this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
316 points (99.1% liked)

News

38505 readers
2325 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A group of former officials with the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice is asking a federal judge to scrutinize a controversial deal that granted President Donald Trump and his family sweeping immunity from past tax audits. 

They alleged that the deal to resolve Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax documents in exchange for immunity from past audits was "unprecedented and breathtakingly improper."

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] homes@piefed.world 47 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

calling Trump's conduct "breathtakingly improper" might be so light-handed as to risk oneself being labeled a sycophantic apparatchik for failing to call him out for the child (and adult)-raping serial felon he was before even taking office.

as you should be.

[–] cybervseas@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

IRS officials using language like that is the equivalent of anyone else going completely unhinged.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

One might say the statement is an unofficial release for IRS.

[–] homes@piefed.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

lol, I repeat my previous statement

[–] Cytobit@piefed.social 16 points 2 weeks ago
[–] D_C@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The fat cunt should be in jail. That is obvious. Not just for this but for everything from blatant corruption to stealing top secret files to inciting insurrection to raping of little girls and boys.

However I will also say that anyone who worked on this for him, and anyone who allows it to happen, should also be arrested and investigated before being sent to prison. I'm at the point where anyone who works for that orange bag of rancid syphilis is nearly as bad and corrupt as that wobbling dementia riddled kiddie fucker.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 3 points 2 weeks ago

I'll go you one better: When we claw back power, we should also investigate Schmuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, because they are 50% of the reason that MAGA was able to regain power. They couldn't have done a worse job if they'd been paid, and I think we should find out if that was the case.

Schmuck is sitting on over $200 million that he amassed while telling us that we can't afford Universal Health Care. All he cares about is Israel and Insider Trading. The American people are low on his list of priorities, and he would definitely sell us out for a billion MAGA Bucks in an offshore bank account.

[–] PagPag@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

The slush fund was just a red herring. Codified corruption was the goal.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's wild how little time it took to go from, "Jimmy Carter can't own a peanut farm," to this

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Trump had allegedly earned over 4 billion this term.

They aren’t even hiding anymore.

Trump (i.e. people on his behalf) did a trade on average every 6 minutes

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Didn't that deal just get nixed?

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The slush fund did. Not sure if the immunity part did.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Dammit, you're right. Federal judge ruled that the two parties in the suit were not separate entities, but did not nullify any portion of the settlement.

[–] Zos_Kia@jlai.lu 3 points 2 weeks ago

The ruling explicitly says that the settlement never had any legal standing. There is nothing to nullify.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yes it did. It all goes away, and the lawyers may lose their licenses. There is no settlement, because there was no case, and lawyers are likely to be sanctioned over it, and possibly lose their licenses (they won't, but they'll sweat it out for a while).

The slush fund and the immunity deal are officially dead. Now we should investigate how this all happened, who made the decision to actually attempt this ridiculous operation, and put them in prison.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago