"Anti-weaponization fund" - theft in broad daylight
- Thread starter Coppercloud
- Start date
and it wouldn't come close to making up for the cost of the Iran war.
edit: it wouldn't pay for two gallons of gas. $1.776B / 342M = $5.19.
you're right. I blame it on my calculator. I ran it 4 times and it came up wrong each time. Blame it on me for not noticing the error...
(too early in the morning.....)I keep forgetting your morning is my evening. Go have some coffee!you're right. I blame it on my calculator. I ran it 4 times and it came up wrong each time. Blame it on me for not noticing the error...
Edit:
Never mind, wrong trial! I started talking about the Broadview 6 fiasco.
Second edit:
At least with the Broadview 6, it was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, so that one isn’t going to come around again.
Third edit:
Abrego Garcia’s case was dismissed for vindictive prosecution. The DOJ is appealing, but I don’t know if they can refile if they lose all of the appeals. I don’t think so, but I haven’t done any research in this area.
Last edited:
Let me anticipate: "The judge is mistaken. How can it be vindictive when Mr. Garcia didn't do anything to us?"
The other side of that coin also applies.
Those who saw what Trump was like but then went "Ehh, fuck it, I can't be bothered to vote against him it ain't that bad".
So, 2/3rds of voters in the USA approve of Trump.
You're fucked. So very fucked.
I am so curious how this will go. I mean, I feel like when I was detained at the border in 1999 that was the weaponization of the government against my native status rights. I think that would be worth 50k with interest and penalties!
More likely “Even the judge said we were completely vindictivcated, perfect trial, bad judge.”
Given how unequally our democracy is distributed in this country, I'm not sure this is accurate. The reality is that outside of a handful of states, whether someone decided to vote or not likely did not matter in the slightest. If you're in Idaho or California your decision to vote has little enough impact that it says nothing about your feelings toward Trump (unless, of course, you voted for Trump).
IF this thing ever happens I would put money on Trump making a few million dollar payments to big people, making big announcements, forcing media attention on it, then the next time the news cycle changes he straight up steals the remaining 99%.
For full levity, it's worth noting that the Senators left town without giving this a vote yesterday. As of this moment, this fund does not exist.
However, the Senate is set to return for full session on June 1. So we'll see what happens then. The reason it didn't come to vote yesterday is because enough Republican Senators don't like it. The proponents of it tried to have it shoved in as part of the reconciliation package for ICE and CBP funding. Its inclusion, and its incredibly unspecific purpose and lack of any guardrails whatsoever, gave enough Senators cold feet that they decided to table it.
We'll see how many of them have a change of heart when they return to work in a week.
Here is the order to establish the fund.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1441086/dl
Even though it's effectively a one pager, there's still a lot to break down.
As regards A. -
The case of Trump suing the IRS was basically outright corruption, to say the least. The DOJ (who reports to Trump, for full disclosure) not only didn't even fight the case (they settled out of court), they awarded a bunch of things they don't even really have the authority to - namely an order that the IRS permanently end any current or possible audits of Trump, his family, or his holdings now or in the future. The DOJ does not have the authority to order the IRS to do that.
Also, the establishment of such a fund as this proposed "Anti-Weaponization Fund" is not really within the DOJs power to do. It's not explicitly NOT in their power, however, which is how they're trying to wiggle it. And they're trying to say there is precedent for it. More on that later.
As regards C. -
Notably, it is called out specifically that the amount does not represent any actual value of any claims. Therefore, it would be easily manipulable to just say the fund needs more money.
The problems with D. have already been brought up here by others. There's no liability, which means if any kind of 'oops' occurs with the money, well...there is no recourse. However, that leads interestingly into...
E.
This is funny. In one sentence, it says that the Fund Members are just volunteers, "without any further compensation for their work on the Fund." But in the very preceding sentence, it says that Fund Members can basically dip into the fund for virtually anything else they want.
F. is another laughable one.
It's saying that even if the Fund doesn't use all the money allocated to it, it never has to pay anything back to the DOJ, the Treasury, or the judgment fund. (more on that in a minute.)
G. and H. Oh boy, here we go...
G. Yes. The Judgment Fund. It already exists. Its purpose is specifically for the DOJ to pay settlements in cases where the United States is sued by its citizens. In other words, this is not necessary. At all.
