Politics

[mdwest]

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

no.. it means I genuinely dont care..

CoI or not, the IRS was losing.. and chose to settle.. which resulted in them not paying $10B to a plaintiff... they got off light by comparrison with what was on the table.. .

If Trump was indeed negotiating with himself, he either did a really poor job (could have walked away with a whole lot more).. or he chose to show them some grace...

Either isnt anything to bitch about..

 

[Big_Easy]

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...

"when Trump and the DOJ jointly agreed to drop the case."...Once again, Trump is in charge of the DOJ.

You're right, it was a civil lawsuit in which the two "parties" came to an agreement, one that did not have to be approved or blessed by a judge. Thank you for proving my point and admitting that I was right. Trump is ultimately in charge of the DOJ and the IRS via the Treasury Dept. He is also the plaintiff in this case. @WAB take note of @mdwest response here, they are in fact the same branch of government. Trump was negotiating with himself and admitted as much last October to us all.

“It looks bad...I’m suing myself, right? It’s interesting because I’m the one that makes a decision, and that decision would have to go across my desk. It’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself.” - President Trump, October 2025.

 

[Big_Easy]

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.

They did settle, because Trump was in charge of both sides of this case. Here's a good article that mentioned how Trump admitted as much last October.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/05/18/trump-will-end-10-billion-lawsuit-against-irs-over-leaked-tax-records/

 

[Big_Easy]

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..

Did you even take the time to read US law? Especially the one I posted for you?

26 U.S. Code § 7431 - Civil damages for unauthorized inspection or disclosure of returns and return information

www.law.cornell.edu

LIttlejohn was indicted in September of 2023, and pled guilty in October of 2023, Trump knew of the disclosure years prior when it was released to the public. That's why Ken Griffin sued years earlier. Here is the excerpt from the law:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action to enforce any liability created under this section may be brought, without regard to the amount in controversy, at any time within 2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the unauthorized inspection or disclosure."

He wasn't going to win, give it up man.

 

[m444ss]

The USA has labelled both Canada and the EU as threats to their "National Security" in order to justify new duties declared by their military Commander-in-Chief on the international trade of steel and aluminum. So I suggest that USA made products such as firearms and ammunition should be sold exclusively within the USA so Canada and Europe can help our esteemed neighbour defend themselves and improve their national security. Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that Canadians and Europeans should make do with their own products exclusively. For all our AfricaHunting friends in Canada, Europe, Africa and elsewhere, please don't buy any American made products. Lets's support the USA in their concern. One can never be too careful when there are evil guys to deal with, and it is our duty to help, as always.

 

[jruby]

"Says the guy who tried to argue Reagan was traitor for selling weapons to Iran"

...You were the ones saying "we have been at war with Iran for 47 years" were you not? If that statement is true, and not complete nonsense, then when Reagan, a sitting US president, sold weapons to a country we were supposedly at war with at the time (says the other members on here) that would constitute an act of treason under us law would it not?

US Constitution: Article III, Section 3, Clause 1
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Would selling weapons to our enemy be giving them "Aid"? Seems like it to me. Or, alternatively, you could all just admit that you're full of sh!t about this whole..."we've been at war with Iran for 47 years" BS. I know it's hard, but you can admit that Trump just started this war to distract from the Epstein files.

I mean, on June 21st, 2025 Trump gave a speech in which he told us that "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities were totally and completely obliterated." So clearly we weren't going to war to stop them from making a bomb, we did that last year! That is of course unless Trump is a liar? And is totally full of crap? But it's hard to tell with all of his lies what's real and what is not. This is the second time in the past 25 years that a republican president has started a war after he told us that a country in the middle east is trying to make a WMD is it not?

No one on the right holds Trump accountable for what he says. He will say one thing then do the other the next day and say he never did or say something even though it was caught on film.

 

[Brent in Az]

No one on the right holds Trump accountable for what he says. He will say one thing then do the other the next day and say he never did or say something even though it was caught on film.

Hmmmm.......kind of like those on the left not holding their lords and masters accountable?

Hypocrisy much?

 

[Big_Easy]

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

The conflict of interest is one of several problems with this case. Which is why Trump directed his own DOJ and IRS to settle with him.

