129

Blanche formally rescinds Trump’s $1.8bn ‘anti-weaponization fund’ ahead of nomination hearing (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Todd Blanche issues formal order terminating measure widely derided as a ‘slush fund’, in move that could clear path for his nomination as attorney general

Acting US attorney general Todd Blanche issued a formal order late on Sunday terminating Donald Trump’s $1.8bn “anti-weaponization fund” to compensate his political allies, a move that follows weeks of negotiations with two Republican senators who were blocking his nomination to become attorney general.

While Blanche has repeatedly said publicly that the fund was dead, the justice department had resisted formally confirming that in writing. That had drawn concern from lawmakers that it could be revived in some form, especially after Trump expressed continued support for the idea.

A spokesperson for Texas Senator John Cornyn, one of the senators holding up Blanche’s nomination, confirmed the agreement. The other GOP senator, North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, did not have immediate comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The bar already is too low for this to mean anything. A judge has blocked the proposed settlement already, so it's insanely suspicious that Trump was willing to withdraw Blanche if necessary to not give up the settlement in writing.

Two huge problems that probably make this worthless despite that it almost certainly will satisfy the GOP holdouts:

Now they have produced an "order," but it's not even clear what legal effect it has or why it can't be replaced with a new "order" reinstating it. The DOJ can't issue a court order and it's redundant to the court order. So it must be an internal order and if the DOJ has the power to issue it, it has the power to revoke it.
There is still a retroactive immunity! How this is never in the headlines, is just a reflection of how they've successfully poisoned the conversation. Here's the article:

The document released by Blanche on Sunday night also limits the scope of another provision of the settlement that provided broad immunity for Trump and members of his family from tax audits. It clarifies that the tax audit immunity agreement “applies only retroactively” to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect the president from examination of future tax filings.

I doubt "claims open at the time of the settlement" is genuinely limiting. So the president and his entire family gratuitously get exactly what they wanted, a free criminal immunity for their fraudulent tax returns. The prospective immunity was never going to be held up in court anyway.

Blanche is Trump's personal attorney. Not was, is. Just like Bondi. Cornyn and Tillis did this so they can lie to themselves that they had a backbone, that's all.

[-] decolo@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

The atomic-scale upside to this, is that immunity is just as worthless as this is, once trump is out of office.

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026

129 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30654 readers

1936 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News