Introuducing law to the Trump regime

Thom Hartmann -   The head of the Justice Department cannot bring himself to tell a federal judge the truth in writing. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche — formerly Trump’s personal criminal-defense lawyer — is refusing to commit on paper to Judge Leonie Brinkema that Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization” slush fund is actually dead, preferring the slippery passive-voice dodge that it’s merely “not moving forward.” Analyst Scott MacFarlane summed up the lawyering on MS NOW as “all kinds of sus”: language built to leave wiggle room. Now even Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (who, unlike our Acting AG, manages to keep his story straight from one sentence to the next) says he’s got a slush-fund problem with Blanche heading into the confirmation fight. A man who treats candor as strictly optional is exactly the man you’d want running the Department of Justice if your actual goal was to weaponize it and use it against American democracy.

MS NOW -  The department’s statements about serious penalties regarding Blanche’s testimony are somewhat misleading. One potential penalty is a criminal statute that punishes false statements made to Congress. That statute can only be enforced by the DOJ itself.  

The other penalties the DOJ mentions in the filing are rules governing lawyers’ conduct in federal courts, which do not extend to criminal contempt or contemplate much beyond monetary sanctions.

The declaration — which was supposed to be signed under penalty of perjury by both Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — was expected to come in response to a deadline set by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who had requested written confirmation by Friday that the administration was not moving forward with the fund.

Brinkema indicated she would likely dismiss the pending legal challenge to the fund if the administration submitted the cancellation in writing. If the DOJ did not submit a declaration, Brinkema indicated she would move forward with the legal challenge. 

Brinkema’s request came at the end of a hearing in Virginia last week, when she indefinitely extended her block on the DOJ’s proposed compensation fund for individuals who believe they were the victims of unfair prosecution by the  federal government. Trump’s DOJ established the fund as part of a settlement agreement stemming from the president’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over a leak of his tax returns. The taxpayer-funded pot of money would establish a “lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization” to “seek redress,” according to Blanche. 

But the fund quickly became a political liability. Opposition from Republicans on Capitol Hill forced the administration’s retreat. “We’re not moving forward with the fund — period,” Blanche announced at a congressional hearing on June 2. 

That public statement did little to persuade opponents of the fund to back off legal challenges. The coalition that brought the Virginia case pressed on, arguing that Blanche’s verbal assurances were not legally binding. 

A separate watchdog group that brought a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., made similar arguments, pointing to Trump’s public defense of the fund even after Blanche’s comments. The judge overseeing that case, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, was not swayed enough to deny a preliminary bid to block the fund, and found that the case appeared to be moot, given the DOJ’s statements denying it would come to pass. But Leon issued a stern warning to the administration: “Don’t play possum with this court.”

At last week’s hearing in Virginia, Brinkema expressed similar misgivings about Trump’s comments and Blanche’s reluctance to put a pledge not to create the fund in writing. These misgivings will likely continue to bubble now that the DOJ has declined to submit the declaration and the litigation will likely continue.