1. The judge even said that she didn't think the parties were true adversaries in this case,
2. Trump missed the 2 year statue of limitations, as required by the law
3. Littlejohn was not an officer or employee of the federal government, as required by the law

Thats why Ken Griffin dropped his lawsuit back in 2024, he wasn't going to win.
Here are some good references for you:

26 U.S. Code § 7431 - Civil damages for unauthorized inspection or disclosure of returns and return information

www.law.cornell.edu

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/05/18/trump-will-end-10-billion-lawsuit-against-irs-over-leaked-tax-records/

 

[Big_Easy]

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..

And this is merely your opinion. Devoid of facts as usual.

 

[KJE81]

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.

I think that this part is the problem, ie whats perhaps is creating the image of a possible conflict of interest for the public: nor can the IRS ever pursue any of them for anything related to past taxes ever again

 

[mdwest]

I think that this part is the problem, ie whats perhaps is creating the image of a possible conflict of interest for the public: nor can the IRS ever pursue any of them for anything related to past taxes ever again

I dont see that a a conflict of interest at all..

its a trade.. which is what happens in settlements...

Trump cant pursue them anymore.. and they cant pursue Trump... on PAST issues that occured prior to the agreed settlement date..

If Trump does something wrong today or tomorrow or next year the IRS can absolultely pursue him..

and if the IRS does something wrong today or tomorrow or next year.. Trump can absolutely pursue them...

They are simply putting the past in the past..

 

[Big_Easy]

No one on the right holds Trump accountable for what he says. He will say one thing then do the other the next day and say he never did or say something even though it was caught on film.

That's my point. We can't trust anything the Trump administration says...anymore than we can trust the Iranian's. They're all a bunch of liars. Especially after all the lies the Bush administration told us. Considering all the blood and treasure we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Brent in Az]

And this is merely your opinion. Devoid of facts as usual.

Devoid of fact, or something that doesn't jive with your loony leftist narrative?

 

[Big_Easy]

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..

"which resulted in damages..."...What were the damages again?

"who cares how many previous tax leak cases resulted in a judicial award of a million or more?
He's merely pointing out that your claim that Trump could have won a $10 Billion settlement is preposterous.

 

[Big_Easy]

Hopefully @Big Easy reads this and learns something. I just didn’t have the patience to type it all out.

I did read his screed. And it doesn't change what the law actually says. I've posted the relevant statue multiple times. So go read it for yourself.

 

[Big_Easy]

And if he does, maybe he can learn from this also. (from AI)

Discovery-Based Statutes of Limitations: Lawsuits for unauthorized tax disclosures (under I.R.C. § 7431) or the Privacy Act generally have a two-year statute of limitations that begins on the date of discovery rather than the date of the leak. Trump's legal team claimed they only discovered the breach when the IRS notified him that a specific contractor had been charged with the leak.

He also just made it as the first person on my 'official ignore list' It's just too time consuming to try to glean even one iota of good info from his posts.

AJ

Trump learned of the leak because it was all over the news media. There is no notification requirement contained within the law. Trump knew of the disclosure when it was leaked, and he knew of it when the contractor was indicted, and when the contractor pled guilty. So did Ken Griffin, that's why he sued the IRS years earlier. Now lets see if any of you can actually go read the relevant statues, and case law.

 

[Big_Easy]

Again you seem to fail to under nuances, they have been at war with us for 47 years, not we have been at war with them for 47 years. Proof of this is the fact that part of the premise of the Iran Contra is that Hezbollah (Iranian sponsor of terror) had US hostages..........

"Also in your response to Red Leg, "I see that you’ve run out of ideas and have moved on to the ad hominem. I'll take that as a win. If any of you can ever form an actual counterargument, I'd be glad to hear it." Literally Seconds later you reply "OK boomer" to another member."

You expect me to not fight back? How many times of all of you insulted me rather than engaged in an honest discussion? How many times has @mdwest told someone to cry harder, or likened them to a Pigeon shitting on a chessboard? You all start the mudslinging and then someone on here admonishes me for throwing it back? You can't have it both ways. If someone where to punch you in face are you going to stand there and do nothing, or punch back?

