Trumpian putzery got what it deserved, and over 60 pages filed by DOJ assertinng otherwise is just fluff.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.97154/gov.uscourts.ca11.97154.89.0.pdf
That link is to the court filing from whichever hat Trump filed it from, plaintiff or defendant, he being both in the sham.
MSN republished an analytical text, here, titled Legal and factual errors: DOJ asks 11th Circuit to undo sanctions issued over Trump's failed effort to secure anti-weaponization fund
That item stated in part:
The U.S. Department of Justice wants a federal court of appeals to unwind sanctions issued by a lower court over the Trump administration's failed gambit to collect $1.776 billion from taxpayers for President Donald Trump's planned "anti-weaponization fund."
In a 64-page appellate brief, DOJ official R. Trent McCotter complains that the sanctions issued in the case are "unprecedented" and "based on a bevy of clear legal and factual errors."
In January, Trump filed his original lawsuit against the IRS. By May, the case was closed — on the plaintiff's own request — with the 45th and 47th president opting instead for a publicly subsidized fund earmarked for pro-Trump stalwarts and others similarly situated.
[...] In July, Williams found the president's attorneys filed a "non-adversarial, collusive" lawsuit to "manipulate the judicial process" and improperly force the IRS into a settlement that "had no viable basis in law or fact." In turn, the court put Trump and his legal team on the hook for attorneys fees of nonparty amici who opposed the lawsuit.
Now, the DOJ is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to reverse the sanctions order — which the agency claims is "riddled with legal and factual errors" — and reassign the case to a different judge.
"To start, the District Court's theory—that Plaintiffs brought this litigation 'to provide cover for a collusive settlement'—makes no sense," the brief reads. [...]
To hear the government tell it, "[m]uch of" the district court's order "consists of an incorrect analysis" that concluded the parties "were not sufficiently adverse" for constitutional jurisdiction.
The brief argues that Williams "brushed aside the facts" that Trump sued in his personal capacity but not his official capacity.
The government also says the fact that the anti-weaponization fund did not ultimately materialize works against the sanctions.
[...] The DOJ goes on to say that even "if there were anything to" the "collusion theory," sanctions would not have been proper.
Here, the government takes issue with a gag order that bars the IRS and Treasury Department "from referring to the purported" settlement "or using, offering, admitting, or citing any of its provisions in any judicial, administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or any other official proceeding as evidence of" a settlement.
"The IRS and Treasury never represented anything to (or otherwise took action in) the District Court," the appellate brief continues. "The court identified no authority to sanction them anyway—least of all in the form of a gag order—for entering a private settlement, which is a decision committed to agency discretion by law. There is none. The District Court's Order is unsupportable and must be reversed."
In light of what the government views as an "extraordinary" order that "cannot stand," the DOJ wants Williams off the case, accusing the judge of "seemingly intentionally" violating the rules of civil procedure "for the purpose of inflicting political damage on Executive Branch officials."
The thing seems so outrageous as to cite to a known idiot:
The DOJ quotes Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican representing Ohio, to argue that Williams' order "appears to be an abuse of judicial authority and motivated by partisan animus" and that the court "unnecessarily maligned Attorney General Blanche."
Blanche earned the scorn he got and Jim Jordan saying otherwise is worth a bucket of shit.
"The District Court's actions have rightfully already given rise to the view among reasonable members of the public that the District Court was acting in an improper political manner," the brief argues. "This Court need not conclude that the District Court's actions were improperly motivated, but rather only that reasonable members of the public would view them that way."
Crabgrass has reasonable readers who are members of the public, and doubts any single one of them thinks the sanctions wrong. It was a bullshit move by Trump and he deserves all the scorn imaginable for doing such a dumb thing, while Blanche proved himself bereft of good judgment by not saying no to taking a part in the fraud.
(Crabgrass may have "opposition" readers who contend the sanctions were wrong, but that position is unreasonable and stinking of unfettered bias. The reasonable readers agree with me.)
