By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to an inquiry regarding responsive records, the Department of Justice’s Civil Division has stated that it is not aware of any such documents pertinent to the case. This case involves a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Donald Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization against the IRS over the leak of their tax returns. A recent settlement established a $1.776 billion fund intended to aid those believing they were unfairly prosecuted for political reasons and also prohibits the IRS from auditing the Trump family or their businesses in the future.
Read the original article here
The Department of Justice, specifically the division tasked with handling lawsuits against the IRS, has stated it possesses no records whatsoever concerning a significant settlement involving former President Trump and the agency. This claim comes in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the watchdog group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, which was seeking information about a case that reportedly resulted in a substantial “slush fund” for Trump’s allies and an unprecedented agreement for the IRS to never audit Trump’s family or businesses.
The DOJ’s Civil Division, the entity that should have been involved in such a legal matter, has formally responded that it “did not locate the case you have cited” within its records. Further inquiries to staff within the Office of the Assistant Attorney General yielded the same result: no awareness of any responsive records pertaining to the case in question. This lack of any documentation, as communicated by Brian Flannigan, the division counsel for records and information, suggests either a significant misplacement of crucial legal files or, more troublingly, that the negotiations and agreement occurred entirely outside of the official governmental channels designed for such proceedings.
The lawsuit itself, initiated by Trump, his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization, sought a staggering $10 billion in damages from the IRS. This legal action stemmed from the leak of their tax returns by a former IRS contractor during Trump’s presidency. The subsequent settlement, reached relatively recently, is reported to have established a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. This fund is ostensibly intended for individuals who believe they have been unfairly targeted for their political beliefs, effectively benefiting allies of the former president who faced prosecution during the Biden administration.
The controversial nature of the settlement extends beyond the creation of this fund. A key component of the agreement is the IRS’s pledge to refrain from auditing the Trump family or their businesses, both currently and in perpetuity. The very act of a president suing an agency within his own government was already a subject of considerable debate. However, the terms of the settlement amplified criticisms, particularly regarding the establishment of what many perceive as a slush fund for Trump to control and disperse, coupled with an apparent lifelong exemption from tax scrutiny for him and his family.
The assertion by the Department of Justice that they have no records of any communication surrounding this settlement raises serious questions. It strongly implies that the negotiations and agreement were conducted in secrecy, bypassing the established legal and governmental frameworks. This situation is viewed by many as further evidence of the former president using the power of his office to settle personal grievances, enrich himself and his family, and to seemingly disregard legal and constitutional norms, all at the expense of the American taxpayer and the principles of transparent governance. The entire arrangement appears to be in direct opposition to the foundational principles of the U.S. Constitution, resembling actions more characteristic of autocratic leadership than democratic governance.
The alleged purpose of the “settlement” also raises eyebrows, particularly in light of the “Make America Great Again” movement’s stated opposition to “handouts” and “reparations.” The fact that this massive sum is purportedly for individuals who feel they were prosecuted for political beliefs, especially when framed as “reparations,” highlights a striking hypocrisy. The underlying intent, it is argued, was to directly benefit Trump, his family, associates, and supporters, with the secrecy of the slush fund ensuring a lack of oversight, transparency, or accountability. This arrangement, critics suggest, could incentivize criminal behavior and unlawful actions by providing financial rewards and impunity. Furthermore, it appears designed to lend legitimacy to conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims about past elections.
The timeline of events suggests a convoluted path to this settlement. Trump initially filed damage claims as a private citizen against the individual responsible for leaking his tax information, a leak that reportedly revealed his tax evasion. While that individual was convicted, Trump, upon becoming president, allegedly sought to settle the matter with himself by filing a new $10 billion lawsuit. This move was unprecedented, as his own Department of Justice was expected to defend the IRS, not collude with the president in negotiating a settlement on his behalf. The substantial sum and the peculiar nature of a president suing his own government have been largely overshadowed by the opaque process by which this unlawful lawsuit transformed into the “anti-weaponization” fund, ostensibly financed by taxpayers.
The judge presiding over the case reportedly questioned its validity, noting a lack of “adverseness” and constitutional grounds, as Trump was essentially suing himself. This absence of a genuine dispute between opposing parties meant the case lacked legal standing. The judge issued a deadline for Trump and his legal team to provide justification for the suit. Facing an impending adverse ruling that would likely declare the entire case unconstitutional, Trump’s DOJ is alleged to have orchestrated the $1.776 billion “settlement” just two days before the deadline. This maneuver, according to reports, was intended to circumvent the judge’s ruling and secure a favorable outcome for Trump, despite the case’s weak legal foundation. The creation of a confidential slush fund for associates and supporters, at taxpayer expense, is seen as the culmination of this scheme.
The payout to individuals other than Trump himself is explained by the judge’s imminent decision that Trump could not sue his own government. Had the case proceeded and been dismissed, Trump would have received nothing. Moreover, any direct financial benefit to him would likely have violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, potentially leading to impeachment. The restructuring of the “settlement” on its face avoids direct monetary gain for Trump, but in return, he reportedly secured immunity from IRS audits for himself, his family, and his businesses, along with control over the $1.776 billion slush fund, managed by a commission appointed and removable at his discretion. This entire episode is widely condemned as a profound misuse of public funds and one of the most egregious acts of corruption by a president in modern history.