On Tuesday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blancheconfirmedthat the Justice Departmentwill not implementPresident Donald Trump's politically and legally contentious "Anti-Weaponization Fund," which would have allocated $1.8 billion in taxpayer money tocompensatepurported victims of "an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration" (as Trumpput it). But Blanche said another element of Trump's "settlement agreement" with the IRS—a provision that shields him and his family from liability for tax violations and other federal offenses—remains in place.

The Anti-Weaponization Fund, which was described in a May 18agreementsigned by Trump's personal lawyers, Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr., and IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, was controversial because it wasbrazenly corrupt: It was the product of a pretextual lawsuit that pitted Trump against agencies he oversees, and it was designed to benefit his allies. But the liability shield, which was revealed in a May 19addendumsigned by Blanche alone, is even shadier, since it directly benefits the president himself.

On January 29, Trumpsuedthe IRS and the Treasury Department in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, preposterously claiming that an IRS contractor's illegal leaking of his tax returns had caused "at least" $10 billion in damages. In addition to offering an improbable estimate of the injury he had suffered, Trump missed thestatutory deadlinefor filing such claims. And although he argued that the IRS had failed to properly oversee its contractors, it was not clear whether the agency could be held liable for the crimes of someone it did not employ. But the Justice Department, which was charged with representing the IRS in court, never bothered to mount a defense.

That failure underlined the blatant conflicts of interest created by the case, both sides of which were represented by lawyers who work for Trump. "I'm supposed to work out a settlement with myself," Trumpacknowledgeda few days after filing the lawsuit.

The result of Trump's admitted self-dealing was not pretty. But amid thebacklashagainst the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which had nothing to do with Trump's claims against the IRS, congressional critics tended to overlook Blanche's addendum, which likewise does not address Trump's complaint about the agency's allegedly lax oversight of contractors entrusted with confidential tax information.

Among other things, the addendum bars the IRS from pursuing claims against Trump, the two sons who joined the lawsuit, the Trump Organization, or any "related or affiliated individuals" based on tax returns filed before the date of the agreement. Judging from just onepotential disputebetween Trump and the IRS, that restriction could spare Trump more than $100 million in penalties.

Notably, the addendum was not signed by any IRS officials, which raises the question of how Blanche can dictate the conduct of an agency he does not control. And if we interpret the addendum as an expression of Trump's will (which it clearly is), it arguably violates26 USC 7217, which forbids the president to "request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer."

The addendum extends beyond the IRS. It says "the United States" is "FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED" from pursuing "any and all claims" against Trump or his family regarding "any matters currently pending or that could be pending" before the IRS, the Treasury Department, or "other agencies or departments." In a May 27motionurging U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to reopenTrump v. IRS, 35 former federal judges noted the implications of that restriction: "The plain language of this extremely broad provision sweeps in [IRS] audits of Plaintiffs' tax returns and all other claims the United States might have against Plaintiffs—extraordinary benefits for which no consideration was provided to the government."

The addendum, in short, resembles a self-pardon, except that it extends even further, encompassing civil violations as well as criminal offenses. No president has ever attempted to pardon himself, and itis not clearwhether such an act of clemency would be legal. It would certainly generate a huge political backlash, since it would create the appearance that the president is above the law and contradict the principle that no one should be a judge in his own case. Blanche's addendum is problematic for the same reasons.

Testifying before a House subcommittee on Tuesday, Blanche portrayed the provision as typical of litigation involving the IRS. "Like 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," hesaid. "It's not a forward-looking document. It's nothing that gives any sort of immunity in the future to the president or his family or his organizations."

Source: Drudge Report