And then we get to...H. This is where we go completely off the rails. They're trying to claim precedent for something like this basically by saying "but Obama"...but let's look at it. Yes, there was a fund established under the Obama Administration to pay for future projected claimants of a class action lawsuit that had already been settled. There are a couple critical differences between that so-called "precedent" and this farce of a fund establishment -
1. The trust fund of $680M was established to account for a lawsuit that had already been settled. It was a class action lawsuit, and many of the claimants had not come forward to claim their share. The amount specified was an actual amount calculated based on how many future claimants there could be. It wasn't a "coincidental" estimate pulled out of someone's ass that just so happens to be a patriotic number.
2. It is a trust fund. It is held by a third party, to be used only for claimants of a class action lawsuit that has already happened and been awarded.
3. Because this bears repeating and is a critical point to all of this - it was set up for a class action lawsuit, based on a number of potential claimants.
4. It is not set to go on in perpetuity. There are a set number of people who are eligible to make claims against it, and once all of those claims are exhausted, the trust fund will cease to exist. It's not a blank check to just award whoever wants it based on the discretion of the DOJ who, again, reports to the President. There is no discretion involved in the $680M trust fund created during the Obama administration. One is either eligible for it via being named a claimant as a result of the class action lawsuit, or one is not.
However, the Senate is set to return for full session on June 1. So we'll see what happens then. The reason it didn't come to vote yesterday is because enough Republican Senators don't like it. The proponents of it tried to have it shoved in as part of the reconciliation package for ICE and CBP funding. Its inclusion, and its incredibly unspecific purpose and lack of any guardrails whatsoever, gave enough Senators cold feet that they decided to table it.
We'll see how many of them have a change of heart when they return to work in a week.
Here is the order to establish the fund.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1441086/dl
Even though it's effectively a one pager, there's still a lot to break down.
As regards A. -
The case of Trump suing the IRS was basically outright corruption, to say the least. The DOJ (who reports to Trump, for full disclosure) not only didn't even fight the case (they settled out of court), they awarded a bunch of things they don't even really have the authority to - namely an order that the IRS permanently end any current or possible audits of Trump, his family, or his holdings now or in the future. The DOJ does not have the authority to order the IRS to do that.
Also, the establishment of such a fund as this proposed "Anti-Weaponization Fund" is not really within the DOJs power to do. It's not explicitly NOT in their power, however, which is how they're trying to wiggle it. And they're trying to say there is precedent for it. More on that later.
As regards C. -
Notably, it is called out specifically that the amount does not represent any actual value of any claims. Therefore, it would be easily manipulable to just say the fund needs more money.
The problems with D. have already been brought up here by others. There's no liability, which means if any kind of 'oops' occurs with the money, well...there is no recourse. However, that leads interestingly into...
E.
This is funny. In one sentence, it says that the Fund Members are just volunteers, "without any further compensation for their work on the Fund." But in the very preceding sentence, it says that Fund Members can basically dip into the fund for virtually anything else they want.
F. is another laughable one.
It's saying that even if the Fund doesn't use all the money allocated to it, it never has to pay anything back to the DOJ, the Treasury, or the judgment fund. (more on that in a minute.)
G. and H. Oh boy, here we go...
G. Yes. The Judgment Fund. It already exists. Its purpose is specifically for the DOJ to pay settlements in cases where the United States is sued by its citizens. In other words, this is not necessary. At all.
And then we get to...H. This is where we go completely off the rails. They're trying to claim precedent for something like this basically by saying "but Obama"...but let's look at it. Yes, there was a fund established under the Obama Administration to pay for future projected claimants of a class action lawsuit that had already been settled. There are a couple critical differences between that so-called "precedent" and this farce of a fund establishment -
1. The trust fund of $680M was established to account for a lawsuit that had already been settled. It was a class action lawsuit, and many of the claimants had not come forward to claim their share. The amount specified was an actual amount calculated based on how many future claimants there could be. It wasn't a "coincidental" estimate pulled out of someone's ass that just so happens to be a patriotic number.
2. It is a trust fund. It is held by a third party, to be used only for claimants of a class action lawsuit that has already happened and been awarded.
3. Because this bears repeating and is a critical point to all of this - it was set up for a class action lawsuit, based on a number of potential claimants.
