President Donald Trump's acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, went to bat for one of the surviving parts of Trump's "settlement" with the IRS in his $10 billion lawsuit, and, in so doing, only cemented how improper it was, former federal prosecutor Harry Litman wrote for his "Talking Feds" Substack.
Specifically, Litman said, he defended the provision that excuses Trump and his family from IRS audits going forward.
Blanche, under pressure from lawmakers, "declared that 'nothing has changed' in that provision. But he talked out of both sides of his mouth," wrote Litman. To start with, "he characterized the provision as a freestanding 'Attorney General order,' independent of the settlement. In virtually the same breath, however, he defended it as part of 'that settlement.' He told the subcommittee, 'Anytime the IRS settles with an individual taxpayer or another company as part of the settlement, it’s standard, it’s typical…to get rid of past ongoing audits.'"
In reality, Litman argued, Blanche's own words here show "that the whole settlement arrangement is collusive and, therefore, not a real case or controversy under the Constitution."
The problem, he said, is that in an actual lawsuit, "one party can’t simply declare that the settlement is off. The disavowal would be legally worthless. The other party would be quick to enforce the benefit of its bargain." In the case of the IRS "settlement," Litman said, "there was no bargain — just a benefit — to Trump. They were on the same side of the 'v.,' which is why Blanche could purport to speak for them both."
This comes after dozens of retired judges urged the court hearing the original IRS case to reopen it and examine whether it was a fraudulent use of the court system.
