Trump Now Gets a $1.8BN Taxpayer Slush Fund to Pay Others

[Political-Junkie]

res ipsa loquitur

geez, the man went to prison

Which is why it's the man Trump can settle with, not the IRS.

 

[Care4all]

Ok, billion, million whatever

No, they weren't claiming restitution. Restituton is when money is owed back that was stolen, or property that was damaged

This was just for damages.

Suing and asking for damages, doesn't mean you get the damages you are asking for.

I have no clue what sort of 1.8 billion dollar slush fund for friends that committed crimes for him you are referring to.

What he did ask for in a settlment, was that some money, already earmarked by Congress for the Settlement Fund, be specifically for victims of a govt weaponization. Anyone can apply that has a case.

The damages you sue for, has to fit in to reality....they can't be bogus. $10 billion was bogus. This is done by showing how it hurt them and an estimate of what damages could come whether by reputation am damage or financial or whatever....

ALSO

This suit that Trump dropped because the judge was asking questions about it, and was asking for briefs from them because she was weary about there being a suit at all...

because it seemed to her that the DOJ was never fighting Trumper entities who sued, and a suit requires two opposing sides to be a valid, legal suit.

Instead of giving the judge those briefs, Trump dropped the case right before they were due. The judge simply dismissed the case as asked. SHE WAS NEVER TOLD that the dismissal was because of a settlement Trump and Todd colluded on.

 

[struth]

Here are the damages allowed to claim. See if you can get to $10 billion.

(1) the greater of—

(A) $1,000 for each act of unauthorized inspection or disclosure of a return or return information with respect to which such defendant is found liable, or

(B) the sum of—

(i) the actual damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of such unauthorized inspection or disclosure, plus

(ii) in the case of a willful inspection or disclosure or an inspection or disclosure which is the result of gross negligence, punitive damages, plus

(2) the costs of the action, plus

(3) in the case of a plaintiff which is described in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii), reasonable attorneys fees, except that if the defendant is the United States, reasonable attorneys fees may be awarded only if the plaintiff is the prevailing party (as determined under section 7430(c)(4)).

um he didn't get the 10 billion.....so not sure your point?

 

[Political-Junkie]

They settled with him, for the same reason any party settles a lawsuit, to avoid a trial.

Wrong. They settled with him because they're loyal to him and not to the country. That was the only way Trump could collect on this bogus suit since he couldn't prevail in court because the statute of limitations had expired.

If it wasn't fraud, the government would never have settled. They would have let it go to court where any judge would have tossed it out on those grounds.

 

[struth]

Which is why it's the man Trump can settle with, not the IRS.

He can sue him too....not sure your point.

If a taxi mailman runs into the back of your car, the driver and the USPS can both be liable...I'd go after the one with the money.

 

[struth]

The damages you sue for, has to fit in to reality....they can't be bogus. $10 billion was bogus. This is done by showing how it hurt them and an estimate if what damages could come whether by reputation am damage or financial or whatever....

ALSO

This suit that Trump dropped because the judge was asking questions about it, and was asking for briefs from them because she was weary about there being a suit at all...

because it seemed to her that the DOJ was never fighting Trumper entities who sued, and a suit requires two opposing sides to be a valid, legal suit.

Instead of giving the judge those briefs, Trump dropped the case right before they were due. The judge simply dismissed the case as asked. SHE WAS NEVER TOLD that the dismissal was because if a settlement Trump and Todd colluded on.

Well that's for a jury or judge deciding the case to decide....if it's within reality or not....but we don't have to get there if the parties reach a settlement.

You always ask for more, cause you can't get it if you don't ask.

The case was dropped because there was an agreement to drop the case.

 

[Political-Junkie]

um he didn't get the 10 billion.....so not sure your point?

That's what he was suing for. How did he come up with that number based on what I showed you?

 

[Care4all]

ALSO, WHAT ABOUT THIS SUIT BEING BROUGHT MONTHS PAST THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION.

 

[Political-Junkie]

He can sue him too....not sure your point.

If a taxi mailman runs into the back of your car, the driver and the USPS can both be liable...I'd go after the one with the money.

Not according to the law. The law stipulates who you can sue.

26 U.S. Code § 7431 - Civil damages for unauthorized inspection or disclosure of returns and return information

(a) In general

(1) Inspection or disclosure by employee of United States

If any officer or employee of the United States knowingly, or by reason of negligence, inspects or discloses any return or return information with respect to a taxpayer in violation of any provision of section 6103, such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a district court of the United States.

(2) Inspection or disclosure by a person who is not an employee of United States

If any person who is not an officer or employee of the United States knowingly, or by reason of negligence, inspects or discloses any return or return information with respect to a taxpayer in violation of any provision of section 6103 or in violation of section 6104(c), such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against such person in a district court of the United States.