4. It is not set to go on in perpetuity. There are a set number of people who are eligible to make claims against it, and once all of those claims are exhausted, the trust fund will cease to exist. It's not a blank check to just award whoever wants it based on the discretion of the DOJ who, again, reports to the President. There is no discretion involved in the $680M trust fund created during the Obama administration. One is either eligible for it via being named a claimant as a result of the class action lawsuit, or one is not.
It isn't like Trump asked Congress to vote this thing into existence, that wouldn't have been theft. Instead he had his justice department sue him and then "settled" it into existence by negotiating with himself.
The Senate vote you mention is the product of some loyal enterprising senator noticing how insanely unconstitutional that is and Trump to remedy that by providing Congressional approval after the fact. So, no, the fund does exist because, regardless of where the Senate rubber stamps his theft after the fact, he still created the fund without their approval.
Also, Trump's new theft fund isn't set to go on into perpetuity either. It's set up to case to exist the moment Trump leaves office. Which, strangely, isn't actually an improvement.
Huh. Well, fuck. I had thought it was technically on hold pending the vote, but all sources seem to indicate that you're right - the fund exists, and the DOJ is working on setting up application processes and preparing to open it to claims...whether or not it gets "passed" by Congress at all.
What a world we live in right now. I hate everything.
The ‘anti-weaponization’ fund is private. Its source will be a dispersement(s) from the Judgement Fund, ran by the Treasury to pay out when the government loses a monetary judgement. That account, the Judgement Fund, is subject to automatic appropriations.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:31+section:1304+edition
relim)
Look at the very first term. ‘Necessary amounts are appropriated.’ No monetary or time limits.
The Judgement Fund was set up with perpetual & automatic appropriations in 1956.
The actual disbursement fund that Trump et al are setting up with the five board members and yada yada yada? Is 100% outside of government control. Once the money is dispersed from the Judgement Fund to said ‘anti-weaponization’ fund? That’s effectively the end of government control unless otherwise stipulated by the settlement… so that’s the end of government control.
This is all interagency actions and approvals. Congress already put their stamp on it 70 years ago. Because they probably didn’t think that the President would be using the Judgement Fund as a vehicle to steal from the people of the United States. Trump is doing this; the only way Congress can stop it requires action on their part by creating new veto-proof legislation. ‘Not voting’ will do… nothing.
More on the Judgement Fund over at Treasury:
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/payments-from-government/judgment-fund/about
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:31+section:1304+edition
relim)Look at the very first term. ‘Necessary amounts are appropriated.’ No monetary or time limits.
The Judgement Fund was set up with perpetual & automatic appropriations in 1956.
The actual disbursement fund that Trump et al are setting up with the five board members and yada yada yada? Is 100% outside of government control. Once the money is dispersed from the Judgement Fund to said ‘anti-weaponization’ fund? That’s effectively the end of government control unless otherwise stipulated by the settlement… so that’s the end of government control.
This is all interagency actions and approvals. Congress already put their stamp on it 70 years ago. Because they probably didn’t think that the President would be using the Judgement Fund as a vehicle to steal from the people of the United States. Trump is doing this; the only way Congress can stop it requires action on their part by creating new veto-proof legislation. ‘Not voting’ will do… nothing.
More on the Judgement Fund over at Treasury:
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/payments-from-government/judgment-fund/about
Yes, frankly, it's the biggest scandal in American history because it means the president has arrogated the power of the purse, which means that Congress may now only be a formality, and perhaps not even that.
Let's not pretend that any of this pretextual gaslighting has anything whatsoever to do with how this fund is being created. The reality is that what he's done is manifestly illegal. It is obviously so. And nobody is going to do anything to stop it because he's fired anyone who would tell him no.The ‘anti-weaponization’ fund is private. Its source will be a dispersement(s) from the Judgement Fund, ran by the Treasury to pay out when the government loses a monetary judgement. That account, the Judgement Fund, is subject to automatic appropriations.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:31+section:1304+edition
Look at the very first term. ‘Necessary amounts are appropriated.’ No monetary or time limits.
The Judgement Fund was set up with perpetual & automatic appropriations in 1956.
The actual disbursement fund that Trump et al are setting up with the five board members and yada yada yada? Is 100% outside of government control. Once the money is dispersed from the Judgement Fund to said ‘anti-weaponization’ fund? That’s effectively the end of government control unless otherwise stipulated by the settlement… so that’s the end of government control.
