‘Completely hollow’: critics denounce Blanche deal to halt Trump slush fund
The Guardian · L · trust 55/100
Todd Blanche at a cabinet meeting at Camp David last week. Photograph: Daniel Heuer/Reuters View image in fullscreen Todd Blanche at a cabinet meeting at Camp David last week. Photograph: Daniel Heuer/Reuters US news ‘Completely hollow’: critics denounce Blanche deal to halt Trump slush fund Democrats say agreement – which clears way for Blanche’s confirmation – makes promises president can easily reverse
Prefer the Guardian on Google A compromise between Todd Blanche and two Republican senators that potentially cleared the way for Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general is weak, Democrats and several experts said, as it makes promises Donald Trump can easily reverse.
Blanche, the acting attorney general, posted two documents on Sunday evening showing he was withdrawing an 18 May order allowing for the creation of a $1.8bn weaponization fund and clarifying that broad tax immunity the justice department granted to Trump only applied retroactively to the president, his sons, and businesses.
The agreement stemmed from a deal worked out with senators John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, two Republicans who had threatened to block Blanche’s nomination. Cornyn and Tillis said on Monday they would support Blanche when his vote comes up for the Senate judiciary committee Tuesday.
“We are pleased that the Department of Justice has issued a formal order terminating the anti-weaponization fund,” Cornyn and Tillis said. “Additionally, the department has acknowledged in a binding written order that the audit settlement is limited to the plaintiffs and the scope does not extend beyond the defendants in the lawsuit, the IRS and the treasury, addressing concerns that multiple of our Republican colleagues share.”
But legal experts and Democrats said what Blanche announced Sunday was far from ironclad and left room for Trump to resurrect the fund.
“These assurances are not worth the paper they’re written on,” Brandon DeBot, policy director at the Tax Law Center at NYU, said in a statement. “They don’t pull back on the ongoing attempts to give the president, his family, and his affiliates unauthorized immunity from tax audits. They don’t do anything new to stop the president from trying to bring back the fund, as he threatened to this weekend. It’s abundantly clear we need congressional action.”
The documents Blanche released only say the prior justice department order creating the weaponization fund is rescinded. It does not modify the original settlement agreement creating the fund, reached as the result of a Trump lawsuit seeking billions in damages for the unauthorized release of his tax returns.
Blanche acknowledged during his confirmation hearing that Trump or his sons – the plaintiffs in the case – could theoretically sue to enforce the agreement. Trump spent the weekend praising the slush fund, and even threatened to revive it .
Trump again praised the fund on Monday, saying: “These people were treated so horribly, and this fund could’ve given them some solace.” He added that he had not seen Blanche’s agreement. “I don’t know what they agreed to,” he said.
Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House judiciary committee, said Blanche’s announcement does nothing to prevent the justice department and Trump from creating the weaponization fund under a different name.
Raskin said: “These hollow words are an affront to the American people, Congress and the courts, and are clearly designed to lull Senators Cornyn and Tillis into a false sense that their legitimate concerns have been addressed while leaving Blanche’s corrupt scheme fully intact.”
Even if the department does not move ahead with the fund, there is another path for January 6 defendants to receive a payout from the federal government. A once-obscure process under the Federal Tort Claims Act allows anyone to seek damages from the federal government, first by filing a claim and then through a lawsuit.
The justice department has wide discretion over whether to settle those lawsuits and some January 6 defendants are already moving through the process with claims for millions of dollars .
“This supposed ‘deal’ doesn’t prevent payouts to violent insurrectionists in the future,” Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and member of the senate judiciary committee, said in a post on X . “It doesn’t prevent the admin from bringing the slush fund back from the dead next week or using DOJ’s Judgment Fund for the same illicit purpose.”
Republicans and Democrats have harshly criticized the weaponization fund and the tax immunity deal ever since they were announced in mid-May. Both arose out of a $10bn lawsuit Trump, his sons, and business filed against the government for damages over the unauthorized release of his tax returns. The justice department did not even attempt to defend the government in the lawsuit.
A federal judge later said it was a “bad-faith” suit designed to engineer a beneficial result for Trump. The New York Times reported in May that the tax immunity could potentially free Trump of a $100m penalty related to past audits of his tax returns.
The fund would have been run by five commissioners, four of whom would have been appointed by the attorney general (the fifth would have been named in consultation with congressional leadership). The fund was not required to disclose how much money it paid and to whom and aside from Trump and his sons, there were no restrictions on who could apply.
The agreement Blanche announced is “completely hollow”, said Virginia Canter, chief counsel and director of ethics and anti-corruption at Democracy Defenders Action. “Nothing changes the terms of the actual settlement agreement, which cannot be modified without all parties’ consent. As a result, Blanche could reverse course tomorrow if he wanted.”
Lawyers for the watchdog group Democracy Forward, which sued over the fund and secured a court order stopping it, sent a letter to the justice department on Monday noting…
Read the original at The Guardian →
Open in TruthVane →