The President sued his own government for $10 billion, his own Justice Department declined to fight back, and the two sides walked out with a $1.776 billion settlement paid from your money.
Question: why was the IRS lawsuit allowed to proceed at all if it was filed outside the statute of limitations? Incidentally, I really enjoy your work. Thank you.
That's a great question, Jim, and thanks for the kind words. The way a defense attorney has a case dismissed for violating the statute of limitations is to bring a motion making the argument. Usually, depending on the court and jurisdiction, it's called something like a motion to dismiss because the statute of limitations has run, or if this fact isn't determined until after the discovery process, it would be brought in a motion for summary judgment. In either case, it's something that happens because the defense attorneys ask the court to make it happen.
In this case, Todd Blanche in the Department of Justice, whose job it was to defend the IRS and protect the American taxpayers didn't file a single responsive document to the lawsuit. No affirmative defenses were alleged. No arguments were made. I'll include a link below sharing all of the different defenses that could have and should have been raised, but were not. These are just a couple of reasons why the lawyers and judges all see this as a fraudulent effort to deceive the court with the intended purpose of securing the settlement and IRS treatment. If any lawyer handled a file this way in private practice, they would be sued for malpractice and probably be disbarred.
A new Democrat majority Congress in the House and hopefully also in the Senate will do just the opposite. They don't work for him. They control the power of subpoena, oversight, power of the purse, and separation of powers. Without funding, improper policies cannot be moved forward, and with oversight, officials and wrongdoers can be placed under oath to answer questions. Not the kind of questions you see on television in five-minute talking point speeches, but behind closed doors, recorded under oath, and taking days. It's a big deal.
By your own admission a conviction is impossible. Assuming the democrats take one or more of Congress they need to prioritize what is most important. I believe that is to reestablish democracy, the rule of law , the sanctity of treaties and agreements with other countries Not vengeance which will use up political capital. They need to create a record that supports a democratic presidency in 28
Totally appreciate where you're coming from Bruce. But here's the thing. Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. Nine of the top ten things Congress is going to start fixing after January 3rd have nothing to do with holding wrongdoers accountable. It will be working to stop the Iran war, reduce prices, save social security and medicare, and replace the healthcare benefits the Republican’s have stripped from tens of millions of Americans. I shared details here https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/p/the-midterms-change-everything-heres?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Having said that, and at the same time, this impeachment should be and is on the table too. Because an impeachment forces a recorded vote. It puts every member of Congress on the record. Consequences are necessary but will not override a new Congress working for all states.
I wouldn't verbally say it's vengeance from the Democrats. I think it's a nessity for his impeached since he's being paid by taxes and is the DOJ for we the people, not for the president.
Agree. A new Congress will work hard to create policies for all states and all Americans. As I mentioned in my earlier response last week, I wrote a piece about the top ten things I see a new Congress doing to help our country. Only one item out of those ten had to do with holding wrongdoers accountable. After a new majority is elected and sworn in, I would first spend my time focusing on these policies so the American people know that their best interest is being placed first once again. After about a month, I would initiate the impeachment action. One effort doesn't exclude the other. See https://www.uncensoredobjection.com/p/the-midterms-change-everything-heres?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Question: why was the IRS lawsuit allowed to proceed at all if it was filed outside the statute of limitations? Incidentally, I really enjoy your work. Thank you.
That's a great question, Jim, and thanks for the kind words. The way a defense attorney has a case dismissed for violating the statute of limitations is to bring a motion making the argument. Usually, depending on the court and jurisdiction, it's called something like a motion to dismiss because the statute of limitations has run, or if this fact isn't determined until after the discovery process, it would be brought in a motion for summary judgment. In either case, it's something that happens because the defense attorneys ask the court to make it happen.
In this case, Todd Blanche in the Department of Justice, whose job it was to defend the IRS and protect the American taxpayers didn't file a single responsive document to the lawsuit. No affirmative defenses were alleged. No arguments were made. I'll include a link below sharing all of the different defenses that could have and should have been raised, but were not. These are just a couple of reasons why the lawyers and judges all see this as a fraudulent effort to deceive the court with the intended purpose of securing the settlement and IRS treatment. If any lawyer handled a file this way in private practice, they would be sued for malpractice and probably be disbarred.
See "The $1.776 Billion Shakedown: Why the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the Trump Tax Immunity Order Are Unethical, Illegal, and Unenforceable" https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/p/the-1776-billion-shakedown-why-the?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
His appointment is meant to ensure the next Congress is every bit as compliant as the current Congress.
I’m hoping that is the case.
I’m just expecting him to be on the front line of election tampering for his boss to retain his Republican majority.
A new Democrat majority Congress in the House and hopefully also in the Senate will do just the opposite. They don't work for him. They control the power of subpoena, oversight, power of the purse, and separation of powers. Without funding, improper policies cannot be moved forward, and with oversight, officials and wrongdoers can be placed under oath to answer questions. Not the kind of questions you see on television in five-minute talking point speeches, but behind closed doors, recorded under oath, and taking days. It's a big deal.
Todd Blanche should be summarily executed as should the entire Trump cabinet. No trials. No lawyers. Offer them deportation to CECOT. If they decline…
Imprisoned, not impeached...
How about both?
He's a piece of 💩
By your own admission a conviction is impossible. Assuming the democrats take one or more of Congress they need to prioritize what is most important. I believe that is to reestablish democracy, the rule of law , the sanctity of treaties and agreements with other countries Not vengeance which will use up political capital. They need to create a record that supports a democratic presidency in 28
Totally appreciate where you're coming from Bruce. But here's the thing. Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. Nine of the top ten things Congress is going to start fixing after January 3rd have nothing to do with holding wrongdoers accountable. It will be working to stop the Iran war, reduce prices, save social security and medicare, and replace the healthcare benefits the Republican’s have stripped from tens of millions of Americans. I shared details here https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/p/the-midterms-change-everything-heres?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Having said that, and at the same time, this impeachment should be and is on the table too. Because an impeachment forces a recorded vote. It puts every member of Congress on the record. Consequences are necessary but will not override a new Congress working for all states.
I wouldn't verbally say it's vengeance from the Democrats. I think it's a nessity for his impeached since he's being paid by taxes and is the DOJ for we the people, not for the president.
Agree. A new Congress will work hard to create policies for all states and all Americans. As I mentioned in my earlier response last week, I wrote a piece about the top ten things I see a new Congress doing to help our country. Only one item out of those ten had to do with holding wrongdoers accountable. After a new majority is elected and sworn in, I would first spend my time focusing on these policies so the American people know that their best interest is being placed first once again. After about a month, I would initiate the impeachment action. One effort doesn't exclude the other. See https://www.uncensoredobjection.com/p/the-midterms-change-everything-heres?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web