A Trump scandal finally has the teeth to put him in real danger

Donald Trump's ability to avoid accountability for the many previously inconceivable actions he's taken as president often seemed premised on two essential elements: First, his every scandal was in the open for the world to see; if the coverup is always worse than the crime, don't bother covering anything up, which fed the second premise: Create so many scandals such that the public couldn't keep up with any one egregious abuse of the system. New revelations regarding new issues hit on a weekly basis, quickly rendering last week's outrage history.

But perhaps Trump's failsafe plan to get away with everything, from 747s to Epstein obstruction, may have just stumbled. Badly. He may have crossed a line in his lawsuit settlement with DOJ and the IRS, because this one is biting back and it now has some teeth — but not for reasons you might expect.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that U.S. District ⁠Judge Kathleen Williams threw out Trump's settlement with the IRS (as overseen by DOJ), the one that granted Trump and family full immunity from IRS investigations and crimes arising in the past and could be read as applying into the future, though that detail is irrelevant because the entire deal has just been rendered irrelevant. Judge Williams threw the settlement out on the basis that the lawsuit didn't involve two adverse parties:

"This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a ⁠factual dispute," Williams wrote. The judge said it was instead an attempt to "provide some legitimacy to an agreement to ⁠confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the president and to earmark billions of dollars ⁠from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law."

Yeah. And as obvious as that might seem to the average reader, the legal system itself often plays out in ways that are not obvious, nor sensible. Still, it's not all that unusual for Trump to lose in court, and he'll likely just appeal this decision like all others — never accepting "No" as an answer, always hoping the SCOTUS bails him out. Fine. Situation normal. Or at least that situation is normal.

Where this case diverts from run-of-the-mill scandals and encroaches on representing a real danger to Trump is what might seem as a tangential detail:

Williams referred a Trump lawyer in the case and senior Justice Department officials who signed off on the settlement to ⁠state bar authorities to determine if their actions violated legal ethics rules.

Bang.

Because the referral to bar officials is not something that an appellate court can immediately cure. For our purposes, let's pretend the appeals court overrules Judge Williams and says that the deal was brought by adverse parties and is just fine. Such a ruling may save Trump's immunity from IRS investigations and actions, but it will not necessarily save Trump's lawyers from the bar association. The bar investigation may be broader and deeper than the simple legal question determined by an appellate court.

What if the bar association finds that, despite an appellate court finding that the parties were adverse, the attorneys for each side colluded with each other in a manner that did not reflect "adverse parties," but more a "team with the same ultimate goal"? And how could such a finding come about? Just spitballing here, but perhaps obliterating the attorney-client privilege in the negotiations might evidence such collusion. How else? Maybe both parties agreed to the outline of a settlement before Trump's lawyers even filed suit. Perhaps something far more technical, but just as punitive to the attorneys.

The ruling may get overturned, but that doesn't save attorneys from all possible unethical behavior within the suit.

Okay. But how does that affect Trump? It sounds like only the attorneys get punished.

True, and that's exactly how it will affect Trump. Never in history has a man lived and breathed with more reliance on attorneys than Trump. He has his own private lawyers doing his dirty business, he has lawyers working for his White House, he has attorneys seemingly doing his business at DOJ, and he even has his former private lawyers doing his business at DOJ in acting-Attorney General Todd Blanche. It is not hyperbole to say that Trump's existence as a free man, never mind president, depends heavily on attorneys always pushing his interests.

And so what if his attorneys suddenly stopped? What if this becomes a rather urgent bar association investigation and it finds collusion or other unethical behavior? What if it were found that neither side protected any sort of privilege in that collusion and, in effect, lied in the paperwork filed with the court because they weren't really in disagreement in the first place — only working toward the same goal — sign a settlement that Trump could then enforce.

What if the attorneys are disbarred for a year? Five years? (Usually, the limit, at least allowing an attorney to show enough redemption so that he or she can at least apply again.) True, simply working for Trump represents a danger in and of itself, but most of his direct employees likely rely on the presumption of a pardon on the way out the door, so as to avoid any consequences.

Disbarment is not a consequence wiped away by a pardon, and it damn sure is a consequence. Some of Trump's slimiest deals, like this one — but not at all limited to this one: look at the attorneys appearing to sell Trump pardons, look at attorneys going after Trump's political enemies. If defending bar referrals suddenly became part of the job, fewer would want the job. Indeed, far fewer would push the limits of the job, limits like possibly stretching the truth beyond imagination, limits like working as part of the White House Counsel's office, and stuff "heard" but doesn't align with what's presented to the court. Some might find themselves actually telling a few uncomfortable truths rather than hiding them out of nothing less than fear of losing their career, having entered Trump's service with dreams of enhancing it.

Wanna take it one more level? Lawyers are admitted to practice law first by a state or the District of Columbia. Yes, there is a "bar" to which one must join to practice in the federal district courts or the circuit courts, but those are relative informalities once one is admitted to a state bar, which is the predicate to practicing any law anywhere. What if, in the state bar's investigation, it actually finds a crime, perhaps fraud? (Happens all the time). To whom do you think that crime might be referred? Maybe in some cases, in a less political time, it might be referred to the FBI, but then again — it might not. It might be referred to a state bureau of investigation. And that's a problem for our Trump administration lawyers because then, not only are law licenses at issue, but so is their freedom because Trump can't pardon away that problem.

Yes, Trump lawyers have been referred to the bar before, but most of them arose out of the 2020 insanity in trying to overturn the election. Even the attempted clear political prosecutions brought about by Trump lackeys in US Attorneys' offices haven't garnered bar referrals, but even that situation would represent "abnormal insanity" in representing Trump. This particular referral falls squarely into "normal insanity" in representing Trump and his interests in the courts. Referring "normal Trump insanity" to a bar changes everything.

The very fact that this matter was a) thrown out is of now consquence, but b) Garnered a bar referral is and will likely spin the spine in any attorney, public or private, finding themselves doing Trump's dirtiest normal work.

And Trump's trek of terror through the Constitution is so contingent upon a battalion of willing lawyers that a sudden unwillingness of said lawyers, for fear of their careers, would render that trek less of terror, more just terribly inept.

This means that this loss comes with some bite. This scandal may be quickly forgotten by the public in favor of the next scandal. It will not be quickly forgotten by the lawyers charged with doing Trump's bidding. DOJ's lawyers overseeing the handling of the Epstein investigation will take notice. Trump's White House Counsel, perhaps defending Trump's day trading on inside information, will take notice. Private Trump attorneys doing deals in direct conflict of interest with the government will take notice. And so will attorneys Trump personally ordered to prosecute his political enemies.

To save their careers, they may have to decline to do the job in the first place, or at least explain the situation in its entirety to someone, someday, maybe not even that far away.

This scandal is just a bit different. And needed. This one comes with some bite, even in broad daylight.

Jason Miciak is a Rawstory Columnist, former editor of Occupy Democrats, author, political consultant, attorney, and single parent girldad. Please follow on Bluesky, and he can be reached at jasonmiciak@gmail.com and enjoys reading the comments below.