- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
State’s governor looks to thwart US president’s plan to divert money to allies, including January 6 rioters
California governor Gavin Newsom is looking to thwart Donald Trump’s $1.776bn “anti-weaponization fund” by imposing a 100% tax on any payout received by state residents.
In May, the Department of Justice (DoJ) announced a fund to compensate alleged “victims of lawfare and weaponization”. It’s unclear who qualifies under this category.
The fund was the product of a settlement reached between Trump and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – the agency the president sued over his leaked tax returns.
Critics, including Newsom, have slammed the fund as a “boondoggle” designed to divert money to Trump’s allies. Speculation has swirled that its benefactors could include the individuals who were arrested in the 6 January 2021 siege of the US Capitol. The Trump administration has described the rioters as patriots and since pardoned many who were charged in relation to the attack.
Can someone explain this to me… Because the lawsuit was filed in federal court and had a judge working the case, the judge has to approve the settlement. But Trump came to this agreement with the DOJ and withdrew the case in a way that wouldn’t require the judge to approve it. But doesn’t that mean that this agreement is technically not a settlement to the case, and therefore it is meaningless?
No. In civil cases you can settle outside of court without the judge being involved. It’s a settlement but not a legal one that has much of a chance of standing up in court.