Slush Fund, We Hardly Knew Ye

Blanche: “We are not moving forward with the Fund. Period”

Rep. Meng: “Not moving forward ever?”

Blanche:  “Correct.”

So there you go.

That’s good news, of course; the Fund was an outrage, the Settlement Agreement setting it up was laughably incoherent and never should have seen the light of day, and the lawyers responsible for the entire exercise should be ashamed of themselves and should probably be hit with Rule 11 sanctions.

It’s not the last we’ll hear of this matter. District Judge Williams, you will recall, has re-opened the Trump v. IRS case (the one the parties ostensibly “settled”) in order to investigate “grievous allegations that [Trump] voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that was collusive from the start and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement.”

That inquiry is not going away just because Acting Attorney General Blanche promises that the DOJ isn’t “moving forward” with setting up the Slush Fund.  Briefs are due June 12.

Another loose end: That bogus “Settlement Agreement,” signed by the Acting Deputy Attorney General “on behalf of the United States,” says that within 30 days the Attorney General shall issue an Order setting up the Fund and providing it with money. It doesn’t 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 obligations he will abide by and which he won’t. If the “Settlement Agreement” is still in force, it obligates him to do certain things. Don’t we need to do some of that fancy lawyer stuff here, to make it clear that this obligation no longer exists?  A promise from Todd Blanche – who, as I’ve said before, is probably not going to be around for too much longer, as a result of having orchestrated this embarrassing fiasco) — that the DOJ isn’t “moving forward” with the Fund isn’t really sufficient.

It’s just a small legal technicality, but you’d expect the Attorney General of the United States to be mindful of legal technicalities, no?

And there’s Loose End #3: The waiver of all claims the IRS may have against Trump.  Blanche, in his testimony, went to great lengths to make clear that in his view, that grant of immunity is still valid.  [See from about 43:00 onward in the video of his testimony]

Blanche’s argument for its validity is that the Settlement Agreement had two parts: the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the waiver of IRS claims, and that the decision not to move forward on the former does not affect the validity of the latter.

It’s confused nonsense.  Judge Williams, I trust, will get to the bottom of this.  The Settlement Agreement is not only of no legal effect (because the “parties” were not truly adversaries), it also happens not to contain any waiver of IRS claims.  [See for yourself if you don’t believe me]

Blanche’s May 19th Order, which was issued after the Settlement Agreement was signed, does contain the waiver clause, but it is of no legal effect whatsover.  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 its not part of the bogus Settlement Agreement, what is it?  Does Blanche think he is authorized to grant immunity to anyone he wants to immunize, just by issuing an Order to that effect? Really?! Without receiving anything in return?