May28

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

This Week in TrumpWorld, Part III: The Slush Fund Backlash Is Building

The Republican members of Congress picked a heck of a good time to get out of Dodge for the Memorial Day break, since that lets them avoid daily questions about the Trump slush fund. Those Republicans bold enough to hold town halls during the break (probably not too many of them) are likely getting an earful from constituents. Oh well, at least their comments to constituents aren't likely to end up on the front page of The New York Times.

That Congress is (by default) playing its cards close to the vest does not mean that things are going well for Donald Trump when it comes to his slush-fund plans, though. Several different problems have already presented themselves:

• Lawsuits: There have already been at least three lawsuits filed in an effort to get the slush fund struck down as illegal. The first was filed by two police officers who were targeted during the 1/6 insurrection. The second was filed by a consortium of organizations and individuals who say they were harmed by the Trump-Vance administration. And the third was filed just yesterday, by a group of 35 retired federal judges, who want to reopen the dismissed-with-prejudice Trump v. IRS, on the basis that the request for dismissal (which came from Trump's lawyers) was fraudulent. This whole thing is so unorthodox that nobody really has any idea what will happen with these cases, or whether any of the plaintiffs will have standing. But, they will certainly tie things up for a while, and will also keep the story, and the stench emanating from it, in the headlines.
  
  
• Actual Victims: The people who are ostensibly supposed to get money from the fund are, most obviously, the close associates of the Trumps, crooked members of Trump's administrations, and the 1/6 rioters. It is laughable that these people are victims of anything, especially since most of them have either taken plea deals or have been convicted by a jury of their peers.
  
  The people who have an actual claim as victims of the "weaponization" of the Department of Justice are, of course, people targeted by Trump and his various pliant attorneys general. And these folks, while they aren't looking for money, would definitely like to poke Trump in the eye. So, James Comey, the six lawmakers who made the "Don't obey illegal orders" video, Letitia James, Michael Cohen, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, a bunch of prosecutors fired because they worked on the Russia dossier, and numerous others, are preparing to file claims, or are at least thinking about it.
  
  The "terms" of the deal that the Trump administration made with... well, Trump say that the decisions of the secret panel are final, and cannot be challenged in court. But that does not make it so. At such point that these people are turned down, should it get that far, some of them (maybe all of them) will run to court and argue that the terms are invalid. Maybe they win, maybe they don't, but what's certain is that this will produce even more headlines.
  
  
• Federalism: There is no state governor who hates Trump more than Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). And between that hatred and his 2028 presidential ambitions, Newsom has been looking for a way to fight back. Now, he has come up with an idea (which he actually stole from a legislator in New York). That idea is that any state resident who receives a payout from the fund will be taxed at a very high rate on that money. That rate will be... 100%. A bill proposing this plan is likely to secure passage in both California and New York, and the legislature in New Jersey is teeing up a vote as well. Expect other blue states to follow suit.
  
  
• Legal Quagmire: Thanks to reader P.C. in Yandina Creek, QLD, Australia, for bringing this one to our attention. There is a law called the False Claims Act, which was passed during the Civil War. It was initially intended to combat shady war contractors, but has been used since to pursue many different kinds of behavior that involve laying hands on government money that a person or entity is not entitled to.
  
  Basically, in something roughly analogous to a whistleblower situation, anyone can sue if they believe an unlawful claim on government funds has been made. And if that plaintiff wins, the defendant is not only on the hook to pay the money back, but can also be assessed treble damages. Because it's a civil tort, rather than a criminal claim, a presidential pardon is not available. Oh, and while the government has the power to dismiss these fraud claims, the statute of limitations is 6 years. So, a potential target would be on the hook well into the next presidential administration. We're just spitballing here, but we are guessing the average 1/6 participant doesn't have a couple of hundred thousand bucks in the bank to cover the bill if they get popped for treble damages.

Congress returns next week, and so they will get to deal with this headache before the courts will, or even the blue-state legislatures. We imagine this is too corrupt for even them, and that there will be some sort of bipartisan effort to kill the slush fund. But if it's another CACO moment, well, Trump and his corrupt cronies still won't be out of the woods. (Z)