THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER SMASH-AND-GRAB
- Lake Effect Change
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
When President Trump sued the Treasury Department for $10 billion, the complaint concerned the leak of his tax returns by the IRS to the New York Times. Given that Trump had repeatedly promised to release his tax returns during his initial run for President in 2016, the amount was rather absurd; and further, all presidents since Richard Nixon had released theirs. Judge Kathleen Williams questioned whether there was an actual controversy, since the IRS answers to the President. She scheduled a hearing for May 19. But just prior to that, Trump’s lawyers withdrew the suit.
Then they set up a fund to make payouts to those who had supposedly suffered from unfair prosecution during the Biden Administration.
The amount of the fund is $1,776 Million ($1.776 Billion). Critics quickly labeled it a slush fund. A day later, a one-page addendum by Interim Attorney General Todd Blanche (Trump’s former private attorney) claimed to forever prohibit investigation or prosecution of Trump’s tax returns.
Several suits have been filed to prevent use of the fund. A group of 34 Former Federal Judges have filed suit against the legality of the fund. Another group includes a former Federal prosecutor who was fired for his work on the January 6 insurrection. On May 29, Federal District Judge Leonie Brinkema prohibited any use of the fund, putting money in or out, until a hearing scheduled for June 12 (stay tuned!)
When the lawsuit was withdrawn, Judge Williams terminated the proceedings on the suit over leaking of Trump’s taxes. There was no settlement agreement in the case. Thus the “weaponization fund” is not actually connected to the suit. Rather it is a manufactured excuse to use taxpayer money to pay off January 6 insurrectionists, and others favored by this President.
According to the U.S. Constitution, it is Congress that has the power to authorize spending: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Congress has not done so. In a meeting with Senate Republicans last week, Interim Attorney General Todd Blanche sought to get support for the fund. There was not much. Former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell got right to the point:
“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops?” He called that “Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick.”
As Senate Majority Leader, McConnell delayed the impeachment trial of the January 6 insurrection until Trump’s first term had expired. McConnell then led most of the Republican coalition to vote against conviction, arguing that since Trump’s term had ended, he could not be impeached. Many legal scholars dispute this argument. In any case, immediately after voting to acquit in the impeachment McConnell delivered a blistering speech on the Senate floor placing blame for January 6 directly on Trump; he also asserted that Trump remained liable for criminal prosecution and civil suits. I suspect McConnell thought he could best keep Republicans as a majority in Congress by these tactics, and did not imagine Trump would recover to win a second term.
In any case, it seems highly unlikely the Administration can get Congress to authorize the weaponization fund. Senate Republicans have other reasons to be upset. Recently, Trump successfully encouraged his supporters to defeat reelection bids by two of them, John Cornyn (R-TX) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA). Earlier, Thom Tillis (R-NC) chose not to run for reelection, also pushed out by Trump. All are liked and respected within the Senate Republican caucus. Two others, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have been willing at times to resist Trump’s corruption. Since Republicans have 53 votes in the 100 seat Senate, these are enough to prevent passage. Because it has become a high profile issue of corruption that is easy to grasp by an ordinary voter, the only way the administration will be able to succeed is to do it unilaterally.
Americans grow up with the concept of checks and balances. We can ask, what branch will check unilateral action by the President? Under the unitary theory of the executive, Congress is limited because its vesting clause grants it only “the powers herein granted.” The Judiciary is limited by regulations made by Congress, and by authorization to Congress to make inferior courts. But the executive vesting clause simply says
“The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”
Unitary executive advocates argue that this means ALL executive power, and that actions by Congress cannot impinge on it. Perhaps the Supreme Court will accept that arugment. Or merely say that even if the President cannot by the Constitution spend money, it is his job to “take care” that the laws be faithfully executed and that that means whatever the President decides it means. While this might seem outrageous, it is consistent with the Trump immunity decision of 2024. Whereas I would like to think this is not a close question, with this Court one never knows. But it will be in court.
The purpose of the weaponization fund is to pay for violent supporters of Trump, including Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. It is part of a whole: ICE is a uniformed version, as is the hollowing out of the leadership of the U.S. Military. The purpose is to threaten Americans with violence, paid for with taxes.
The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4 prohibits payment to insurrectionists:
“. . . neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”
This clause was enacted after the Civil War, and was directed to secessionist rebels from the Southern states during that conflict. But by its language it ought to apply here as well.
Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This administration violated this clause every day. It acts in bad faith in nearly all of its actions.
This is but one element of corruption and cruelty at a monumental scale - most of which will have to await another post. However, recent events in Hungary should give us hope. The sheer scale of corruption by Victor Orban and his group finally led to his downfall in April of this year. Voters there did not like corruption; neither do most Americans, and we have a much longer history of voting for our political leaders.
We can make abundantly clear how brazenly corrupt this is. After all, a taxpayer funded-slush fund for violence against the U.S. Capital is an easy issue to understand. It provides the opportunity to relitigate and redebate the January 6, 2021 insurrection. It was an effort to derail democratic rule.
Although it has been whitewashed by this Administration, by Republicans, and by conservative media, the facts remain clear. With Trump’s public support tanking, there may be some people who can be persuaded by the evidence.
Note: On Friday May 21 Judge Williams reopened the proceedings to examine the proceedings of the original $10 Billion Trump suit against the IRS. She did so in response to a petition of 35 former Federal Judges, who claimed the Administration actions “constituted a fraud upon the Court.” At the time of this publication, the DOJ announced it will pause it's work on the fund to comply with the court.
https://apnews.com/article/mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump-impeachment-c9a38d7492feea56821f4e0930914b61
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024)
Motion For Relief From Judgment Or Order, Or, In The Alternative, For Leave To Appear As Amici Curiae By Thirty-Five Former Federal Judges, Case 1:26-cv-20609-KMW Document 63. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172.63.0.pdf