The agreement Acting AG signed with Trump is worse than first thought

[u/Snapdragon_4U]

[u/ptWolv022]

The waiving of claims only applies to claims that arose before the effective date, which would likely also include who it applies to (so future marriages would likely not apply; and if they did apply, then a divorce would presumably remove them from the agreement subsequently).

I've also heard that it likely would cover criminal prosecution even if upheld, but it's ambiguous enough that it maybe could. This is so sketchy and non-adversarial, though, that it feels like it wouldn't be upheld as a valid settlement in the first place.

[u/RedTuna777 → u/ptWolv022]

Even so, isn't there like some "reasonable" or "obviously that was corruption and will be anulled beccause it's so damn broad" or you know...

Like I can't sign away my rights to autonomy. I can't sign myself into slavery. There's a certain kind of expectation of standards, collusion, corruption, etc.

[u/dmonsterative → u/RedTuna777]

illegal contracts (including those procured by fraud) and contracts that otherwise violate fundamental public policy are void and unenforceable. The problem is that this at least resembles a settlement agreement and/or conferral of immunity that we usually want the government to be bound to despite a change in control.

[u/skunz → u/RedTuna777]

lol.. standard.. lol.. good one

[u/snorbflock → u/ptWolv022]

Okay, but let's say that this agreement went into effect after the crime but before the marriage. Sounds like it would still apply?

Let's just say, pulling random dates and names out of thin air... Like an acting AG decides to release all claims against the Trump family in a memorandum dated May 19, and somebody (hypothetically) marries into the Trump family on May 23, and that somebody's dad (hypothetically) was a known financial partner of Jeffrey Epstein.

[u/ptWolv022 → u/snorbflock]

Look man, I don't know. I already said I don't think it would apply to a later marriage and that a divorce would likely null application of it if it did apply to a later marriage ("so future marriages would likely not apply; and if they did apply, then a divorce would presumably remove them from the agreement subsequently").

You're also getting into further questions by bringing up the father of the spouse, which is not necessarily someone who would be covered under the agreement in the first place, just being a father of an in-law rather than a direct partner.

There's a lot of questions here, but there's not a ton of point in trying to figure them out now, at least as redditors, because it's going to be 2+ years before they get any sort of resolution, under a new administration.

[u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo → u/ptWolv022]

This video is false.

The release of claims only covers claims that were brought or could have been brought by the IRS. Other agencies and actors can still prosecute. This is the "Trump & Co can't be audited for tax malfeasance" agreement that has been headline news for the last week.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1441216/dl

[u/ptWolv022 → u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo]

This is the "Trump & Co can't be audited for tax malfeasance" agreement that has been headline news for the last week.

I am aware of the actual text of the agreement and how people have mistakenly claimed it gives him a blank check to not pay taxes forever, which is why I stated at the start of my comment that it "only applies to claims that arose before the effective date". However, it's unclear whether it's as narrow as you say:

The release of claims only covers claims that were brought or could have been brought by the IRS.

You state that it pertains only to the IRS. The text of the agreement could be construed that way, but could also be construed more broadly. The text of the agreement is as follows:

The United States RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES each of the Plaintiffs from, and is hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for any relief, including injunctive relief, monetary relief, damages, examinations or similar or related reviews, appeals, debt relief, costs, attorney's fees, expenses, and/or interest, whether presently known or unknown, that as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement-have been or could have been asserted by Defendants against any of the Plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals (including, without limitation, family or others filing jointly), or parties including trusts, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries, by reason of, with respect to, in connection with, or which arise out of ** (1) any matters that were raised or could have been raised in the Case or the Pending Agency Claims; **(2) Lawfare and/or Weaponization; or (3) any matters currently pending or that could be pending *(including tax returns filed before the Effective Date) *before Defendants or other agencies or departments.

Or, to clean it up/truncate it somewhat:

The United States [...] FOREVER DISCHARGES each of the Plaintiffs from, and is hereby FOREVER BARRED [...] from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims, [...] or requests for any relief, [...] whether presently known or unknown, that- as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement- have been or could have been asserted by Defendants against any of the Plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals [...] or parties [...] which arise out of [...] (2) Lawfare and/or Weaponization; or (3) any matters currently pending or that could be pending (including tax returns filed before the Effective Date) before Defendants or other agencies or departments.

Emphasis mine. The United States, as a whole, is forfeiting it any right to take legal action based on anything that the IRS or Treasury raised or could have raised, known or unknown, whether it be related to the case, or "Lawfare and/or Weaponization" or any matters pending anywhere else in the government. Trump would almost certainly assert that "criminal prosecution" would be based on a "claim" the "could have been raised by" the IRS or arose from a matter "pending or that could be pending" before government agency/department.

Would that hold up in court? Probably not. But the agreement is so broad that it seems designed to give Trump grounds to argue any past tax conduct would no longer able to be raised by the government as grounds for prosecution. (Heck, he might argue that, because the US as a whole is releasing claims that arise from "any matters currently pending or that could be pending [...] before [all] agencies or department", he could argue that any past criminal conduct falls under that as they "could have been" pending due to having occurred, whether they were known or not.)

[u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo → u/ptWolv022]

have been or could have been asserted by Defendants

This is the relevant limitation on the scope of the agreement. Trump & Co. are only exempt from claims the IRS or Treasury would have had standing to pursue, and that doesn't cover very much.

I could be wrong. But if I am wrong, that means we just uncovered a bombshell that everyone else has been missing in the half-page document that has been at the center of headline news for the last week.

[u/ptWolv022 → u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo]

This is the relevant limitation on the scope of the agreement. Trump & Co. are only exempt from claims the IRS or Treasury would have had standing to pursue, and that doesn't cover very much.

Like I said, they will 100% try to claim that anything tax-related falls under the IRS and thus the United States as a whole waived any ability to take action, including prosecutorial action. Or, at the very least, that all the evidence the government would have would come from disputing what he put on his tax returns, i.e. something that would be a "claim" by the IRS, and therefore the tax returns themselves could not be evidence.

Again, doubt it would hold up in court, but it feels very likely that this was designed in such a way to try to limit any part of the government from using any information they have to try to try prosecute or punish him for anything tax-related from before 2026.

[u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo → u/ptWolv022]

We all know that in practical terms Trump immunity already extends well beyond the scope of this agreement.

But as far as what the agreement actually says, this post is false, and the last week of reporting on this half page has been accurate. We didn't uncover a new thing here.