian courts for a settlement like this to be approved.. in the US courts it is not a requirement...

In fact, there are only a few situations where judges are required to approve settlements in the US... Class action cases, cases involving minors, wrongful death (but only in some states), bankruptcy, FSLA, and lastly where a consent degree is involved (because they bind the court to enforce them)..

Otherwise the judge is not involved..

the trump case is none of those things..

The DoJ chose to publicly post the terms of the settlement

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1441201/dl?inline

While you may disagree (as do a number of Democrat members of the house that protested), the American Judiciary does not disagree.. there were clear attempts to block the lawsuit by members of the house and they failed to meet any of the requirements..

Liberal media outlets like NPR bitched and complained about lack of transparancy, collusion, etc.. and all of their arguments were shot down.. and the case was indeed heard..

Your opinion about the slush fund is exactly that.. nothing more than an opinion... clearly other attorneys (that drafted and created it as part of the settlement) disagree with your opinion and have a completely different opinion..

the slush fund argument that the left makes that it is a set aside for Trump allies however is easily proven to be bullshit since ANY US Citizen can apply, there is NO partisan requirement, and examples that were provided in the actual document of people that MAY qualify include:

People whose online speech was censured by the US Government

Parents silenced at school board meetings

Senators whose records were secretly subpoenaed

Churchgoers targeted by the FBI

No one cares of you are a R or a D in those situations.. what they care about is those actions are clearly wrong.. if the people conducting those wrong acts happen to be D's more often than R's, who cares? how about we agree to not weaponize the government against its citizens and hold those who choose to weaponize the government against its citizens accountable?

 

[Brent in Az]

Charges dismissed against Trinidad water protesters. Grand Jury quickly refused to indict anyone.
A prime example of a tyrant police chiefs assault on free speech

I loathe bad cops

 

[KJE81]

The IRS is part of the executive branch.

The courts hearing the case are part of the judicial branch.

Trump was suing the IRS that was managed and weaponized by the past administration that took action against him during the past administration (2022).

The IRS agent (contractor) that leaked the information admitted he committed a criminal act and stole 15 years of trumps tax records and then turned them over to the media. He was convicted and sent to prison in 2023.

The civil suit against the IRS was for failure to properly protect those records, and was an obvious slam dunk. There’s already someone in prison for the action.

Trump controlling the IRS in 2026 is inconsequential. The crime and the cause of civil action happened prior to Trump taking office and the conviction for the crime happened during the Biden administration.

What matters is the Judicial branch (not controlled by Trump) was hearing the case, and all of the evidence was clear… Trump was absolutely going to win… so, a settlement was offered… which is a standard practice in the US court system.. the courts even go so far as to encourage settlements rather than push things to trial when the outcome of cases is obvious… they don’t want to bog the courts down with case proceedings if they can avoid it…

The IRS was smart to take the settlement, and Trump was gracious to take it… neither has to.. either party can insist on a trial..

Had this gone to trial the IRS would have lost, and lost huge… and it is very possible senior administrators in the IRS would have been brought up on criminal charges next after the evidence in the civil trial became public record…

I can assure you that both the senior GS and SES employees of the IRS (who are career bureaucrats and have worked there long before Trump ever became president) and the accountants that manage the IRS budget, regardless of which party they are aligned with are incredibly thankful right now… any other outcome would have been much worse for them…

But I suppose leftists would prefer that government not be held accountable for wrongful acts against citizens… as long as those citizens are conservatives… and especially if it’s Trump..

Okay, then I missunderstood, I thought they settled outside court and therefore no judicial branch involved and thus creating the impression for the public that it was a case of a settlement between Trump and the Trump appointed IRS commissioner.

 

[RLD]

The judge, Kathleen Williams, dismissed and closed the case on May 18th, when Trump and the DOJ jointly agreed to drop the case.

No settlement terms were presented to the judge... so there is no need for the judge to "approve" anything.. No judge will ever approve this settlement...

Maybe there is some requirement in the Canadian courts for a settlement like this to be approved.. in the US courts it is not a requirement...

The DoJ then publicly posted the terms of the settlement

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1441201/dl?inline

While you may disagree (as do a number of Democrat members of the house that protested), the American Judiciary does not disagree.. there were clear attempts to block the lawsuit by members of the house and they failed to meet any of the requirements..

Liberal media outlets like NPR bitched and complained about lack of transparancy, collusion, etc.. and all of their arguments were shot down.. and the case was indeed heard..

