Trump's Slush Fund

Americans are facing close to $5 a gallon gas or more, food prices are increasing, bond yields are rising, and we are in the middle of a war that has no end in sight and which is responsible for most of the increased costs that Americans are experiencing. One would think that cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump would be putting all of his energy into addressing these issues. Instead, his top priority appears to be building a ballroom for the White House, followed closely by building an arch and painting the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool (which Trump variously calls the reflecting pond or reflecting lake). Trump has also found time for one other topic: the creation of a $1.776 billion slush fund with which he can reward his supporters. This was announced yesterday as part of a "settlement" of Trump's lawsuit against the IRS that Trump had pursued due to his tax returns having been leaked during his first term as President.

There are any number of irregularities involving this fund. Let's start with Trump's lawsuit, for which he was asking $10 billion. Trump was suing a government that he controls over a crime that was committed during a time that he was in charge of the governmental service that he was suing. Holy conflict of interest, Batman. As Florida District Judge Kathleen M. Williams, to whom the case was assigned, noted:

Although President Trump avers that he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity, he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction.

Because the lawyers on both sides all reported to Trump, "This raises questions over whether the Parties here are truly antagonistic to each other." Williams appeared to be ready to dismiss the case, but had asked for further briefings tomorrow.

Instead, the Department of Justice announced a "settlement agreement," and Trump, in turn, asked that his case be dismissed. I put "settlement agreement" in quotes because, while that is what the DOJ calls it, it in no way reflects what is normally considered a settlement in such cases. The "settlement agreement" was not presented to the court; the judge had no formal knowledge of it, and she certainly did not approve it. Acceding to Trump's request to dismiss the case, Williams wrote:

Because the Notice does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement, there is no settlement of record. Additionally, Defendants—federal agencies represented by the Department of Justice, which has an independent obligation to uphold the “public’s strong interest in knowing about the conduct of its Government and expenditure of its resources” and the “fair administration of justice,” 28 C.F.R. §§ 50.9, 50.23—neither submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed.

To be clear, Williams is saying that not only did the DOJ not submit a settlement to the court, she is not even convinced that there was an actual case that might have required a settlement. This was an agreement that Trump essentially made with himself with no judicial oversight.

As for the agreement itself, there is plenty about which to be concerned. The agreement requires the U.S. Treasury to deposit $1.776 billion into an account that will be controlled by a commission of five people appointed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Blanche, readers may recall, was previously Trump's personal defense attorney. One of the five commission members will be selected with input from Congress, but since both chambers are controlled by Republicans who generally rubber stamp whatever Trump wants, there is little hope that individual will be independent. Moreover, the agreement allows Trump to fire members of the commission at will. As a result, the commission members will either do Trump's bidding or be fired and replaced with someone who will.

The money is coming from a fund created by Congress to be used by the DOJ to settle lawsuits against the government. Money in that account can be disbursed without Congressional approval. In this case, once the $1.776 billion has been deposited into the so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund," the commission will accept claims and decide which should be paid out. Blanche testified before a Senate committee today and said that "anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they were a victim of weaponization." One issue is that while the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" is expected to offer payments to victims of the "weaponization of government," such weaponization is not defined. Therefore, "weaponization of government" will probably amount to whatever the commission thinks it is.

Adding to the charade of legitimacy is the cast of characters involved. Not only is Blanche, as noted above, Trump's former criminal defense attorney, but one of the signers of the agreement is Stanley Woodward. Woodward previously represented many January 6 defendants, including Kelly Meggs, an Oath Keeper who was convicted of seditious conspiracy, and Ryan Samsel. Samsel led the charge on police barricades on January 6 and is believed to have ignited the Capitol invasion. Both of these individuals will likely submit claims to the commission. Today in his Senate testimony, Blanche would not rule out that those convicted of January 6 crimes would receive payments, even if they had physically attacked law enforcement officers. Blanche also said that the recipients of the funds and the amount that they receive will be kept secret.

The dangers of this arrangement are made particularly clear by the case of Andrew Paul Johnson. He was pardoned for his January 6-related crimes by Trump, but later arrested and charged with sex crimes against two children. Johnson had attempted to entice one of the children to keep quiet by offering part of a $10 million reparations payment he expected to receive. Now Johnson is eligible to submit a claim to Trump's commission and, if he receives any money, that fact will be withheld from the public.

There are a number of questions about the legality of this arrangement. I am not a lawyer and, therefore, not competent to offer a legal assessment. From my layman's vantage point, however, I think this is a misuse of the judgement fund, the fund set up to settle lawsuits. Any payments in this process will not be the result of settlements of lawsuits involving the claimants, and, arguably, not in response to any legal settlement whatsoever. Again, there is no court-approved settlement to Trump's lawsuit.

In its announcement, the DOJ mentions a previous case referred to as Keepseagle v. Vilsack in which a similar commission was created to distribute funds. But there are several differences between Keepseagle and the "Anti-Weaponization Fund." Most importantly, in Keepseagle, plaintiffs were pursuing a class action lawsuit. The settlement of the case was court-approved. The claimants to the anti-weaponization fund were not participants in Trump's case.

The creation of the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" has apparently led to one high-level resignation within the government already. Brian Morrissey, the Treasury Department’s general counsel, resigned the same day that the new fund was announced. Morrissey did not link his resignation to the "Anti-Weaponization Fund," but the timing of his surprise departure clearly suggested a connection. Morrissey is no raging liberal either. He is a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas.

Trump's agreement ends the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" in December 2028, or just before the next President would be expected to take office. There is nothing to suggest that this fund is anything more than a mechanism for Trump to pay off his supporters. Decisions concerning who receives payments and who doesn't will be completely controlled by Trump's hand-picked lackeys. Blanche said that Hunter Biden is welcome to make a claim, and perhaps he will even receive some money. But I certainly do not expect that obvious victims of government weaponization such as James Comey or Leticia James will receive support from the commission. In any case, the public will not be informed regardless.