This is all interagency actions and approvals. Congress already put their stamp on it 70 years ago. Because they probably didn’t think that the President would be using the Judgement Fund as a vehicle to steal from the people of the United States. Trump is doing this; the only way Congress can stop it requires action on their part by creating new veto-proof legislation. ‘Not voting’ will do… nothing.
More on the Judgement Fund over at Treasury:
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/payments-from-government/judgment-fund/about
It will last as long as Congress wants it to. Everyone in Congress not pushing for impeachment is an accessory to the theft, and an accessory after the fact to the crimes for which the President intends to reward the recipients.
Last edited:
I’m not arguing against this all being manifestly illegal. What I am saying is that relying on Congress is a fools errand; they’d have to adjust existing law, and they won’t do that. Even if they had the will, they need a veto-proof majority to do it.
They need to close loopholes. And congresspeople love loopholes.
I suppose it's true enough that relying on Congress is a fool's errand.
It's just that I sort of feel that referring to existing the law as if it has "loopholes" that permit this is a bit like complaining about how the wicket gate let the elephants into the city when said gate remains in splinters along with the main gate in which it was embedded: there comes a point where the degree of destruction to the surrounding means that what was used isn't a "loophole", but instead a just a breach in the wall. After all, we don't complain about posterns when somehow has knocked down the entire fucking wall.
My entire point was that there is a lot of talk both in this thread and in other places about Congress stopping this from happening, and that the current “actions” being talked about in Congress? Will do nothing to stop Trump from paying himself $1.8 Billion.
It would require new legislation or the majority actually standing up and actually taking the administration to court about mishandling appropriations and the people’s money.
And they aren’t going to do that.
So don’t put faith in the current Congress doing anything to stop this.
Otherwise, all I’m seeing is people being angry. And I think that understanding the playing field as it stands is a better use of my time than raging at how it’s illegal. We all agree it’s illegal. The question is what happens next / what can be done about it. And this pains me, but the best thing that can be probably done is taking back freaking Congress. Because the courts won’t save us, he fired everyone in Justice and Treasury who would stop this, and the current Congressional majority will hem and haw and do nothing.
It would require new legislation or the majority actually standing up and actually taking the administration to court about mishandling appropriations and the people’s money.
And they aren’t going to do that.
So don’t put faith in the current Congress doing anything to stop this.
Otherwise, all I’m seeing is people being angry. And I think that understanding the playing field as it stands is a better use of my time than raging at how it’s illegal. We all agree it’s illegal. The question is what happens next / what can be done about it. And this pains me, but the best thing that can be probably done is taking back freaking Congress. Because the courts won’t save us, he fired everyone in Justice and Treasury who would stop this, and the current Congressional majority will hem and haw and do nothing.
From the outside, it looks as if 2/3 of the US electorate either wanted Trump or didn’t care enough to vote, which is worse. Trump very much reflects the will of the US electorate and quibbling about the effectiveness of any single vote is meaningless noise.
Your more nuanced view may be more correct, but no-one outside the US will care.
Thanks, yet again, for great information. I was wondering about this.
Honestly, it generally makes sense for Congress to fund judgments issued by the judiciary; to do otherwise would arguably trigger something of a constitutional crisis. (Of course, we are in the midst of several such a crises, but I'll stick to the topic at hand.)
Giving the executive cover to access the funding in unilaterally struck settlements, however, was probably always a mistake. Of course, the judge for the case did not have to sign off on the settlement, but did so anyway. That was probably done more out of resignation than of malice (as I recall, they did seek amicae opinions earlier in the case), but it's a miss that probably ought to be considered impeachable. However, that's a to-do list that is probably never getting started.
So does this case provide precedent for anyone else sueing the IRS over leaks of their tax returns? Because I seem to have read there was at some point thousands leaked. Do they all get billions, and immunity from auditing?
I’d love to see someone try THAT case and see the government argue for why “No, private citizen Trump’s tax returns are different from YOUR tax returns for… reasons…”
I’d love to see someone try THAT case and see the government argue for why “No, private citizen Trump’s tax returns are different from YOUR tax returns for… reasons…”
From the reading I've been doing, the legal angle isn't entirely dead (WaPo link, proceed with caution). The thinking seems to be that the Judgement Fund is supposed to cover legal, court ordered, decisions. And the agreement that Trump has ordered put in place is not legal, it's never seen the inside of a courtroom. It's just a piece of paper signed by Trump's personal lawyers and the DOJ and IRS, both of which are fully owned and operated subsidiaries of Trump. So if one of the lawsuits gets in front of a non-corrupt judge, it may get shut down.
