I don't usually say this about a 56-page court ruling, but there are so many satisfying passages in U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams' critique of President Trump's flagrantly unethical lawsuit against the IRS and the Treasury Department that it's hard to pick a favorite. His ruling has been described as “forceful”, “dazzling”, “scathing” and “damning”.
You can almost imagine Williams' revulsion at the audacity of one of Trump's most blatant (and unconstitutional) attempts at self-dealing. His disdain for the president's lawyers, including the acting prosecutor. General Todd Blanche is so good that he not only reprimands them, but refers them to their various local courts for possible sanctions.
As you may recall, in January, Trump and his children sued the federal government for $10 billion, claiming they had been irreparably harmed by the 2019 leak of their personal and corporate tax returns. (Nothing so cool $bill of 10ion I couldn't calm down!) Although the person responsible for the theft was an outside contractor who is currently serving a five-year prison sentence, the Trumps blamed the IRS, a division of the US Treasury Department.
But the IRS and the Treasury Department, as well as the Justice Department, which would defend the government against Trump's lawsuit, are all part of the executive branch. And since Trump is the head of the executive branch, he is the plaintiff and, effectively, the defendant. (It reminds me of that famous scene from “Chinatown” in which Faye Dunaway reveals her family's dark secret to Jack Nicholson: “She's my sister and my mother!”)
You don't have to be a lawyer to know that the same person cannot be on both sides of a lawsuit.
The Constitution is clear on this point: If you're going to file a federal lawsuit, you better have a real adversary. It is called the “case and controversy” doctrine. In April, Williams ordered both sides to explain themselves.
Then, in May, two days before the deadline to file briefs, Trump's Justice Department announced that the case had been resolved. No abstracts required! Trump would receive an apology and the government would establish a $1.8 billion “anti-armament” fund to compensate victims of the government’s “legal war.” This was widely seen as an attempt to funnel money to bad actors like the criminals convicted of crimes for their role in the January 6 insurrection. Additionally, Trump and his children would receive broad immunity from IRS audits of past tax returns.
The reaction was intense and bipartisan, and Blanche quickly announced that the fund was dead. (Could he ever rise from the grave as a zombie? Unclear.)
Dozens of outraged former federal judges filed a motion asking Williams to reopen the case. The whole smelly affair, they wrote, was “a fraud on the court.”
Williams, appointed to the federal court by President Obama in 2010, granted the motion. He said he wanted to investigate whether the deal had been “based on deception” and ordered the parties (Trump on one side, Trump essentially on the other) to explain to Williams exactly why the lawyers involved should not be punished for creating a false legal case. They could not present a convincing argument.
On Monday, Williams released his ruling, voiding the deal. The lawsuit, he wrote, was filed “in bad faith for the improper purpose of dishonestly promoting a political narrative.”
The architect of the bogus lawsuit and slimy deal is Blanche, Trump's former personal criminal attorney and current candidate for U.S. attorney general. In May, Blanche told a Senate subcommittee that she did not have to present the “deal” to the court because there was no longer a case. Williams disagreed. Blanche's testimony, he wrote, was “at best misleading and at worst false.”
Blanche's ability to speak on behalf of both sides of the lawsuit, sign a settlement agreement on behalf of all parties and then repudiate part of the agreement, the judge wrote, “demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were represented throughout the case.” And Williams noted: “It is laughable to suggest that there was ever hostility between the parties.”
The entire lawsuit, Williams wrote, was “non-contentious, collusive and jurisdictionally inadequate.” In simple English, totally false.
“This case,” he noted, “is part of Mr. Trump's pattern of misusing the courts to serve political ends.”
So what kind of punishment should be meted out to lawyers like Blanche, who blatantly ignore their constitutional obligations to curry favor with the boss and, say, be named attorney general of the United States in return?
Williams ordered the court to send its ruling to the New York State Bar, where more than 100 former federal and state judges have filed a 73-page ethics complaint against Blanche for her involvement in the case, as well as what they considered her deceptive prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey, Blanche's “botched” handling of the Epstein files and her leadership in the “apparent vindictive prosecution” of the Southern Poverty Law Center, among others.
“Since being appointed Acting Attorney General,” the former judges wrote, “Mr. Blanche has made it abundantly clear that his primary loyalty is to President Trump and not to the fair and impartial administration of justice.” Blanche has denied ever acting inappropriately and derided the letter as a “pathetic trick invented by activist judges.”
During her Senate hearing for her current appointment, Blanche was asked, “Is President Trump above the law?”
“I'm not aware of what it means to be 'above the law,'” Blanche responded, “so I can't answer that question.”
I bet most of us can tell you exactly what it means to be above the law.
How pathetic that the man who wants to be the country's top prosecutor can't do it.
Blue sky: @rabcarian
Rags: @rabcarian
