BREAKING: Judge Blocks Anti-Weaponization Fund
INSIDE: Leonie Brinkema ... E. Jean Carroll ... Maurene Comey
Fund Halted Until at Least June 12
In a ruling just out this morning, a federal judge has temporarily blocked the creation of the $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” that emerged as part of the purported settlement of President Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia paused any action on the fund while the case proceeds on an expedited briefing schedule that she issued simultaneously. She set a June 12 hearing for arguments on issuing an injunction in the case brought by a group that includes a former Jan. 6 prosecutor, Common Cause, and the National Abortion Federation.
In pressing pause, Brinkema delineated in her order exactly what she doesn’t want happening between now and next month’s hearing. She barred the administration “from taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund.”
In a footnote to her order, the judge said that it’s “important that the status quo be maintained” and cited previous claims by the plaintiffs that the Trump DOJ refused to commit to not rushing ahead with the fund:
… especially as plaintiffs allege in their Expedited Motion that defense counsel “was unable … to provide assurances of how long [the] status quo would last” and declined plaintiffs’ “request that the government commit to not transferring money to the Fund or processing or paying claims until at least June 19 to allow for less compressed briefing in this case.”
The case before Brinkema is one of a handful of early legal challenges to the corruptly conceived “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” A separate line of attack on the underlying IRS settlement with Trump emerged this week when a group of former federal judges asked the trial judge to reopen the case she had already dismissed.
Trump DOJ: We’re Targeting ANOTHER Trump Foe, Not E. Jean Carroll!
Quite of bit of conflicting reporting since CNN first scooped Wednesday that the Trump DOJ is investigating Trump sexual abuse victim E. Jean Carroll over bogus allegations of perjury in her successful civil lawsuit against him.
In an unusual move, Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros issued an outright denial that his office has opened an investigation into Carroll: “In light of wide-spread reporting and intense media and public interest into the E. Jean Carroll matter in New York, the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office can confirm that it has not opened — and has never opened — a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll. Any claim to the contrary is categorically false.”
That lines up with other reporting Thursday that the investigation in question is looking into Reid Hoffman and his nonprofit American Future Republic, which helped to fund some of Carroll’s legal costs in pursuing Trump. Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn, has been a major donor to Democrats and progressive causes.
The probe is reportedly looking at alleged money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction at American Future Republic over its payments for Carroll, CBS News and Reuters reported.
It doesn’t appear this is a case of CNN getting it wrong. Some of the conflicting reporting come from sources whose accounts have changes, as in the case of Reuters: “The source had told Reuters on Wednesday that the investigation was examining whether Carroll had committed perjury regarding the funding of her suit in a 2022 deposition. But the person said on Thursday that while the probe is examining that funding, Carroll is not a focus of the investigation.”
Still, most of the reporting suggests it’s not an either/or situation but rather the Hoffman probe seems by design likely to sweep in the bogus perjury allegations against Carroll. As the WaPo put it: “The investigation, which is expected to look at statements Carroll made during a deposition, could also morph into a criminal perjury probe against the 82-year-old columnist.”
A lot of dancing on the heads of pins going on here.
Jan. 6 Never Ends: Wisconsin Edition
A revisionist Trump DOJ “investigation” of the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin has been percolating in the background for a few weeks now. Like similar investigations in Georgia and Arizona, the focus is not statewide but on Democratic big cities, in this case Milwaukee.
The timing of the investigations and the focus on minority-heavy urban areas suggest a dual purpose of advancing President Trump’s Big Lie and muddying the waters ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The WaPo rounds up some of the recent reporting on FBI interviews in the state:
FBI agents recently showed up at the homes of former election officials in Milwaukee, according to two people familiar with their activities who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters. The visits came after agents spoke to the state’s deputy elections director, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This week, agents were planning to interview police officers who escorted the election official responsible for delivering the city’s 2020 results to a Milwaukee County election office, according to WISN-TV.
What is particularly concerning in Milwaukee is the prospect of the FBI seizing ballots like it did in Atlanta, especially absentee ballots (emphasis mine): “The confiscation of tens of thousands of absentee ballots from Wisconsin’s largest city would set off alarms because Milwaukee maintains its absentee ballots in a way that could allow agents to determine who voters selected — undermining the secrecy of their ballots.”
One irony of of this is that typically Milwaukee County would have destroyed its 2020 ballots long ago but has refrained from doing so due to litigation over the results.
Unitary Executive Extremism
In former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey’s wrongful termination lawsuit against the Trump DOJ, the administration argued in court yesterday that the president has sweeping powers to remove career civil service employees “even if there were political motivations.”
It led to this exchange, reported by Politico:
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman pressed [DOJ lawyer] Lesperance on whether there are any limits to the president’s Article II powers. Could the president, for example, decide to fire people in order to achieve an “all-white executive branch? Or all-black?” he asked.
Lesperance stammered in response, finally saying, “I can’t answer on behalf of the government.”
Furman replied: “You’re here representing the government.”
Comey’s lawsuit is an important test case of whether wrongfully purged federal civil service employees can challenge their terminations in federal court or must go through the old civil service appeal process that has since been rigged by the Trump administration.
ICE v. Its Opponents
The Spokane Three: A federal jury convicted three ICE protesters of conspiracy after an eight-day trial in a case that prompted the resignation of the acting U.S. attorney.
Online commenters: D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has sent grand jury subpoenas to Reddit and X seeking the names, addresses, and banking information of commenters critical of the administration’s mass deportation policy, Bloomberg reports.
Boat Strike Death Toll Climbs to 199
The death toll in the Trump administration’s lawless high-seas campaign against alleged drug-smuggling boats has now reached 199, after factoring at least 22 people who survived an initial strike only to be hit again or left to die at sea, the AP reports.
Quote of the Day
“West Point cadets are already, by definition, smart, tough and patriotic. They are not snowflakes who will somehow be harmed by learning about controversial issues or competing viewpoints. They will not somehow be weakened in their future defense of our country if their classroom discussions are robust and open.”—U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel, blocking one of the Trump administration’s most heavy-handed assaults on academic freedom
Preach, Brother
G. Elliott Morris, on why so much of the analysis of close elections is basically useless: “Close elections are what social scientists call overdetermined — that is, the product of too many factors to decipher what dominated. This means they are also underpowered as causal evidence; when everything was enough to cause the loss, nothing is uniquely to blame for it. The election just doesn’t carry enough information to tell you which factor was the factor.”
As If On Cue
After my extended item yesterday about the rising threat of Russia attacking NATO territory, a Russian drone crashed into an apartment building in NATO-member Romania. Two people were wounded in the incident after Romania jet fighters attempted to intercept the drone.
“It was the first known time that a Russian drone had caused damage and injuries in a major urban area on the territory of the Western military alliance,” the New York Times reports.
The drone does not appear from early reports to have fired munitions at the building in the city of Galati but instead literally crashed into the roof of the building. It’s not clear yet whether the incident was a deliberate provocation or an inadvertent spillover of the war from across the nearby Ukrainian border.
A senior Western military official told the NYT the cause of incident was “probably some combination of careless behavior by the Russian military and that the drone may have been jammed off course.”
Hot tips? Juicy scuttlebutt? Keen insights? Let me know. For sensitive information, use the encrypted methods here.
Institute for the Study of War/ISW had a very interesting report on the problems Russia's having, not just with their drones, but importantly the age of drone operators and lack of training and experience. They've lost so many to this war, they are recruiting from colleges; 100k sign up
bonus.
Have a good weekend everyone.
"Close elections are what social scientists call overdetermined" meaning too many factors - love that!