As near as I can make out — in a fit of pique, Trump is now declaring that if the Senate won’t confirm his nominee for AG, Todd Blanch, he’s going back to demanding that his weaponization slush fund be reinstated.
“It will immediately be back on the table, and I will get it done,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account, vowing to pass an “Anti-Weaponization Bill” should his nomination of Todd Blanche for attorney general fail in the Senate.
Trump added that he would keep Blanche as acting attorney general and blasted two GOP senators — John Cornyn (Texas) and Thom Tillis (North Carolina) — who have blocked the nomination from advancing over concerns about the fund.
It was not immediately clear what legislation the president was referencing, and the White House declined to elaborate on Trump’s post.
It’s nakedly obvious that Trump never intended to give up on the fund. He was just pretending to until Blanche was confirmed. Otherwise, the only thing he needed to do to get Blanche confirmed was to put in writing that there would be no fund.
Trump probably doesn’t read The New Republic, but if he did he might notice Michael Tomasky calling the slush fund “the leading charge in Trump’s next impeachment.”
The fund, you’ll recall, was the result of a settlement in a mind-bending legal proceeding in which Trump sued himself: That is, the president of the United States sued the Internal Revenue Service, seeking $10 billion for the (admittedly illegal) leak of some of his tax returns back in 2019. In May, Trump’s Justice Department, led at the time by Blanche as the acting attorney general, settled the suit between Trump the president and Trump’s IRS by establishing a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, whose moneys were to go to parties Trump deemed to have been wronged by the deep state—starting of course with Trump himself. It also included a shocking clause granting Trump, his family members, and his companies immunity from prosecution for any tax-related crimes they may have committed before the date of deal. …
…It’s hard to say how many articles of impeachment the Democratic House might come up with. Indeed, Raskin and his committee’s biggest challenge will be deciding which high crimes and misdemeanors not to pursue. There’ve been dozens, hundreds, and they just can’t plausibly bring an indictment of 100-plus counts. They’re going to have to keep it to some number that the public can digest and buy into.
But the slush fund and immunity grant sure look like count number one to me. Unless of course five members of the you-know-what decide it’s all legal. If that happens, the House Judiciary Committee might look at impeaching them, too.
In other news — U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro is now on Trump’s shit list. You probably heard that the case against former Olympian David Hearn has been dismissed by Pirro. And Trump is not happy.
In an extraordinary motion filed Friday evening, the U.S. attorney in Washington, Jeanine Pirro, said she was seeking to dismiss a felony charge against David Hearn, a former Olympic canoeist who was accused of pulling up a piece of the pool’s lining two feet square.
In doing so, Ms. Pirro — a longtime ally of President Trump’s — directly contradicted the president’s repeated claim that the Reflecting Pool’s peeling liner was caused by people slashing its coating with knives. Instead, she said, “the damage was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism.”
Earlier this month, Ms. Pirro herself had echoed the president’s claims, calling a news conference to announce Mr. Hearn’s indictment on July 2. She said that she had “tremendous evidence” that Mr. Hearn had committed a felony, and noted that he faced up to 10 years in prison.
But on Friday, Ms. Pirro said that her prosecutors had been misled by the Interior Department, which had awarded a no-bid contract to a first-time government contractor to repair the iconic landmark.
Ms. Pirro said that the pool’s new blue coating had actually started to peel within two days of the project’s completion, and that the Interior Department kept that fact from prosecutors, telling them that “nearly all of the damage” was done by vandals.
Nearly everybody not in the Trump Administration knew good and well the damage wasn’t caused by vandals, but I’m glad to see Pirro catching up. Oddly, she somehow did get an indictment against David Hearn, which is unusual for Pirro. She’s been bombing out at getting indictments for months. Even so, at some point she must have realized she didn’t have a case, but somebody needs to check out how she got that indictment, Something stinks.
But, as I said, Trump is furious.
“I don’t know what she was thinking?” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM.”
“There may have been some contractor difficulty, but the major damage was caused by VANDALS!” the president wrote.
Right now Pirro is probably sorry she left Fox News. We’ll see how long she keeps her job.
Capital One Financial hit back on Friday against a lawsuit over its decision to close the Trump Organization's bank accounts years ago, stating that it did so after a review by anti-money laundering experts. The disclosure marks the first time a bank has formally tied money laundering concerns to U.S. President Donald Trump's family business. Capital One is seeking to dismiss the case by casting doubt on claims of illegally debanking — or denying services on religious or political grounds — the Trump Organization.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/capital-one-says-closed-trump-231856464.html
Thx, interesting article. I don't even try to keep up with all of Trump's corruption, so this was news to me.
