this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
254 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30400 readers
3492 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

now of course, I think this means that the lawsuit is back on, but the whole point of the settlement I think was because he knew the lawsuit would never survive a judge...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Miami-based U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found that Trump and the IRS, which he oversees as president, were not truly ​adverse to each other as is required in civil lawsuits under the U.S. Constitution. Williams referred a Trump ​lawyer in the case, Alejandro Brito, and senior Justice Department officials who signed off on ⁠the settlement to state bar authorities to determine if their actions violated legal ethics rules.

"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."

Williams' order bars any of the parties in the case, ​including Trump, his adult sons and his namesake company, from referring to the settlement or citing any of its ​terms in future legal proceedings, a move that could nullify the portion of the agreement barring the IRS from pursuing any audits ‌into past ⁠tax claims involving Trump or his businesses.

This is the minimum amount we should expect from the rule of law, but I'll take whatever wins we can get. Good for this judge for stating the obvious, which apparently only heroes have the courage to do in 2026.