Judge orders Trump to respond to claims “anti-weaponization fund” deal was “fraud”
A federal judge signaled Friday that he may reopen the legal case between President Trump and his own government that led to the Justice Department creating a controversial $1.776 billion “gun fund” and ordered the president’s lawyers to respond to allegations of “deception” and “fraud.”
U.S. Judge Kathleen Williams published four page order After dozens of retired federal judges asked the president to reopen his casesuggests the government and Mr. Trump may have “tricked” Williams into dismissing the case.
Williams wrote that the former justices made “bitter allegations” that Mr. Trump was trying to dismiss the case; “to avoid judicial review of a case brought only for the sole purpose of granting legality to an unlawful agreement which ‘was collusion from the inception’.”
He directed the president to submit a response by June 12 that includes responses to the former judges’ allegations of “collusion” and “deception” and “to the question of whether the case should be reopened because the Court is a ‘victim of fraud.'”
This is the latest legal obstacle to the “anti-gun fund”. A different federal judge earlier Friday temporarily banned The Justice Department backed off from continuing work on the multibillion-dollar fund after a separate lawsuit.
The case came to Williams’ agenda earlier this year when Mr. Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service for allegedly allowing his tax returns to be leaked. Williams has signaled that he plans to investigate whether the case has legal validity because Mr. Trump is effectively on both sides of the table. But earlier this month, he dismissed the case at the request of the president and the Justice Department. in question There was no “reconciliation of the records”.
Hours after the case was dismissed, the Justice Department announced that the government had settled the case by agreeing to establish a $1.776 billion fund to pay people who claimed they were victims of the “gunstrike.” The government also promised not to act against Mr. Trump over any issues with his old tax returns.
The agreement came under immediate criticism; Democrats called it a “slush fund” for Trump’s allies, and some Republicans raised questions about whether convicted Jan. 6 rioters could get paid. The Justice Department defended the fund, insisting that it would be apolitical and that all decisions would be made by a five-person panel appointed by the attorney general.
A coalition of 35 former federal judges on Wednesday Asked Williams to reverse dismissal of case and turn it back on. They argued that the deal was “the product of collusion and itself a fraud on the Court” and said Williams should investigate whether he was “deceived” into whether the case was valid or whether “unarmed negotiations were held to resolve it.”
Williams wrote in a statement Friday that he has the authority to investigate “serious misconduct,” including whether applications were filed “for an improper purpose,” and to impose sanctions if necessary.
“A party’s decision to file frivolous litigation for the sole purpose of forcing settlement may qualify as such improper purpose,” he wrote.
A spokesman for the Justice Department and Mr. Trump’s legal team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
