Funny events in anti-woke world

[Asita]

You wrote out 19 points. The first 18 say literally nothing about the terms of the settlement, the 19th is not an accusation of corruption.

Because by any reasonable standard, I didn't have to. The settlement itself was the focus of my first post in this exchange. In that post I laid out red flags for it, such as while Blanche et al are mischaracterizing it as a settlement by the IRS, it appears to have simply been dictated by DOJ leadership.

The settlement is part of the sequence of events by the same people, not something distinct or even a separate event. Hell, I even described the settlement as an "attempt to terminate scrutiny before adjudication" and noted that the attorneys who were asked to evaluate the legitimacy of the case found that the plaintiff had "extraordinary control over the defendants of the case and that "circumstances raise the specter that Defendants and their attorneys may instead be operating at the President's direction ", which was echoed far more strongly by the judges in the amica briefs which described the sequence as a deception against the court and the purported settlement as "a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court"

To quote it at greater length:

Fraud on the court is established by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Booker v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 281, 283 (11th Cir. 1987); Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 441F.2d 631, 636 (5th Cir. 1971). Here, it is undisputed that this Court did not have the Settlement Agreement in front of it at the time Plaintiffs filed the Notice. The Settlement Agreement establishing the Anti-Weaponization Fund was not before the Court and the broad purported release of Plaintiffs’ known and unknown liabilities was neither announced nor publicly released until after the case had been dismissed. It is also undisputed that Plaintiffs filed the Notice before the Court received briefing it had ordered regarding whether an actual case or controversy existed. In such circumstances, setting aside the Notice and reopening the case in order to determine whether an actual case or controversy existed is necessary to ensure that the parties have not corrupted the judicial process, and to prevent federal courts from providing cover to a collusive settlement.

Indeed, the corruption of the judicial process is exactly what happened here. The parties have used this lawsuit—which was never an adversarial proceeding over which the Court even had jurisdiction—as a means to allow a "commission" controlled by the President to dole out $1.776 billion in taxpayer dollars without constitutional or congressional authority to do so, and to confer unlawful private benefits to the President and his family by purportedly prohibiting the United States from prosecuting any and all claims against them. And the parties have plainly tried to shield this conduct from necessary judicial scrutiny by short-circuiting this Court’s inquiry into whether the lawsuit is in fact an actual case or controversy by filing the Rule 41(a)(1) Notice before they announced the "settlement"—clearly in hopes of preventing the Court from ever completing that inquiry, which, if it comes out against the parties, will undo their collusive "settlement."

The sequence of events that led to Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal with prejudice makes this strategy self-evident. Shortly after the Court requested briefing on whether the Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over this functionally non-adversarial proceeding, the government entered into a "settlement agreement" with Plaintiffs that required Plaintiffs to immediately dismiss this case (thus terminating the Court’s "case or controversy" inquiry), and that purported to bind the United States to a stunningly broad release of potential claims and to pay billions of dollars before even trying to defend against Plaintiffs’ claims. See supra; ECF No. 45 at 8–14. That the government
has actively opposed nearly identical claims brought by different plaintiffs against the IRS only emphasizes the fraudulent nature of the “settlement” reached here. See, e.g., Safe Harbor Int'l, LLC v. IRS, No. 25-cv-139, ECF No. 31, at 1 (D. Md. July 23, 2025) (government’s motion to dismiss claim "for the unlawful inspection and disclosure of [plaintiffs'] return information"); Griffin v. IRS, No. 22-cv-24023, ECF No. 58 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2023) (government’s motion to dismiss claim relating to disclosure of "return information" on ground that the discloser, Charles Littlejohn, was a contractor and thus "not an officer or employee of the IRS"). And the fact that the government never asserted even basic defenses, including that the claims were clearly untimely or that the alleged discloser here (Mr. Littlejohn, the same contractor as in Griffin) was not a government employee, only strengthens the conclusion that the litigation was collusive from the start and that its goal was to obtain legal authority for the purported "settlements."

Never mind my own characterizations of the events as

• the executive branch effectively controlled both sides of the litigation,
• The DOJ allegedly failed to assert standard dispositive defenses,
• a federal judge raised concerns about adverseness and jurisdiction,
• the case was promptly withdrawn after the judge scheduled a hearing on the matter,
• and substantially similar practical relief appears to have been recreated through executive action outside the litigation process.

