New Frontiers in Venality, Graft, and Abuse of Power
INSIDE: George Santos ... Jared Polis ... Aileen Cannon
How Bad It Really Is
Even normally temperate legal experts and political observers are aghast at the ways in which the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” deal — and its broad release of claims against Trump, his family, and his businesses — crosses into new territory of venality, graft, and abuse of power (even for Trump).
Former DOJer Jennifer Ricketts: “I have never heard of the department ever being willing to grant blanket immunity. That seems blatantly corrupt. It’s a shocking gift to the president.”
Barbara A. Perry, a presidential scholar at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center: “Presidents have had corrupt, even criminal, family members. But none of them succeeded to the extent of the Trump family in the level of graft achieved. … They have won the presidency twice, emasculated Congress, created a supportive high court, and reshaped the law and institutions to absolve them of any wrongdoing, while making billions of ill-gotten dollars.”
Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck: “I am, by training and disposition, a person who writes about doctrine. I try (sometimes, to significant criticism) to avoid emotional pleas. But I am asking you, today, to care about this story in a way that may well be disproportionate to the volume of media coverage it is going to get.”
Why Challenging It in Court Is So Hard
Police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 filed a lawsuit in federal court in D.C. yesterday to challenge the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” and the case was assigned to iconoclastic senior U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon. But the path for legal recourse remains obscure and difficult, most legal experts agree:
University of Michigan law professor Samuel R. Bagenstos: “It is really difficult to think about how to frame a judicial challenge to what the president has done here. That doesn’t mean people aren’t trying, and that doesn’t mean something might not succeed.”
Lawfare: “What makes this particular episode so unsettling is that it’s not clear how it would be stopped. The legal avenues to challenge it are untested and the standing hurdles are formidable. Meanwhile, the legislative appetite to act—at least in this Congress—is not yet apparent. By the time a future Congress might try, nearly $2 billion in taxpayer funds may be largely gone, dispersed to recipients whose identities may never be publicly known.”
Don’t Hold Your Breath
There are some rumblings on Capitol Hill that Senate Republicans increasingly concerned about the GOP’s prospects in the midterm elections may impose some restrictions on the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” Punchbowl reports:
But it’s unclear how Republicans plan to impose eligibility restrictions on the ‘weaponization’ fund. They’re especially concerned about potential taxpayer-funded payouts to Jan. 6 rioters convicted of violence against cops, as well as the overall political optics of the fund. This was a big discussion point at the Republicans’ lunch meeting on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, in the GOP-controlled House, Judiciary Committee Republicans rejected Democratic efforts to subpoena Trump administration officials involved in creating the “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”
Like Pigs to the Trough
Among the various charlatans, ne’er-do-wells, pardoned criminals, and others eyeing the $1.776 billion in the “Anti-Weaponization Fund”:
Former Trump I official Michael Caputo became the first person to attempt to file a claim, for a cool $2.7 million.
Mark McCloskey, the gun-toting pro-Trump lawyer who comically defended his St. Louis home during the George Floyd protests, is considering applying.
Expelled Rep. George Santos (R-NY), whose sentence was commuted by Trump, doesn’t want compensation, just an apology.
Pardoned Jan. 6 defendant Yvonne St Cyr: “I hope I get $10 million but the dollar collapses like it should.”
That’s just beginning.
Polis Censured for Freeing Tina Peters
By an overwhelming vote, the Colorado Democratic Party censured Gov. Jared Polis (D) for commuting the prison sentence of Big Lie purveyor Tina Peters.
‘Bundt_Cake_Recipe.pdf’
The Trump DOJ obtained an indictment of a former federal prosecutor in Florida for allegedly stealing an electronic copy of the still-sealed Volume II of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on the Mar-a-Lago investigation.
The four-count indictment of Carmen Mercedes Lineberger was handed down May 19 and unsealed on May 20 in the Fort Pierce Division of the Southern District of Florida, where U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is the only judge. It is Cannon who has corruptly sealed the report and kept it from public view since before the 2024 election. Her decision to do so is currently on appeal.
Lineberger allegedly emailed DOJ files, including the sealed report, from her work account to her personal account last year, using file names like “Chocolate_Cake-Recipe.pdf.” The file name for the sealed report was allegedly “Bundt_Cake_Recipe.pdf.”
The case against Lineberger, who pleaded not guilty yesterday, was brought by attorneys from outside the Souther District, where Lineberger had previously worked.
Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart, who was originally assigned the case, recused himself in an order this morning. He did not give a reason, but he approved the search warrants for Mar-a-Lago.
Judge Orders Compliance With PRA
U.S. District Judge John Bates of D.C. ordered White House aides to continue to abide by the Presidential Records Act despite a DOJ memo that declared the law unconstitutional. Bates, not known to be a show horse, started his opinion with an Orwell quote: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”
Trump’s Obsession With Colossalism
Good news and bad news on Trump’s effort to remake the nation’s capital in his gaudy image:
The Good: Senate Republicans are running away from Trump’s vanity ballroom project and are on the verge of killing off funding for it. The funding was included in the reconciliation bill, but the Senate’s parliamentarian ruled over the weekend that it violated reconciliation rules. Rather than rework the language, the provision is going to be dropped, largely because of a lack of GOP support, even to get to a bare 50 votes.
The Bad: The Trump administration plans to proceed with constructing the president’s monumental 250-foot arch commemorating the nation’s 250th birthday without approval from Congress. In a sign of some desperation, the administration is citing a century-old law authorizing a D.C. project that was never built as already giving it congressional authority to build the arch.
Hot tips? Juicy scuttlebutt? Keen insights? Let me know. For sensitive information, use the encrypted methods here.
Re: "Weaponization" fund: Words fail me.
I have been thinking a lot who has standing/jurisdiction to stop this distribution of funds. All of the lawyers who are involved are violating their respective states' rules of professional responsibility. I can't do this, because none of them are from the state I live in. But people who live, for instance, in whatever state gave Todd Blanche his license to practice law should start filing complaints with the state bar association. In massive numbers. Also, is there a way for the Democrats in Congress to go to court to get some sort of independent counsel appointed? Maybe Trump can't be prosecuted, but the people around him can. Is there anyone outside the DOJ who has jurisdiction to do that? Are there state laws being broken that would enable any of the state attorneys general to start any action? (I would prefer something criminal and indictments, not another lawsuit.) And, is there any precedent for any sort of taxpayer class action?