Trump's 'collusion and fraud' torn apart as retired judges break silence

U.S. President Donald Trump at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., January 16, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

President Donald Trump's attempt to create an "anti-weaponization" slush fund prompted dozens of retired judges to speak out against him, and as one ex-federal prosecutor argued for The Hill, this shows the true extent of the "collusion and fraud" inherent in the plan.

James D. Zirin is a legal analyst who previously served as a federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York. In a new piece for The Hill published Tuesday, he invoked a classic turn-of-phrase to emphasize the severity of the pushback against Trump's slush fund from these judges.

"'Fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong' was a delightful 1927 ditty, sung by the immortal Sophie Tucker, contrasting the laissez-faire culture of 1920s Paris with the strict, puritanical attitudes in the U.S.," Zirin explained. "Over time, the saying morphed into a general idiom often used to suggest that if a massive number of people believe in or do something, there must be some undeniable truth to it. If 50 million Frenchmen couldn’t be wrong, nor could 35 former federal judges. They say the key to longevity is not to retire but to remain engaged. Retired judges enjoy a certain mystique, and when they talk, everyone listens."

Zirin noted how, two weeks ago, Florida Federal Judge Kathleen Williams "gave weight to a motion from 35 former federal judges arguing that Trump’s bogus settlement of his meritless lawsuit against the IRS was a fraud on the court." In a filing to Williams, the judges had urged the court to reopen the case and examine whether or not the settlement — in which Trump had effectively sued and settled with himself — constituted a case of fraud.

"The purported ‘settlement’ that was publicly disclosed after this court dismissed this matter raises profound questions about the parties’ candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice," a lawyer representing the bipartisan group of judges wrote.

Leading the charge for this group, Zirin explained, was Michael Luttig, "a rock-ribbed conservative "who was appointed to the federal appeals court bench by George H.W. Bush in 1991 and served until 2006, when he was passed over as a potential Supreme Court nominee.

"The courageous voices of the federal and state judges,” Luttig said. “Are the only voices that can and have been heard above the deafening din of partisan political rancor that is literally threatening our nation.

”The former judges argued that the purported settlement of the case was the product of collusion and fraud," Zirin wrote. "With Trump suing and settling with himself, that is self-evident. But the argument lands with singular force coming from the 35 retired judges. Larger numbers of former judges have filed briefs in other cases. In a Supreme Court case on immigrant protection, more than 175 former judges filed a brief last March arguing that the court’s shadow docket orders are not binding precedent if the justices do not justify their reasoning."

From Your Site Articles