Trump BOWED on $1.8b Fund - But Left Something Nefarious in Place

Added: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]Hi everyone, Harry here to talk about acting attorney general Todd Blanch's oral promise to uh the Congress yesterday that they will not be moving forward in his words with the anti-weaponization fund. So the 1.776 billion which seemed earmarked uh especially for the insurrectionists and rioters of January 6th they are saying okay we relent will pull back the headline really and the New York Times gets this right is that they are going ahead with this other part that purports to just give Trump a free pass for any audits that have been undertaken or could be undertaken by the IRS.

[00:00:54]Basically, anything he's done wrong to now for the IRS, they're giving him a free pass on. This is really a separate uh in and even more incoherent outrage in the wake of the uh decision supposedly that they're backing away from the uh settlement fund for so-called victims of weaponization by the Biden administration. Let me start with that. So you have Blanch saying we're not moving forward with it. And then in response to a question from another senator, we're never moving forward with it. But in response to another question, will you put that in writing? No, I won't put that in writing. Uh you'll have to trust me is basically what he said. So let's just start there. We have a legal document that's the settlement agreement signed by the third uh highest official in DOJ and with Blanch's name on it. It's been filed. It's part of a case that's been filed. And now what we have is just an oral um representation by Blanch in uh Congress with uh the literal refusal to put that in writing. It is basically by no means a kind of legal uh extinction of the whole fund as he says it is. Just we are not moving forward with it. plus that lawyerly formulation. Not moving forward with it. It's a little bit different than saying it's um a dead letter. It's, you know, we're shredding it. Not moving forward with it.

[00:02:36]Certainly seems as if temporarily we are um uh holding back but not giving an assurance and not even putting it in writing that we won't move forward in the future. Trump himself said that uh it's a terrible thing. These people are heroes. He wants to reward them and he said we're not moving forward because uh the court has said that we can't for now. In other words, he is just going again to the injunction that was put on by Brinkma in the Eastern District of Virginia and saying uh we're complying with it. Remember he's the president.

[00:03:17]Blanch has said again and again what he says goes. If he says tomorrow well now we're we should challenge her hold or just ignore it. Who is Todd Blanch the um self-declared lackey in all things and all even all legal things to the president to resist? So that's where we start with with this notion. I'm going to come back to that in a minute in terms of the Judge Williams piece that is still remains. But let's go to really what is the headline, the IRS um amnesty. We're going forward with it, says Todd Blanch. It is really even more incoherent than it was before. First, by the way, that Blanch would just get up and announce we're not going forward with the fund. That in and of itself is a demonstration that the whole damn thing is collusive. If you've reached a real settlement agreement and then you just come forward and say, "We're not going forward with it." The person on the other side would say, "What are you talking about? We have a binding agreement here and I uh want to keep going with it or you can't tell me it's no longer in effect." And that uh Blanch and nobody even questions can say that.

[00:04:35]What what more concrete demonstration uh do you need than of the identity the equality of the interest of the DOJ and of Donald Trump? But on the IRS piece, if they're not going through with the fund, are they still saying that the IRS piece is actually tethered to the settlement agreement? What else could it be tethered to it? If if not that, then basically it's just a huge birthday present to the president of the United States. The settlement agreement is gone. The fund is gone. And one day uh Todd Blance calls him up. Okay, it's your lucky day, Mr. President. I know how uh in the past when we've looked at your taxes, they've been really uh funky. Given cause to uh believe that maybe things are um a little bit not in order, given cause to believe that maybe you've uh been overly aggressive. And now uh we know that over the last 3 months in particular he's done crazy numbers of um transactions, stock transactions and he's been off to the races even compared to what he had did done before on the emolments clause violations to hear that there's no tax liability and by it's very hard to say what it's worth but could be by estimates a h 100red million or more. By the way, uh this is a whole separate point, but if that's what he's getting from the department, it ought to be taxable income to him, whatever it's uh it's worth. That's a fight that should be had. But they'll there they just think somehow that now they can say, "Okay, we're still keeping that." But if there's no settlement agreement, there's not even the fig leaf of an argument that this uh money and it is money in the form of foregone proceeds from an audit that this money is given in return for anything. It really is simply um the way the way they will try to position it. It's not the settlement agreement.