Besides, if I didn't punch back, how many of you would be calling me a liberal sissy boy incapable of defending myself right now? I suspect quite a few...You don't get to drag someone down into the mud and then complain about the stains on your shirt.

If you want a discussion than stick to debate, if you want insults than keep the childish insults coming. I wonder how many of you were cheering Trump on at his rallies when he was insulting people?

 

[RLD]

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)

My father in law worked in Saudi for a number of years, he tells me Saudi is not a good place to go to jail. When one of their employees would get arrested in Saudi, they would send out their lawyers to try and bail him out but the Saudis would keep moving them from jail to jail so they lawyers could not catch up with him. It would take days or sometimes weeks to even find the guy.

I get what you are saying about defence costs. One of the things we do better in Canada is we have a loser pays system. If you bring a BS lawsuit and lose the judge will normally order the losing side to pay the winning side's costs or at least a portion of them. In some cases if the case smells bad out of the gate the court will force the plaintiff to pay security for costs into court or post a bond to even allow the case to go forward. It helps reduce bogus cases. You need some sort of filter to cut that down. To my mind the US needs more loser pays jurisdictions and your law schools should pump out substantially less lawyers. You have too many lawyers who need to eat and they make up crap cases to pay the bills instead of focussing on the better ones.

Anyways, a few years ago I got appointed to do these hearings for Code of Conduct Complaints about security guards in Ontario. Then COVID hit and I ended up writing the first decision on whether certain COVID rules were unconstitutional (our process was quite fast). So the province passed a rule that you could only have ten people plus the officiant at a burial at a cemetery. So I end up doing a hearing where a black chap who worked as a paid pall bearer did his work at the funeral and was supposed to go the burial to do his part at the cemetery on the other side of the city. He stopped for a coffee and had to take a leak and ended up being about 5 minutes late. So by this time the guard at the cemetery had already let in 10 pall bearers and mourners and the officiant. The guard, who had previously been disciplined for letting in too many people stops this guy from coming in. The guys looks around, sees that the eleven people who have already been let in are white and decides it is racial discrimination and files a racial discrimination complaint. The rule and the system, was 100% colour blind, it was purely numeric. But he brings a racial discrimination case anyways. Case dismissed.

 

[rookhawk]

What I like about this forum is that there is a high degree of shared interest, values, in-house bickering. Where there is disagreement, its constructive contention amongst independent, free thinkers that are mis-aligned on the 20%, aligned on at least the 80%.

I do not understand the point of coming onto a site where you have virtually no shared interest, shared ethos, or shared values.

If everything is contrarian, its not free thinking, its mindless partisanship and ideology that is statistically impossible to be well reasoned. It is impossible for a conscientious person that evaluates ideas one at a time on principles to be nearly 100% aligned to one political party.

That is why this thread has become fatiguing as of late.

One of the other things I like about this forum is we have three groups of people: laypeople that think they understand a position, laypeople that have REALLY explored the positions to their best ability, and actual renowned practitioners of a craft that adds credibility to a specific position being debated. Even when I disagree, I feel smarter for reading well qualified disagreement.

On the other hand, we have some people with a mindset that their uninformed opinion should be given equal weight with expert testimony. That's a generationally recent mindset that disregards more qualified opinion by believing it holds equal weight to a talking point they are regurgitating.

Dunning-Kruger Effect makes this forum less cool than it used to be.

 

[RLD]

no.. it means I genuinely dont care..

CoI or not, the IRS was losing.. and chose to settle.. which resulted in them not paying $10B to a plaintiff... they got off light by comparrison with what was on the table.. .

If Trump was indeed negotiating with himself, he either did a really poor job (could have walked away with a whole lot more).. or he chose to show them some grace...

Either isnt anything to bitch about..

One should always care when the government uses an unethical process to distribute over a billion dollars. It is literally the definition of corruption.

His case was unlikely to survive, let along succeed, let alone get an award of over $1,000,000 (the fact he was running for President at the time is irrelevant to damages - he won! It's like arguing a bad driver might have made you miss a deadline and then you make the deadline and still claim missed deadline damages.)

If your firm was sued in this way and your lawyer negotiated a deal for 1.8 billion on that claim you would be suing that lawyer for incompetance.