I find myself in the unusual position of rooting for the TBTF Bank in this one, but there are some "interesting" dates in the article.
First, the bank dropped Trump in March, 2021 – the month after he left office. I assume that they could have done it earlier, but it was safer to wait until he was out of power. So, not exactly an act of courageous defiance, but still, sometimes Maximizing Shareholder Value actually aligns with Doing the Right Thing.
Second, how surprising is it that Trump's [son's] lawsuit against the bank was filed in March, 2025 – the month after Trump [sadly] regained the Presidency…
I predict that the suit will be dropped by the junior idiot as soon as the case enters the discovery phase. The bank will be able to demand records from the Trump Organization regarding transactions that triggered the alert. If the Trump Org was doing anything illegal or unethical, discovery can make it public.
My money's on Trump won't get anywhere with pressuring Congress to pass his slush fund bill. 94 days till the mid-terms, and the Rs know they're heading for a wipe-out. The issue will play right into the Democrats' hands – the public regardless of party is sick of the corruption.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson, and even Alex Jones have changed their tune wrt Trump. It's hard not to see Pirro joining the chorus. I too, want to know how she got the indictment.
My understanding of the US "Justice" system is that Prosecutors have a lot of leeway in how they run the indictment process, presumably under the assumption that they have incentive to avoid irresponsible behavior (when it comes to trial, they will look foolish).
I figure that this has historically worked reasonably well (with a huge asterisk for Jim Crow dirt, where prosecutors could depend on all-white juries convicting any black man of any crime). But Trumpism has created a situation where bureaucrats have to worry more about pleasing the Emperorange than avoiding ridicule from their peers…
I'm no lawyer, and I know prosecutors have a lot of leeway with grand juries, but I thought they have to present evidence supporting reasonable cause to get an indictment. What Pirro is admitting to now is no such evidence exists, and that had to be the case when she went before the Grand Jury. Unless she lied to them about what evidence she had. The only way this makes any sense is Pirro didn't have the information from Burghum's Interior Dept. at that time that the damage was done by the contractor. But that still begs the question, what did she have? I suspect her "evidence" was simply whatever lies Trump's been telling, and she presented that to get the indictment. Like Giuliani, her law license should be in jeorpardy.
I think that's why she's backpedaling. She realizes her law license is in jeopardy.
The defense was asking for the transcripts of the Grand Jury process. IMO, that's when Jeanie realized that this was going to come apart on her. I guess (not a lawyer here) is that she can say the Grand Jury process and testimony is moot if the charges are dropped.
"There’ve been dozens, hundreds, and they just can’t plausibly bring an indictment of 100-plus counts. They’re going to have to keep it to some number that the public can digest and buy into."
Break it up into groups of 5 with 1 or 2 serious charges in each and make it clear that Congress will keep holding impeachment trials until he resigns or is removed. No other business will be considered. No budget, no reconciliation bills, no funding for military excursions. He needs to be gone.
When Aunt Annie loses her grip on things, experts tell you not to argue with her. If she thinks vandals slashed her pool liner no argument is going to change her mind or what is left of it. That's what they tell you.
Now if Aunt Annie gets the police involved, you are going to need to explain to them that she has lost her grip on things. Things get more complicated if Aunt Annie runs the police department. They might even think you might be the vandal or even a bigger problem. This variant I can't recall if the experts covered.
Mitch McConnell is another problem variant. At least we knew how to deal with Lindsey Graham. No one even tried to pretend he was still competent.
Come to think of it, for this day in age, that fact is a pleasant surprise.
If Trump tries to get a J6 rewards fund going on the taxpayers dime with the stamp of Congress, it will be the gift that keeps giving. Every Republican can and will be asked where he stands on rewarding the insurrectionists CONVICTED in jury trials for attacking cops.
Please, let's go there.
Two things: 1) If the J6 rewards fund becomes a reality, look for the Orange Julius to apply for an absurdly large "compensation" for his indictments. Tax payer dollars: which do not come from anyone specifically believed to have participated in "weaponization" against him, but rather from the entire tax-paying population. I don't want a single penny of my tax dollars going to the outrageously corrupt J6 fund.
2) When it comes to impeachments, I want the first one to be the SC Justice who accepted gargantuan bribes. Impeach and convict. It makes the SC 8. Don't approve any replacement. Get rid of one and it sends a message to the others. Then pick another SC Justice to impeach.