Your opinion about the slush fund is exactly that.. nothing more than an opinion... clearly other attorneys (that drafted and created it as part of the settlement) disagree with your opinion and have a completely different opinion..

the slush fund argument that the left makes that it is a set aside for Trump allies however is easily proven to be bullshit since ANY US Citizen can apply, there is NO partisan requirement, and examples that were provided in the actual document of people that MAY qualify include:

People whose online speech was censured by the US Government

Parents silenced at school board meetings

Senators whose records were secretly subpoenaed

Churchgoers targeted by the FBI

No one cares of you are a R or a D in those situations.. what they care about is those actions are clearly wrong.. if the people conducting those wrong acts happen to be D's more often than R's, who cares? how about we agree to not weaponize the government against its citizens and hold those who choose to weaponize the government against its citizens accountable?

We will eventually see if the judge is required to approve the settlement or not, I don't think it is quite as clear as you think it is.

There was a clear conflict of interest. Nobody even seems to be arguing otherwise. Trump was negotiating with himself over public money. Clearly disgraceful.

There is already a normal court process to allow one to sue if they think they have been unfairly targeted. This is just an obvious attempt to take that process out of the hands of judges and put it in the hands of political appointees. Probably an unconstitutional step.

And yes it will be partisan. The decisions will be made by a five member panel appointed by the AG as directed by Trump who you can expect to be as partisan as the Kennedy center trustees.

And where does the 1.8 billion come from if not allocated by congress?

Moderate Repubs are pushing back on this and are heading home to avoid the shit storm it is causing.
What do you think the odds of this program actually coming to pass are? I predict it will die the same type of death the Arctic Frost slush fund did.

 

[mdwest]

We will eventually see if the judge is required to approve the settlement or not, I don't think it is quite as clear as you think it is.

go read US law... your familiarity with Canadian law does not apply..

there are few situations where judges approve settlements in the US courts.. and this is not one of those situations... no judge will ever approve this settlement.. it is not a requirement..

 

[mdwest]

There was a clear conflict of interest. Nobody even seems to be arguing otherwise. Trump was negotiating with himself over public money. Clearly disgraceful.

There is already a normal court process to allow one to sue if they think they have been unfairly targeted. This is just an obvious attempt to take that process out of the hands of judges and put it in the hands of political appointees. Probably an unconstitutional step.

And yes it will be partisan. The decisions will be made by a five member panel appointed by the AG as directed by Trump who you can expect to be as partisan as the Kennedy center trustees.

All of this is merely opinion... nothing more..

 

[mdwest]

Okay, then I missunderstood, I thought they settled outside court and therefore no judicial branch involved and thus creating the impression for the public that it was a case of a settlement between Trump and the Trump appointed IRS commissioner.

that is sort of correct.. but not entirely..

the way it works in the US is the US courts agree to hear the case..

parties involved start to realize the case is going to go one way or the other.. and they agree to withdraw from the case and "settle" rather than to complete the process in the courts..

in this case the evidence was clear.. the IRS was going to lose.. there is zero doubt that an IRS employee committed a crime (theft) and that Trump experienced what our courts call "damages" as a result of that criminal act..

The IRS was going to lose.. no ifs, ands, or buts, about it.. and they knew they were going to lose in the court... so they chose to settle..

the "negotiating with himself" BS is exactly that... BS... sure the IRS reports to Trump today.. the court that this case was being heard in does not.. and the IRS had an employee that committed a crime that clearly created a problem that created "damages"..

In the settlement its very clear that Trump receives ZERO money.. he agreed to walk away from his $10B demand.. no member of his family and none of his businesses are eligible for any money... and they agreed they can never pursue anything related to this case ever again (nor can the IRS ever pursue any of them for anything related to past taxes ever again)... the case was closed "with predjudice"...

the only thing Trump gets personally out of the deal is a letter from the IRS apologizing for its actions.

 

[RLD]

All of this is merely opinion... nothing more..

This just means you can't explain how it is not a clear conflict of interest, as identified by the judge on the case.

 

[RLD]

the only thing Trump gets personally out of the deal is a letter from the IRS apologizing for its actions.

And immunity from audits and charges arising out of all past tax filings for himself, his family and his companies. A small detail you have omitted.

 

[RLD]

go read US law... your familiarity with Canadian law does not apply..

there are few situations where judges approve settlements in the US courts.. and this is not one of those situations... no judge will ever approve this settlement.. it is not a requirement..

I already spoke to two U.S. lawyers about it. One who practices exclusively at SCOTUS, and one who represents members of both the Trump and Biden families.

They both don't think it is a dead issue, and if the fund actually gets created, it will need to be litigated.

 

[mdwest]

And immunity from audits and charges arising out of all past tax filings for himself, his family and his companies. A small detail you have omitted.

actually I did not omit that.. go back and re-read prior posts..

and... he agreed to never pursue the IRS again for anything remotely related to the case..

 

[mdwest]

I already spoke to two U.S. lawyers about it. One who practices exclusively at SCOTUS, and one who represents members of both the Trump and Biden families.

