SerpApi.Org
Within days of pledging that Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund was dead, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has changed his mind.
In written answers provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee following his congressional hearing, Trump’s former personal attorney refused to rule out the possibility that taxpayer funds could, at some point, be redirected as a form of reparations to Trump’s aggrieved political allies.
“Will you issue a memorandum directing DOJ not to enter into any settlement that would result in paying money or issuing an apology to any person convicted of assaulting law-enforcement officers during the January 6 attack on the Capitol?” prompted one question.
“Every claim submitted pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act is reviewed on the merits and addressed by the Torts Branch of the Civil Division,” responded Blanche. “The compromise and/or settlement of any claim is made only in the best interest of the United States.”
But what Blanche chose not to answer on the Senate’s “Questions for the Record” was just as remarkable.
In one exchange, Blanche refused to expound on whether or not Justice Department officials had discussed potential payouts with convicted January 6ers. Blanche also refused to answer a point-blank question on whether or not it was “appropriate” to grant Trump and his family criminal immunity. He similarly declined to answer whether he or the Justice Department had pressured officials at the Internal Revenue Service to sign a settlement agreement with the president.
Of course, Blanche’s opinion doesn’t supersede that of a federal judge who found the whole enterprise wildly unlawful. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams nixed the settlement underlying Trump’s slush fund, ruling that the settlement parties—Trump’s IRS and Trump’s attorneys—were never actually at odds when they opted to forgo the president’s $10 billion lawsuit in favor of a massive, taxpayer-funded honey pot.
“The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” Williams wrote.
