The Trump administration is scrapping plans to create a $1.8 billion fund meant to compensate allies of the Republican president, the Justice Department’s top official said Tuesday in retreating from a program that faced setbacks in the courts and a fierce political backlash that had threatened to stall key elements of the White House agenda.
“We are not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said in response to questions at a House hearing on the Justice Department budget.
“Not moving forward, ever?” asked Rep. Grace Meng, a New York Democrat.
“Correct,” Blanche answered.
The blunt declaration marked an extraordinary, and rare, turnabout in the face of mounting political opposition to a fund officials said was intended to compensate people who believe they have been improperly targeted by the criminal justice system. But since the fund’s creation two weeks ago, it’s been paused by a judge and lambasted by Democrats and Republicans alike who said they were troubled by a lack of oversight of the money disbursement and the potential for payouts to participants in the violent Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
The fund drew concerns even from Republicans
The furor especially complicated matters in the Senate, where Republicans defiantly left town nearly two weeks ago without passing legislation to fund President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agencies after Democrats said they would offer amendments to scrap or scale back the compensation fund. Furious, Senate Republicans jettisoned White House security money from the bill and made clear they would not pass the legislation at all unless the administration made major changes to the plan. They had sought reassurances from Blanche before moving forward.
The $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” was established to resolve Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The Justice Department had said it was an appropriate measure to correct what officials have insisted was the weaponization of federal law enforcement under the Biden administration, when Trump faced criminal charges and several of his allies were investigated and prosecuted.
The administration had said that anyone who felt unfairly persecuted could apply for compensation regardless of political affiliation, but Blanche’s refusal to publicly foreclose the possibility that people convicted of crimes of violence in the Jan. 6 riot could get payouts alarmed lawmakers. A five-member commission was to have been responsible for deciding on the payouts.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm willing to relent that maybe that's how the rule of law works, maybe, but that's definitely not how Tinkerbell works.
There's little evidence that Tinkerbell or similar fairies exist, so I can only conclude that we're below the existential belief threshold for fairies. Probably below threshold for Rule of Law too, at least in pockets... I wonder if the fairy threshold is similarly localized, or a universal ratio of unbelieving:believing consciousnesses. Maybe a strong enough localized belief in fairies can spontaneously instantiate them, but only for a small fraction of a second before the thought changes and the fairies slip back into the void of nonbeing.