A group of former officials with the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice is asking a federal judge to scrutinize a controversial deal that granted President Donald Trump and his family sweeping immunity from past tax audits.

They alleged that the deal to resolve Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax documents in exchange for immunity from past audits was “unprecedented and breathtakingly improper.”

  • D_C@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 hours ago

    The fat cunt should be in jail. That is obvious. Not just for this but for everything from blatant corruption to stealing top secret files to inciting insurrection to raping of little girls and boys.

    However I will also say that anyone who worked on this for him, and anyone who allows it to happen, should also be arrested and investigated before being sent to prison. I’m at the point where anyone who works for that orange bag of rancid syphilis is nearly as bad and corrupt as that wobbling dementia riddled kiddie fucker.

  • PagPag
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The slush fund was just a red herring. Codified corruption was the goal.

  • homes@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    calling Trump’s conduct “breathtakingly improper” might be so light-handed as to risk oneself being labeled a sycophantic apparatchik for failing to call him out for the child (and adult)-raping serial felon he was before even taking office.

    as you should be.

    • cybervseas
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      7 hours ago

      IRS officials using language like that is the equivalent of anyone else going completely unhinged.

      • Triumph@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Dammit, you’re right. Federal judge ruled that the two parties in the suit were not separate entities, but did not nullify any portion of the settlement.

        • Zos_Kia@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          28 minutes ago

          The ruling explicitly says that the settlement never had any legal standing. There is nothing to nullify.