Judge Kathleen Williams also took disciplinary measures against two Trump attorneys.
By Catholics for Catholics
A federal judge sustained Monday that President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit brought against the IRS was fashioned simply to justify its settlement, including a multibillion-dollar “anti-weaponization” fund for political allies and a buffer from IRS inquiry.
“This lawsuit was not brought to vindicate rights; it was brought to manipulate the judicial process,” U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams wrote in a severe 56-page ruling. “This was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law.”
Williams also panned the president’s legal team, referring one attorney for disciplinary review and denying another the ability to act in the case for one year, according to a story by the Epoch Times.
An Anti-Weaponization Fund was formed as part of the settlement of the lawsuit. Trump acquiesced to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, on condition that that the nearly $1.8 billion fund would be set up to compensate alleged victims of the weaponization of law enforcement. After opposition arose in Congress, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche told a congressional committee on June 2 that the U.S. Department of Justice was scrapping the proposed fund that was blocked by the courts.
In a new order, Williams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida wrote that the lawsuit “was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute.
“The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” she said.
