I have grave news for the Acting Attorney General: this circus isn’t going away anytime soon.
Blanche: “We are not moving forward with the Fund. Period”
Rep. Meng: “Not moving forward ever?”
Blanche: “Correct.”
So there you go.
That’s obviously welcome in one sense; the Fund was an outrage, the Settlement Agreement that created it was comically incoherent and should never have seen the light of day, and the lawyers who oversaw the entire undertaking ought to be ashamed of themselves and perhaps deserve Rule 11 sanctions.
This matter isn’t finished. District Judge Williams, as you may recall, has reopened the Trump v. IRS case (the one the parties supposedly “settled”) to probe “grievous allegations that [Trump] voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to dodge judicial scrutiny of a suit that was collusive from the start and was filed only to lend legality to an unlawful settlement.”
That investigation isn’t going to disappear simply because Acting Attorney General Blanche claims the DOJ isn’t “moving forward” with establishing the Slush Fund. Briefs are due June 12.
Another loose end: that fraudulent “Settlement Agreement,” signed by the Acting Deputy Attorney General “on behalf of the United States,” states that within 30 days the Attorney General shall issue an Order establishing the Fund and providing it with money. It does not say “The Attorney General may set up the Fund if he feels like it,” it obligates him to do so.
Blanche is now the Attorney General. He doesn’t get to pick and choose which duties to honor and which to ignore. If the “Settlement Agreement” remains in force, it binds him to certain actions. Shouldn’t we employ some of that fancy legal machinery to demonstrate that this obligation no longer stands? A promise from Todd Blanche—which, as I’ve noted previously, is unlikely to endure much longer given his role in orchestrating this embarrassing debacle—that the DOJ isn’t “moving forward” with the Fund isn’t truly enough.
It’s merely a minor legal technicality, yet you’d expect the United States Attorney General to be mindful of these technicalities, wouldn’t you?
And there’s Loose End #3: the waiver of all IRS claims against Trump. Blanche, in his testimony, went to great lengths to emphasize that, in his view, that immunity grant remains valid. [See from about 43:00 onward in the video of his testimony]
Blanche’s reasoning for its validity is that the Settlement Agreement consisted of two parts: the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the waiver of IRS claims, and that the choice not to proceed on the former does not affect the validity of the latter.
It’s muddled nonsense. Judge Williams, I trust, will get to the bottom of this. The Settlement Agreement is not only legally ineffective (because the “parties” were not true adversaries), it also appears not to include any waiver of IRS claims. [See it for yourself if you doubt me]
Blanche’s May 19th Order, issued after the Settlement Agreement was signed, does contain the waiver clause, but it carries no legal effect whatsoever. It does not purport to be a modification of the original Settlement Agreement (which, by its express terms, can only be modified “only with the written agreement of the Parties” [Art VIII]). And if it isn’t part of the sham Settlement Agreement, what is it? Does Blanche think he is authorized to grant immunity to anyone he wishes, simply by issuing an Order to that effect? Really?! Without anything in return?
