Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Correct me if I'm wrong here. It sounds like because the judge nullified the entire settlement, including the immunity agreement signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the legal barrier protecting Trump's past tax returns from audit has now been struck down.
I know this can be appealed, but at this stage, it sounds like a huge blow shining some serious light on the Trump family's grifts.
This is what the judge ordered:
The Parties are prohibited from referring to the purported “settlement agreement,” or using, offering, admitting, or citing any of its provisions in any judicial, administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or any other official proceeding as evidence of a “settlement” reached in this matter, Case No. 26-cv-20609-KMW (S.D. Fla. 2026).63 “Plaintiffs” means the named Plaintiffs in this lawsuit: President Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, the Trump Organization, LLC and includes any of their agents, representatives, officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate agents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or any other person acting in concert with the party or under the party’s control, whether directly or indirectly. “Defendants” means the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Department of the Treasury.
This order doesn't seem to explicit prohibit the parties from following the terms of the settlement. Merely that the settlement is not to be spoken of again in court.
There are two other orders. One of them is to issue a disciplinary referral against Trump lawyer Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar. This is the court telling the bar association that they strongly believe the lawyer in question has committed a violation of ethical rules. However, I frankly do not find it particularly likely that the Florida Bar will act strongly on this referral, though I'm open to being surprised. The second order is to ban Trump lawyer Daniel Epstein from filing any more applications for pro hac vice in the Southern District of Florida. A pro hac vice application is a tool used to request permission from a court to represent someone for one case only when the lawyer in question doesn't have a valid licence to practise in the state where the case is being conducted.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like the judge is saying that it can't be referred to legally, because it doesn't exist. So don't go around waving this like it's a legit settlement, because it's not, it doesn't even exist. So don't use it to prove anything, dont claim it means that they won anything, don't pretend it gives them some sort of victory, don't even MENTION it, because it DOESN'T EXIST.
Well, this part in specific caught my eye:
...or citing any of its provisions in any judicial, administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or any other official proceeding as evidence of a “settlement” reached in this matter...
So, yeah, it cannot be enforced.
It’s not a settlement.
Okay, so there's a principle in law, which is that one calls a document by the thing it purports to be. If it is not valid, you prepend "purported" in the contexts where it would be ambiguous otherwise, and explain your reasons as to why and the readers will know what you're trying to say. You do not play word games with finding creative and insulting things to call it.
And this is the part where the statute of limitations will fuck us…
The claims are already out of time. And Trump is only entitled to a few thousand dollars per occurrence anyway. If the IRS actually had reasonable lawyers representing them, they'd have settled this case for maybe $50,000. Ten billion dollars is a Dr. Evil-level demand.
huge blow
…if there is enforcement, with capital “F” force involved. Otherwise, his stooges will continue on, and he will benefit from the capture of the entire federal apparatus. Until his lackeys are put behind bars, nothing matters.
His attorney is being sanctioned, and may lose his law license. Maybe attorneys will stop fighting his bullshit cases if it means they will not just lose the nonsense case, but also their ability to practice law.
I’ve been hearing this for decades about Trump’s lawyers. But the thing is, there will always be another scammer who thinks they will be the special one that gets away from the shit pile on top.
absolutely, judges have every right to sanction and refer to the Bar attorneys that don't live up to the code of professional ethics. I understand why most judges most of the time are loath to do this, but lawyers are supposed to have actual hard ethical obligations as officers of the Court to NOT act in the way these ones did.
and they think that'll change anything? don't we ever learn??
I get where you're coming from, but court orders are one of the few things that actually does change anything for this administration. Not always, never perfectly, and of course he might try again, but it's something.
Zoinks!!