A federal judge has ruled that former President Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for an improper purpose, aiming to legitimize a settlement that lacked legal or factual basis. This settlement, which granted Trump and his entities immunity from audits and investigations, was viewed by the judge as an attempt to leverage presidential power over government agencies to secure benefits. The judge also noted that provisions of the settlement potentially violate federal law regarding presidential compensation and audit interference, referring Trump’s lawyer for disciplinary review.
Read More
The court found that the lawsuit’s aim was to legitimize an agreement granting immunity to individuals and entities connected to the President and to divert taxpayer funds for undefined grievances. Consequently, any party involved in the settlement, including the Treasury Department and the IRS, is barred from referencing the arrangement in official capacities. Furthermore, the president’s attorney was referred to the Florida bar for potential disciplinary action, and the court observed that the legal action was initiated only after the president returned to office.
Read More
The Independent is committed to providing essential reporting on critical issues such as reproductive rights and the influence of Big Tech, ensuring facts are separated from messaging. Your support allows for in-depth investigations and documentaries that shed light on crucial stories. Unlike many outlets, The Independent believes quality journalism should be accessible to all, funded by those who can contribute.
Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Todd Blanche, stated that Trump would have likely faced prison time had he not won the 2024 election. Blanche pointed to the multiple legal cases against Trump, including special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations and the New York hush money trial conviction, as factors that would have led to incarceration. Following Trump’s victory, the special counsel dropped federal cases due to the precedent against prosecuting a sitting president, despite having expressed confidence in securing convictions. Trump has since vowed to seek retribution for what he claims was a “weaponization” of the justice system.
Read More
The Justice Department’s settlement of a $10 billion lawsuit brought by the former President against the I.R.S. includes a $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and an unprecedented grant of immunity from tax claims arising from ongoing audits for the former President, his family, and businesses. This immunity is particularly significant given past low tax payments and extensive audit periods, raising concerns about potential contraventions of the domestic-emoluments clause. Ethics experts suggest that Congress must assert its oversight role to check such self-dealing and that future Presidents may require a significant reset of ethics regulations, akin to the post-Watergate era, to prevent similar abuses of power.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in *Trump v. United States* established a broad interpretation of “presidential immunity,” suggesting a president may be absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for actions falling within their “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” This invention, not explicitly found in the Constitution, has emboldened former President Trump and his allies, who appear to believe they are shielded from future accountability for potential misconduct. Critics argue that this ruling, particularly the notion that it could shield presidents from bribery or ordering assassinations, is a misinterpretation of constitutional principles and alien to American traditions.
Read More
The notion of a leader, particularly a president, unilaterally granting themselves and their family perpetual immunity from legal consequences is a concept that sparks intense debate and raises fundamental questions about justice and accountability. While the headline might suggest a presidential act of self-pardon, the reality, as understood, is far more nuanced and, in many legal interpretations, invalid. A core principle that emerges is that a pardon is an act of clemency bestowed by one entity upon another; an individual cannot pardon themselves. This fundamental distinction is crucial, as it underscores that any attempt to self-exonerate fundamentally misunderstands or seeks to circumvent established legal processes.… Continue reading
Democrats are seeking to block a reported settlement between the IRS and former President Donald Trump concerning a leak of his tax information, arguing that the agreement is unconstitutional and lacks the necessary opposing parties for a valid lawsuit. Nearly 100 House Democrats have filed an amicus brief demanding the dismissal of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, asserting that the proposed $1.7 billion federal fund to resolve the case improperly benefits the former president and bypasses judicial oversight. This action highlights ongoing Democratic efforts to scrutinize instances where they believe Trump personally benefited from his presidency, with leaders emphasizing concerns about potential “corrupt self-dealing” and violations of Congress’s power of the purse.
Read More
A federal judge has ruled that Donald Trump cannot claim presidential immunity to avoid civil liability for his actions and speech on January 6th. The judge has given Trump one week to explain why discovery should not proceed against him in the ongoing lawsuits. This ruling follows the judge’s earlier determination that Trump was acting in a personal capacity, not an official one, and that his January 6th remarks could be construed as inciting imminent violence. The court has now lifted the stay on discovery, requiring a proposed discovery plan from the parties by May 1st, 2026.
Read More
Following recent remarks by the Pope condemning war, reports indicate the Pentagon issued a threat to a Vatican ambassador. In response, Donald Trump has publicly criticized the Pope, describing him as “terrible for foreign policy” and “weak on crime,” despite the Holy See’s limited role in these areas. The Pope’s comments, made during Palm Sunday Mass, emphasized Jesus’ rejection of war and his refusal to hear the prayers of those who engage in it.
Read More
The attorney for a woman who accuses Donald Trump of sexual assault during her childhood is demanding the president testify under oath. This accuser claims Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Trump in 1984, at which point she alleges Trump forced her to perform a sexual act. While the White House has not commented, the attorney pointed to Melania Trump’s call for congressional hearings, stating that Donald Trump, who is mentioned extensively in the Epstein files, should be subpoenaed. Other Epstein survivors also advocate for accountability and transparency, criticizing the federal government’s handling of the investigation.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood
Todd Blanche Claims Trump Would Have Gone to Prison If He Lost Election
The Independent is committed to providing essential reporting on critical issues such as reproductive rights and the influence of Big Tech, ensuring facts are separated from messaging. Your support allows for in-depth investigations and documentaries that shed light on crucial stories. Unlike many outlets, The Independent believes quality journalism should be accessible to all, funded by those who can contribute.
Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Todd Blanche, stated that Trump would have likely faced prison time had he not won the 2024 election. Blanche pointed to the multiple legal cases against Trump, including special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations and the New York hush money trial conviction, as factors that would have led to incarceration. Following Trump’s victory, the special counsel dropped federal cases due to the precedent against prosecuting a sitting president, despite having expressed confidence in securing convictions. Trump has since vowed to seek retribution for what he claims was a “weaponization” of the justice system.
Read More