 

[struth]

Wrong. They settled with him because they're loyal to him and not to the country. That was the only way Trump could collect on this bogus suit since he couldn't prevail in court because the statute of limitations had expired.

If it wasn't fraud, the government would never have settled. They would have let it go to court where any judge would have tossed it out on those grounds.

1) he didn't collect on anything. No monies went to him
2) It's not bogus, the IRS leaked the info

 

[Care4all]

Well that's for a jury or judge deciding the case to decide....if it's within reality or not....but we don't have to get there if the parties reach a settlement.

You always ask for more, cause you can't get it if you don't ask.

The case was dropped because there was an agreement to drop the case.

You can't settle a case if you never had a valid suit. That had to be determined by the court judge....she was in the process of doing that, and why she asked for briefs on her concerns, when Trump dropped the suit.

 

[struth]

Not according to the law. The law stipulates who you can sue.

26 U.S. Code § 7431 - Civil damages for unauthorized inspection or disclosure of returns and return information

(a) In general

(1) Inspection or disclosure by employee of United States

If any officer or employee of the United States knowingly, or by reason of negligence, inspects or discloses any return or return information with respect to a taxpayer in violation of any provision of section 6103, such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a district court of the United States.

(2) Inspection or disclosure by a person who is not an employee of United States

If any person who is not an officer or employee of the United States knowingly, or by reason of negligence, inspects or discloses any return or return information with respect to a taxpayer in violation of any provision of section 6103 or in violation of section 6104(c), such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against such person in a district court of the United States.

How does that law say I can't sue the USPS if i get hit by a mailman?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Who pays the employer?

An officer or employee of the IRS through their negligence allowed the disclosure by allowing this contractor to have access to them

The fact he leaked data shows he wasn’t properly vetted

The things speaks for itself

Heck’s it’s also negligence per se given he was convicted of a crime

You are trying to apply negligence (failure exercise reasonable care) with an individuals purposeful criminal activity.

If the IRS defined data retention, access and control requirements to Booz Allen as the contractor and applied them to the data and their employees - that is not negligence.

As an example, say a gun store owner sells a firearm to an individual and complies with all sales and documentation requirements. A year later the individual uses the firearm to commit a crime. The store owner is not negligent.

WW

No I am not....with that said, someone can be both criminal and civilly liable

and I am not saying the IRS is criminally liable

Ya, you did.

Civil and Criminal liability is not negligence (failure exercise reasonable care).

WW

 

[struth]

That's what he was suing for. How did he come up with that number based on what I showed you?

I don't have access to all of Trump's tax returns to be able to tell you, or the Trump Orgs.

Do you?

 

[struth]

You can't settle a case if you never had a valid suit. That had to be determined by the court judge....she was in the process of doing that, and why she asked for briefs on her concerns, when Trump dropped the suit.

Actually people and businesses settle cases all the time, even when they might not agree it's valid suit

Here's it is pretty valid. The IRS can't leak someone's tax returns.

 

[Political-Junkie]

ALSO, WHAT ABOUT THIS SUIT BEING BROUGHT MONTHS PAST THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION.

Try 5 years and 4 months.

The statute of limitations is 2 years.

The government had no business paying out a dime. This is fraud.

 

[struth]

Ya, you did.

Civil and Criminal liability is not negligence (failure exercise reasonable care).

WW

actually neglience is a civil claim. Neglience can also be criminal, but that's a higher standard of proof....I am in no way saying the IRS is criminally liable.

 

[Political-Junkie]

1) he didn't collect on anything. No monies went to him
2) It's not bogus, the IRS leaked the info

It was Trump's lawsuit, not the people he made eligible to collect.

And I didn't ask you to account for his damages based on what he collected. I maintain seeking $10 billion is so far in excess, thst makes it a frivolous suit. Show me I'm wrong. Based on the damages I showed you the law allows, show his damages were $10 billion.

 

[Care4all]

1) he didn't collect on anything. No monies went to him
2) It's not bogus, the IRS leaked the info

He wiped out the $100 million he owed in back taxes for taking g the loss on one of his Bankrupt casinos twice with this Blanche deal....

And he got a $1.8 BILLION slush fund that he controls with 5 board members of his choice, to pay out to the criminals who lost millions from creating illegal schemes to fraudulently claim that Trump won the 2020 election, so that they will help him in future situations like 2026 midterms with the new funds they'll get, so he won't become a lame duck.

 

[Political-Junkie]

How does that law say I can't sue the USPS if i get hit by a mailman?

You don't understand we're talking about a contractor for the IRS, which is why I showed you § 7431?

What law are you talking about?