,,iii  #aaith ,,congress  #b;d ,session 
,s4 ,,res4 #hbh  ,,in ,,the ,,senate    
,,of ,,the ,,united ,,states  ,august   
#d1 #bjbf,mr4 ,blumenthal submitted the 
following resolution2 which was referred
 to the ,committee on the ,judiciary    
,,resolution  ,expressing the sense of  
the ,senate that ,president ,trump's    
lawsuit against the ,internal ,revenue  
,service1 the resulting settlement from 
that lawsuit1 the purported             
,anti-,weaponization ,fund1 and the     
puported grant of immunity from tax     
investigations to the plaintiffs in     
,president ,trump's lawsuit1 should be  
rejected1 equal protection arguments by 
others with similar claims should be    
forestalled1 and this settlement should 
not serve as a precedent and should     
never be repeated4  ,whereas1 between   
#bjai and #bjbj1 an ,internal ,revenue  
,service 7referred to in this preamble  
as the ,,irs7 contractor disclosed the  
tax information of hundreds of thousands
 of individuals and other tax entities1 

including ,president ,donald ,trump2    
,whereas1 on ,january #bi1 #bjbf1       
,president ,trump1 his sons1 ,eric      
,trump and ,donald ,trump1 ,jr41 and the
 ,trump ,organization filed a lawsuit   
based on these disclosures against the  
,,irs and the ,department of the        
,treasury1 both of which ,trump1 as the 
sitting ,president1 controls2 ,whereas  
,president ,trump sought #aj1jjj1jjj1jjj
 in damages in his lawsuit1 even though 
the other individuals who sued the      
,federal ,government for the same reason
 generally received no monetary         
compensation1 such as ,kenneth ,griffin1
 who received only an apology from the  
,,irs2 ,whereas ,president ,trump was   
free1 during the statute of limitations 
period when he was a private citizen1 to
 bring an improper tax disclosure       
lawsuit seeking a reasonable remedy2    
,whereas ,president ,trump did not      
pursue this lawsuit until well after the
 #b-year statute of limitations period  
for such improper tax disclosure claims 

had expired2 ,whereas1 on ,may #ah1     
#bjbf1 ,president ,trump and the        
,department of ,justice that he controls
 announced that they had agreed to a    
purported settlement of the lawsuit1    
under which the ,federal ,government    
would establish an ,anti-,weaponization 
,fund to provide nearly #a1hjj1jjj1jjj  
in taxpayer payouts to individuals who  
,president ,trump deemed to have        
suffered weaponization and lawfare1     
including rioters who stormed the       
,capitol and attacked law enforcement on
 ,january #f1 #bjba2 ,whereas1 on ,may  
#ai1 #bjbf1 the day after the           
announcement of the settlement1 ,acting 
,attorney ,general ,todd ,blanche issued
 a unilateral addendum to the settlement
 that purported to immunize ,president  
,trump1 his family1 his companies1 and  
his affiliates from ,,irs               
investigations1 audits1 or claims       
pertaining to any of their previous tax 
returns or other tax-related actions2   
,whereas our ,constitution affords all  

people equal protection of the laws2    
,whereas there is no reason that        
,president ,trump and the other         
plaintiffs in his lawsuit are entitled  
to special treatment different from     
others harmed in the same illegal       
disclosure of tax information2 ,whereas1
 if the purported settlement with       
,president ,trump is allowed to stand1  
the principle of equal protection of the
 laws would give all victims of the same
 illegal tax disclosure an argument to  
claim the same immunity over            
retrospective tax audit investigations  
of their own filings2 ,whereas affording
 such immunity to hundreds of thousands 
of individuals and other tax entities   
would likely cost the ,federal          
,government millions1 and perhaps even  
billions1 of dollars in lost revenue2   
,whereas there is no credible argument  
that all victims of the illegal         
disclosure should receive immunity      
covering all retrospective tax audit    
investigations2 and ,whereas the ,united

 ,states ,district ,court for the       
,southern ,district of ,florida held    
that ,president ,trump's lawsuit was    
non-adversarial1 collusive1 and         
jurisdictionally improper and thus was  
brought for an improper purpose because 
the ,lead ,plaintiff1 ,president ,trump1
 directs and controls the ,defendants1  
the ,,irs1 and the ,treasury ,department
 within the executive branch of which he
 is the head3 ,now1 therefore1 be it    
,that it is the sense of the ,senate    
that ,president ,trump's lawsuit against
 the ,internal ,revenue ,service and the
 resulting settlement1 the purported    
,anti-,weaponization ,fund1 and the     
purported grant of immunity from tax    
investigations to the plaintiffs in     
,president ,trump's lawsuit1 should be  
rejected1 equal protection arguments by 
others with similar claims should be    
forestalled1 and this settlement should 
not serve as a precedent and should     
never be repeated4