Attorneys for Donald Trump are telling a federal judge to back off her tentative attempts to look into the mechanics of a settlement that purported to create a controversial $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund” for the president’s allies and supporters.

In January, Trump’s original lawsuit against the IRS was filed in the Southern District of Florida. By the middle of May, however, the case was closed – on the plaintiff’s own request – with the 45th and 47th president opting instead for a publicly subsidized fund that would reward pro-Trump stalwarts and others similarly situated.

Under the terms of the settlement, eligible claimants are people who were subjected to the “sustained use of the levers of government power by Democrat elected officials, political and career federal employees, contractors, and agents in order to target” them for “improper and unlawful political, personal, and/or ideological reasons.”

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    24 days ago

    Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. I’d always been reading the rounded figure of $1.8 billion. It was specifically $1.776 billion?

    I hate this fucking country right now; jesus christ.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      24 days ago

      Actually, the settlement itself doesn’t set a cap. They’re saying 1.776 bulilli9n, but it’s actually unlimited funds for Trump and his minions.

  • Klox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    24 days ago

    The court hasn’t demonstrated any authority in decades. Start holding these criminals in contempt for fuck sake.

  • switcheroo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    24 days ago

    Hey SCrOTUS, how do you feel about that? The monster you fucking created is no longer doing your bidding.

    Muzzle your dog, dickweeds.

  • apftwb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    24 days ago

    Judges love beeing told they don’t have authority. It goes really well for attorneys that challenge the legitimacy of the court.