And the Trump administration's defense of "BUT OBAMA DID IT!!!1ONITY!!!111!" doesn't hold water since Obama's use of the fund to settle with Native Americans was the result of a decades-long lawsuit and was overseen by the courts. I'm not sure Trump's original lawsuit against the IRS got beyond the filing stage.
Your first link says this:
And as for Garcia's case, another link I read about the charges being dropped reminded us:
I wonder if Comey can apply twice.
It isn't faith in Congress. It's literally the only legal remedy possible for a President that is stealing from the Treasury.
The most American President ever.
A reflection of what the country is rather than what it can be or aspires to.
Or, worryingly, perhaps exactly what a large portion of the country aspires to be.
Last edited:
This much, we are in agreement about. Congress isn't going to save us, at least, not until next year. And even then, I'm doubtful, even if the elections go well.
Fair enough. Though I think your analysis about how they are "excusing" this is an incorrect analysis I of the playing field. The reality is that analyzing the proclaimed rules of Calvinball just doesn't tell us anything about the playing field.
What they are doing here is simply lawless, which I suppose means that their might be a single vain hope that some court somewhere will decide that someone has standing to prevent this and Trump will desist out of respect for that court. But, yes, after watching the corruption of the courts this year, even that feels fairly hopeless. Never mind that Trump's respect for the courts is also in severe doubt.
As for good uses of time, well, at the point where neither Congress nor the courts are going to stop this, there sadly isn't much left to us beyond anger. And I suppose that anger might have a real impact in November.
Last edited:
I don't expect them to, but what is your recommended course of action?
It was in the very next paragraph. If Congressional action is the best bet, we need to take control of Congress. Even without a veto proof majority? Congress has standing regarding appropriations issues in court, being that it’s an Article One prerogative. So gaining the majority in either chamber can set up legal action (I think you only need the majority in one chamber, not both, but I’m not 100% certain).
The problem then is what happens when it hits SCOTUS. Will all six right wing justices be onboard with overt theft of tax payer money in such quantity? I don’t know.
It does feel very weird that the “Stop the steal” slogan could be co-opted by everyone who is pissed about thus.
There may be some legal avenues outside of Congress, but IANAL. But those amicae the judge in Florida asked for certainly were damning of how fishy this whole thing is.
Last edited:
"Does the DOJ report directly to you? No? Then sit down and get fucked, pleb! In fact, you've just signed yourself up for yearly audits for the rest of your life!"
...
"OH! Oh wait. Sorry sir. You were a J6 rioter. Please, accept this hundred million dollars with our deepest, sincerest apologies, you true Patriot of
In an encouraging development, people victimized by Trump and his slavering minions are starting to make noises about getting paid by fund. Which they absolutely should be doing because nothing could annoy Trump more than people getting paid because they were victims of Trump's persecution squads. Or to try and justify why people victimized by Trump aren't actually eligible for compensation. Seems to me that's a quick way to get the courts to decide the fund is discriminatory.
At very least, it would be funny if the whole corrupt shebang got shut down because of the sheer volume of people making claims.
At very least, it would be funny if the whole corrupt shebang got shut down because of the sheer volume of people making claims.
VividVerism
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
From the article, some of Trump's political targets are hesitant to make a move to get money from the fund because they don't want to legitimize it.
I wouldn't be too worried about it. There's no way Trump will allow that payout to happen. So in reality they'll just draw more attention to how illegitimate and corrupt the fund is, by virtue of having a clearly valid case dismissed for clearly political reasons.
The fund administrators who, as I understand it, would be making the calls are appointed by the current president and serve at his pleasure. The agreement winds up the fund before January 2029, so the only way for the administrators to report to someone other than Trump would be for a transition of power before then (resignation, impeachment, or death). Given Vance, that would need to happen at least twice before 2029 before the administrators might report to someone at least somewhat tolerable.
In the mean time, it's hard not see someone targeted by Trump requesting relief from the fund seems asking a mugger to rule against himself and pay damages. At best, they will be amused and politely decline.