[00:06:52]We're backing off from that. except maybe they're going to have to say no, it is still the settlement agreement.

[00:06:58]But if they say that all the infirmities with the uh settlement agreement, like the underlying case was bogus and a violation of the constitutional um requirement of a case or controversy that comes back to the four. Also, the other problems with the case like it was timebarred and like uh the IRS said defend it and like the uh the person who released the records is a contractor, not an IRS employee. If the notion is that we're giving this to him in return for and this is to the taxpayers, right?

[00:07:37]the taxpayers are giving him this very valuable get out of audit free card in exchange for the settlement agreement, then we're back to where we were. And if it's just simply no, we said it and now we're just keeping it even as we back away from the uh previous fund. Well, then it's just sitting out there just a freestanding raw grab that uh that the president is just doing boom in a heist in plain sight. Okay. Hey, I said I'd go back to the Williams case and I will because now just as the department wanted to get out of the untenable position of having to argue either there was real adversity between them and Donald Trump uh which the facts could not support or that there wasn't which the which would mean the constitution uh would condemn the case. Instead, they did the quick voluntary settlement. Williams came back and said, "I want to hear about this."

[00:08:45]And nothing about their announcement today ought to change that. But I think the strategy is going to be to try to submit it either to say, "We don't have to submit anything anymore. We told you we're not going forward with the settlement with the fund or um to submit something that just as much as says that that will not satisfy Williams. the order is I want to find out if you committed fraud before that whatever you do with it now that is still in play. So that's going to be a fight I think and they're going to try to wriggle out of it or maybe go to the 11th circuit which is above Judge Williams. That drama is still to play out. Okay. On the one hand, the this is really good news because they did this outrageous scheme that violated literally all all three branches powers, including the executive branch. They did it and it looked like they they might have had it stitched up.

[00:09:49]Not that it wasn't illegal. It was, but nobody could challenge it. And the political surge, especially among Republicans, is what pushed it back. And that's the ultimate power, the people's power, the uh the normally indolent Republican members of Congress's power. That's uh the ultimate ballark. and to see it actually rise to the challenge and push back uh against an outrageous move by the administration. That's good. But what they've done is squirrely, inconclusive, incoherent.

[00:10:29]And in particular, uh they have both given not much by way of assurance that they're really done with this fund.

[00:10:37]You'll see them arguing, I think, in court, oh well, if nothing else, it's not ripe. We've said we're not going to do anything, so you have to wait until we do. But, uh, just the words, the failures to put in writing and the like is, uh, a a hyper squirrely, I've just made up that word. I think hypers squirrely, uh, maneuver by the administration. And then more outrageously, the uh, apparently just freebie untethered. Here you go. And very valuable, like nine figures or more. uh get out of audit free card to Donald Trump. They're going to try somehow to defend it, but based on what?

[00:11:19]We'll have to start all over again the uh question of who's got standing to challenge. But really, make no mistake, without even the fig leaf of the settlement agreement, what this is legally is just Todd Blanch talks to the IRS that doesn't sign on to this, did wanted to protest and fight against the case itself, but just calls up the president and says, "I love you, Mr. President," as he's made clear before, and I've got a really valuable gift.

[00:11:50]Happy Father's Day to you. Uh, no more audits. It is completely irregular, incoherent, without legal basis, and an outrage.

[00:12:05]Talk to you later.

[00:12:07]Thanks for watching Talking Feds. If you enjoyed this video, please remember to like and subscribe. And for a lot more content, all of my essays, ad free podcasts, and weekly ask me anything Q&A sessions, check out the Talking Feds Substack, and please subscribe there as well. Talk to you later.