Attorneys for President Donald Trump are asking a federal judge to stop her from looking into a possible settlement that created a controversial fund for his supporters. This fund, called the “anti-weaponization fund,” was supposed to provide $1.776 billion to help Trump’s allies.
In January, Trump filed a lawsuit against the IRS in Florida.
But by mid-May, he decided to drop the case on his own. Instead, he opted for a different plan: a fund that would reward his loyal supporters and others who faced unfair treatment.
The settlement said that people who were targeted by government officials for political or personal reasons could qualify for help.
These people were said to have been harmed by the “sustained use of government power” by Democrats and others.
Judge Kathleen Williams, who was appointed by Barack Obama, closed the case but expressed some concerns.
She didn’t stop the case completely but allowed it to stay closed for now. At the same time, several other lawsuits were filed to stop what critics called a “slush fund.”
One of the lawsuits was filed by nearly 30 former federal judges.
They asked the judge to reopen the case, saying the way Trump ended the lawsuit was fraudulent.
Judge Williams responded by saying the case could not be reopened because the dismissal was legal.
She told Trump’s legal team to reply by June 12, and allowed the judges to respond by June 19. The process seems to be moving forward as planned.
In their response on June 12, Trump’s lawyers said the judges had no right to ask the court to reopen the case and called their claim “baseless.”
They argued that the settlement could not be challenged because it was handled properly.
The response goes on like this, at length:
Movants should be above making what is a transparently political filing intended to gin up press attention to a fully proper government settlement that they knowingly have no standing to challenge. Movants were not parties to any litigation with Plaintiffs; they had never expressed any interest in the case until they filed their motion; and they have no legally cognizable interest in it.
They said the way the case was dismissed under the rules of civil procedure was “self-executing,” meaning the court had no role in it.
They also claimed the judges had no legal standing to challenge the settlement because their concerns were not specific enough.
Again, the motion, at length:
Stripped to its essence, any sua sponte theory that the Court might entertain reduces to two propositions, and neither supports the requested relief. The first is that the parties settled without submitting the agreement for the Court’s review. But the Court had no authority to review or approve that settlement in the first place; a power that does not exist cannot have been evaded, and its non-exercise is neither a Rule 11 violation nor a fraud on the court. The second is that the litigation was collusive. It was not.
Trump’s team also said the court incorrectly used a rule that could be used to accuse the lawyers involved in the settlement of misconduct.
They argued that such accusations must be made by the parties involved, not the court.
Trump’s team criticized the judge for misapplying rules and for making incorrect assumptions.
They said there was no real fraud or bad faith involved, just disagreement with the settlement. They concluded that the judges were not presenting a legal argument but were relying on rhetoric and policy objections instead.
They argued that the settlement was a decision made by the government and that the court had no power to reopen the case.
They said that the judges’ claims were not based on any real legal grounds and should not be allowed to challenge the settlement.
About the Author