They both don't think it is a dead issue, and if the fund actually gets created, it will need to be litigated.

Funny... I talked to a US lawyer about it this morning.. he works at Holland and Knight as a senior partner (H&K is well known for being a "govt" focused firm and one of the best in the world).. He seems to be in complete agreement with my statements..

Remember I work with the US government every single day.. its what I do for a living.. I happen to know (and employ) a fairly substantial number of attorneys that practice exclusively in government.. many of whom prosecute the government as a matter of routine..

As to whether the fund gets litigated.. I fully expect that.. someone sues someone else for pretty much anything in this country every single day... we are one of the most litigious countries on the planet (hence my relationship with a couple of dozen attorneys across 4 different firms that we use regularly)..

I should tell you about the racial discrimination case we defended against where the plaintiff founded his case based on the fact that we (my firm) issued him sheets for his bed that he thought were "itchy" which meant we were obviously discriminating against him..

people sue for anything/everything here.. and you can almost assuredly find a court to hear even the most ridiculous and unsupported cases..

 

[RLD]

that is sort of correct.. but not entirely..

the way it works in the US is the US courts agree to hear the case..

parties involved start to realize the case is going to go one way or the other.. and they agree to withdraw from the case and "settle" rather than to complete the process in the courts..

in this case the evidence was clear.. the IRS was going to lose.. there is zero doubt that an IRS employee committed a crime (theft) and that Trump experienced what our courts call "damages" as a result of that criminal act..

The IRS was going to lose.. no ifs, ands, or buts, about it.. and they knew they were going to lose in the court... so they chose to settle..

the "negotiating with himself" BS is exactly that... BS... sure the IRS reports to Trump today.. the court that this case was being heard in does not.. and the IRS had an employee that committed a crime that clearly created a problem that created "damages"..

In the settlement its very clear that Trump receives ZERO money.. he agreed to walk away from his $10B demand.. no member of his family and none of his businesses are eligible for any money... and they agreed they can never pursue anything related to this case ever again (nor can the IRS ever pursue any of them for anything related to past taxes ever again)... the case was closed "with predjudice"...

the only thing Trump gets personally out of the deal is a letter from the IRS apologizing for its actions.

The question was never liability, it was always damages.

How many previous tax leak cases resulted in a judicial award of a million or more? Or even $100,000 or more?

Trump did negotiate with himself. He was the aggrieved party and had full control of the opposite side of the case. That was a farce.

As the judge in the case clearly noted:

Judge Williams issued a sharp four-page order addressing the inherent conflict of interest: [1, 2]

• Lack of Adverseness: She stated, “Typically, adverseness is found in a situation where one party is asserting its right and the other party is resisting. Consequently, if there is no adverseness, there is no case or controversy.”
• Executive Control Over Defendants: She highlighted that although Trump claimed to sue in a personal capacity, he is the sitting president. His named adversaries are government entities whose legal and administrative decisions are completely subject to his direction.
• Constitutional Jurisdiction Doubts: She noted it was highly unclear whether the setup satisfied Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which strictly limits federal court powers to genuine disputes

 

[RLD]

I should tell you about the racial discrimination case we defended against where the plaintiff founded his case based on the fact that we (my firm) issued him sheets for his bed that he thought were "itchy" which meant we were obviously discriminating against him..

I love shit like that. If I can make time later today I will tell you about the "12th man" racial discrimination case I adjudicated a few years ago. It was crazy.

 

[mdwest]

The question was never liability, it was always damages.

How many previous tax leak cases resulted in a judicial award of a million or more? Or even $100,000 or more?

who said it was liability? the IRS had an employee that committed a criminal act.. it failed to protect records properly.. which resulted in damages...

who cares how many previous tax leak cases resulted in a judicial award of a million or more? how many of those cases were filed by a billionaire, prior POTUS, with at the time of the crime aspirations to become POTUS again..

pretty hard to get similar damages out of a dissimilar plaintiff..

 

[mdwest]

I love shit like that. If I can make time later today I will tell you about the "12th man" racial discrimination case I adjudicated a few years ago. It was crazy.

we see insane stuff regularly..

I had a guy in Saudi Arabia.. on the weekend (not working) in his personal vehicle.. start road raging.. at a stop light he got out of his car and pulled a Saudi national out of his car.. and then proceeded to get his ass beat (pretty severely) by the Saudi...

The Saudi police hauled him off to jail..

So he sued us in the US courts... implying we put him in an unsafe situation by offering him a job in Saudi Arabia (where we had about 125 other employees at the time.. none of whom got arrested or their asses beat for a road rage incident)...

and the court actually heard the case..

we won.. but it cost us close to $100K to defend..

our courts are crazy in some states (Virginia in particular)