Donald Trump sued his own IRS for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns, and the deal that came out of it spawned a $1.776 billion 'anti-weaponization' fund before it was abandoned in June under bipartisan pressure. On Monday, a federal judge in Florida shredded what was left of the arrangement. * Fox's headline: 'Obama-appointed judge torches Trump admin in latest courtroom showdown, refers attorney for Bar review.' Count what's doing the heavy lifting in that sentence. 'Obama-appointed' — verdict pre-explained before you've read a word of it. 'Torches' — this is a flame war now. 'Showdown' — popcorn out, it's Trump v. The Libs, Round 400. * Here's what Judge Kathleen Williams actually wrote: the case 'was brought for an improper purpose — to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a "settlement" that had no viable basis in law or fact.' There was 'never adverseness between the Parties,' never a real dispute, never a moment's doubt about who'd win. Trump and his two eldest sons, she found, acted in bad faith. * Which is the problem with 'showdown.' A showdown needs two corners. The judge's entire point was that this fight had one — Trump the plaintiff suing Trump's government, which then graciously agreed to 'settle' with him. That's not a boxing match. That's shadowboxing with a notary present. * The consequences were real enough: one lawyer referred to the Florida Bar, another banned from practicing in the district for a year, and the opinion mailed to the New York and D.C. bars — where the acting attorney general already has complaints waiting. Oh, and nobody involved is allowed to call the deal a 'settlement' anymore. The judge repossessed the word. * CNN's headline: 'Judge: Trump sought to "manipulate the judicial process" with his IRS lawsuit and attempted $1.8B fund.' NBC said the administration 'tried to "manipulate the judicial process."' Both put the actual finding in the shop window. Fox put the judge's 2011 job interview there instead. * Credit where due: Fox's first paragraph reports the 'improper purpose' finding straight, no gloves. The article knows exactly what happened. The headline just decided the real story was who hired the referee — because when the call goes against your team, you don't read the rule book. You read the ref's birth certificate.