129

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.

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

There's a new Guardian article now that addresses the sham of the confirmation agreement:

‘Completely hollow’: critics denounce Blanche deal to halt Trump slush fund

“These assurances are not worth the paper they’re written on,” Brandon DeBot, policy director at the Tax Law Center at NYU, said in a statement. “They don’t pull back on the ongoing attempts to give the president, his family, and his affiliates unauthorized immunity from tax audits. They don’t do anything new to stop the president from trying to bring back the fund, as he threatened to this weekend. It’s abundantly clear we need congressional action.”

The documents Blanche released only say the prior justice department order creating the weaponization fund is rescinded. It does not modify the original settlement agreement creating the fund, reached as the result of a Trump lawsuit seeking billions in damages for the unauthorized release of his tax returns.

Blanche acknowledged during his confirmation hearing that Trump or his sons – the plaintiffs in the case – could theoretically sue to enforce the agreement. Trump spent the weekend praising the slush fund, and even threatened to revive it.

Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House judiciary committee, said Blanche’s announcement does nothing to prevent the justice department and Trump from creating the weaponization fund under a different name.

Raskin said: “These hollow words are an affront to the American people, Congress and the courts, and are clearly designed to lull Senators Cornyn and Tillis into a false sense that their legitimate concerns have been addressed while leaving Blanche’s corrupt scheme fully intact.”

There's more if you're interested, but no one thinks for two seconds that this is legitimate, or more importantly, that it's actually going away. It's not going anywhere, because Blanche is going out of his way to ensure that it can be resurrected with any legal challenge by the orange chancre or his spawn.

[-] finley@lemmy.zip 36 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I predict that they’re still going to try to move forward with this shitty slush fund anyway in some form, and then we’re gonna have to try to drag it through the courts to stop it.

This official document will make it easier to stop, but they’re gonna do whatever they can to move forward with it in some form nonetheless.

These people are lying scumbags, and this mood is yet another lie.

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 31 points 1 day ago

And if he's confirmed, he'll order it again.

[-] methanemoose@lemmus.org 1 points 1 day ago

Idk, he would have formally write a check to President lover, that he would have to cash in an account he has not been disclosed, probably in Qatar. Memo would state "for last night" and would never be referenced again as the doj would 100% destroy any evidence of it. But he will make it out to 2.5 billion because of the interest. Btw it's Biden fault.

[-] CobraChicken3000@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 day ago

Please forgive me for not trusting your obvious BS line

[-] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 10 points 1 day ago

Republican nominees lie to the Senate to get approved.

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

No he didn't. If you read the fine print, all parties must be signatories to all changes to the settlement meaning if Trump and his kids decide to force the settlement it can go forward. He's lying as well. Read this document Blanch signed. He didn't close the door on the fund.

[-] 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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

[-] artyom@piefed.social 20 points 1 day ago

Did Trump approve that? Because yesterday he was swearing up and down he was going to open it back up if Blanche wasn't confirmed.

[-] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago

Between (1) that and (2) the alcoholic prosecutor's surrender to the Olympic athlete, (3) the brain worm's retreat to recommending measles vaccinations, and (4) how the war Beelzebibi tricked him into is shaping out, I imagine President Pedophile is experiencing much consternation.

[-] bagsy@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

Its like democrats have no concept of tasksies-backsies. Idiots.

[-] the_tab_key@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

This has nothing to do with the Democrats.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

So when he said it was moot before, was he lying?

[-] Kirp123@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Well at least that's something positive to come out of this. Though I feel that if Cornyn didn't get fucked over in the primary by Trump he wouldn't have really put up such an opposition to this.

[-] Tronn4@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

I say still dont approve him. Hes slimy enough to find another way to get thw slush fund through

[-] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 3 points 1 day ago

Get wrecked, Todd.

[-] harmbugler@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Did the other party to the IRS lawsuit’s settlement also agree to terminate that contract? Wait a minute…

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
129 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30654 readers
1915 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS