DOJ division that should have handled Trump IRS lawsuit has no record of it

The Department of Justice’s Civil Division claims not to be aware of any responsive records related to Trump v. IRS, according to a response to CREW’s Freedom of Information Act request.

In January, President Donald Trump, his sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr, and the Trump Organization sued the IRS and Treasury Department, seeking $10 billion in damages arising from the unauthorized disclosure of his, his sons’ and his business’ tax returns by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn. Trump brought this suit against the federal government “in his personal capacity,” while simultaneously overseeing the agencies he is suing, making him free to “work out a settlement with [him]self.” It is the first time a sitting president has attempted to sue and settle a case with their own administration.

Adding to the blatant self-dealing, none of the lawyers who would ordinarily deal with a case like this—or at the very least be formally alerted or consulted on it—were involved in defending the United States or negotiating the settlement. Despite mounting vigorous defenses in another case arising from Littlejohn’s leaks, DOJ’s Civil Division claims “they are not aware of any responsive records within the Civil Division pertaining to” Trump’s case. No DOJ attorney even formally entered an appearance in the case before President Trump and his senior DOJ appointees executed a collusive settlement on May 18.

The purported settlement created an unprecedented and unlawful slush fund for the administration to hand out nearly $2 billion of taxpayer money to the president’s allies. CREW is currently challenging the slush fund in court. 

Citing the DOJ’s response to CREW’s FOIA request and CREW’s ongoing litigation, the court overseeing Trump v. IRS recently held that the Trump family and their attorneys acted unlawfully and in bad faith by “collusively filing a lawsuit . . . solely to provide cover for a collusive settlement.” The court ordered that the so-called settlement was no settlement at all, and could not be used in any official proceeding as evidence of a “settlement” reached in the case because “there was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail.” 

The DOJ division typically responsible for defending such a case being unaware of responsive records about it is a striking confirmation of the irregular, collusive process that produced an enormously corrupt result.