And noted that:
"Political actors often scale back once scrutiny increases. A reduced but still highly favorable outcome after judicial pressure is not evidence against impropriety; if anything, it can be entirely consistent with an effort to salvage a politically sustainable version of the original goal."'

I thought I was being very clear that I do not see the settlement as a separate case. So when you conclude that I must really be saying that "the settlement took justifies scrutiny, the end result infinitely less so" because my most recent post focused on explaining why it's reasonable to suspect that the nominal Defense Counsel was instead working for the benefit of the plaintiff? That's a perplexing interpretation on your part, to say the least.

 

[tstorm823]

I thought I was being very clear that I do not see the settlement as a separate case. So when you conclude that I must really be saying that "the method the settlement took justifies scrutiny, the end result infinitely less so" because my most recent post focused on explaining why it's reasonable to suspect that the nominal Defense Counsel was instead working for the benefit of the plaintiff? That's a perplexing interpretation on your part, to say the least.

If we rewind about 100 posts back in this thread, you said this:

So the issue is not whether some compensation process for leak victims could lawfully exist in the abstract. The issue is whether this particular sequence of litigation conduct and executive action reflects a genuinely adversarial constitutional process or something more institutionally compromised.

So far as I can tell, those are reasonably synonymous statements. You said, from the beginning, "the issue is not [the end result], the issue is [the particular method that got there]". And whenever I veered back to the point that others were seeing the end result as a corrupt payoff to Trump, you insisted that wasn't the point. Now I say we agree that's not the point, you think that is an odd interpretation of your statements.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

This is precisely why I never lose. I'm willing to agree and validate an opponent's argument, when appropriate. You, among others, are unwilling to do so, seeing a literal expression of agreement as if it was an insult. You are stuck in the "it's not enough to succeed, others must fail" mindset. It bothers me none if you say something right.

Asita may be disappointed or annoyed at my minimal response, but there's really nothing more to say. We agree the method the settlement took justifies scrutiny, the end result infinitely less so, but now it's rescinded so there's nothing to scrutinize, which is to say we will likely never know more about this than we do right now. I have nothing more to add or dispute.

Sure, kiddo.

You know, this isn't even funny anymore. It's just sad. And without the entertainment factor, your posts have zero value. Bye-bye. (Now, I know how you'll crow that this is another win and a showing of your superior intellect. I'll let you have it, because you so obviously need it.)

 

[Asita]

If we rewind about 100 posts back in this thread, you said this:

So far as I can tell, those are reasonably synonymous statements. You said, from the beginning, "the issue is not [the end result], the issue is [the particular method that got there]". And whenever I veered back to the point that others were seeing the end result as a corrupt payoff to Trump, you insisted that wasn't the point. Now I say we agree that's not the point, you think that is an odd interpretation of your statements.

No, that's just you trying to spin doctor a desired interpretation through quote mining. For goodness sake, take a good look at the text that immediately preceded it:

​

"The concern is not whether or not Trump had an underlying claim stemming from the Littlejohn leaks. The concern is whether this specific litigation functioned as a genuinely adversarial proceeding. That concern is reinforced by several factors taken together:​

​

1. Despite representing the IRS and Treasury Department by necessity, the DOJ under Trump and Blanche repeatedly signaled that Trump himself was effectively being treated as the department’s primary client, including - but far from limited to - dismissals tied to the idea that attorneys who had been part of cases where Trump was the defendant had "sued their boss" and therefore had no place in the DOJ.
2. DOJ reportedly failed to raise several obvious and potentially dispositive defenses, including statute-of-limitations issues, questions regarding contractor liability, and the mismatch between the claimed damages and statutory limits.
3. Trump withdrew the case almost immediately after the judge indicated a willingness to seriously examine adverseness and jurisdictional concerns.
4. The practical outcome then appears to have been substantially replicated through executive action outside the litigation process altogether.

​

Any one of those facts individually might be explainable. The issue is the cumulative pattern.​

​

And notably, your response does not really address that pattern. Instead, you keep arguing that if the administration wanted an improper outcome, they could have pursued cleaner alternatives. "I would have done it differently, therefore allegations of impropriety are ridiculous" is not a serious argument, because people aren't optimization engines who unerringly pursue the most efficient path.​

​

Moreover, you're incorrectly claiming that myself and others are claiming that the $1.8 billion + tax audit immunity must have been the exact intended outcome, and that to assume otherwise - that he actually did intend to take $10 billion - necessarily compromises the argument of impropriety...as if the entire thing happened in a vacuum and people (including the judge) weren't calling red flags on the case. And that's just not tenable.​

​

Nobody is required to assume the final result or the maximalist original one was the only acceptable objective. Political actors often scale back once scrutiny increases. A reduced but still highly favorable outcome after judicial pressure is not evidence against impropriety; if anything, it can be entirely consistent with an effort to salvage a politically sustainable version of the original goal.​

​

So the issue is not whether some compensation process for leak victims could lawfully exist in the abstract. The issue is whether this particular sequence of litigation conduct and executive action reflects a genuinely adversarial constitutional process or something more institutionally compromised."​

That does not remotely translate to "the issue is not [the end result], the issue is [the particular method that got there]". That translates to "You're arguing as if you think our argument is predicated on proving the 'settlement's' exact composition did not change at any point, and therefore presume that if you cast enough doubt on that strawman then you prove that neither this case nor its outcome can be illicit, illegal or corrupt. But that's not how it works. What matters are the facts of the case, including the 'settlement'."

TLDR: It's more accurately characterized as "The argument is not predicated on the composition of the 'settlement', but instead the process that was used to reach it, both in the DOJ's conduct during the proceedings and Blanche simply dictating a 'settlement' after Trump withdrew the case."

So to state it again directly: The settlement cannot be separated from the litigation sequence; both are part of what appears to have been a collusive process, and there is at least a credible argument (supported by amicus filings and judicial concern) that the proceeding lacked genuine adverseness and may have been structured to generate legal authority for a corrupt outcome.

And I'll thank you to accept the clarification this time rather than continuing to try to condescend to me that I must actually hold the opinion that I'm directly telling you I do not hold.

 

[tstorm823]

So to state it again directly: The settlement cannot be separated from the litigation sequence; both are part of what appears to have been a collusive process, and there is at least a credible argument (supported by amicus filings and judicial concern) that the proceeding lacked genuine adverseness and may have been structured to generate legal authority for a corrupt outcome.

And I'll thank you to accept the clarification this time rather than continuing to try to condescend to me that I must actually hold the opinion that I'm directly telling you I do not hold.

Perhaps you still do not understand what I am disagreeing with others about, because nothing in your post actually addresses it. When you say the settlement cannot be separated from the litigation sequence, that is fine, as both are still parts of the methods, not the actual result. Your concern still lies wholly in the method, and you're making no comment about that part that others were focused on.

Set aside your own position or mine for a second, lets look at this instead for a moment:

Following Trump’s Efforts to Steal $1.8 Billion from U.S. Treasury for MAGA Slush Fund, Ranking Member Raskin Introduces Legislation to Block Fraudulent Abuse of Federal Settlement Funds

Washington, D.C. (May 20, 2026)—Today, Rep.

democrats-judiciary.house.gov

That is an actual press release from Democrats on the government website. Do you see the part where they don't mention any of the things that you are? They don't care about the means, they don't care about underlying legal flaws or potential cracks in the separation of powers, they care about who might get paid. The proposed legislation, if you follow it, would ban this sort of settlement, but their press release, the part they think it carrying the political weight, is entirely about how the settlement is a slush fund for Trumps family and "MAGA foot soldiers". The first few posts in this thread on the topic were also explicitly focused on who might theoretically get paid, "giving tax money to literal traitors".

I understand that you are focused specifically on the "how", but most people upset were upset at the "what". They were not immediately concerned because of abuse of the legal system, they were concerned because the idea of right-wing individuals getting paid compensation for being wronged by the government is unjust and inherently wrong in their eyes. The details about the how came later to them, and rationalized their view for them, but the initial reaction came entirely from the idea that only a corrupt government could ever compensate someone on the right for wrongs committed against them.

 

[Gergar12]

Its good that a French visit said drunk Hegseth isn't welcome at the D-Dday celebrations because as an open anti European and someone against the allied soldiers fought and died for he shouldn't be welcome.

Residents of French village say US defense chief Hegseth not welcome for D-Day visit

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday marked the 82nd anniversary of the World War II D-Day landings with a visit to Normandy, but did not attend the international ceremony hosted in Langrune-sur-Mer.…

www.france24.com

"In his earlier speech at the American military cemetery, Hegseth utilised dehumanising anti-immigrant rhetoric, urging Europe to counter what he termed an "invasion" of its coastline by migrants."

The source leads to this...

https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1428&context=purc

But it is interesting...



That is a level of obsession that is funny enough inhuman.