What We Don’t Know
Whether the status of the immunity deal could change at all to help usher Blanche’s nomination through the Senate. Politico reported late Monday that Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is still trying to get the Trump administration to modify the settlement agreement as a condition of him supporting Blanche’s nomination. While Cornyn’s primary concern has been the DOJ killing the $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund established through the settlement agreement, the Texas senator—whose time in the Senate is coming to an end after losing his primary—said he also has concerns about the immunity deal. Both the fund and the immunity deal “are the issues we’re continuing to discuss with the administration to see whether we can get a modification of the settlement agreement,” Cornyn told Politico. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote next week on whether Blanche’s nomination should move forward to the full Senate, and, following the sudden death of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the vote could fail if even a single GOP senator opposes Blanche.
Read more 2.8 Million People Signed Up For Fox Streaming Service To Watch World Cup
What Does The Immunity Deal Say?
The immunity deal says the U.S. is “forever barred” from prosecuting or bringing civil claims against Trump, his two oldest sons, the Trump Organization and other “affiliated individuals” for actions that already happened by the date of the settlement, both tied to the IRS suit and for “any matters currently pending or that could be pending” before other government agencies. It also prohibits the IRS from taking action against any tax returns filed before the settlement date in May, which has broadly been interpreted as barring the agency from auditing Trump’s taxes. The vague language of the agreement makes its full scope unclear, and Blanche alleged to the Senate Judiciary Committee that it’s more narrow than its language suggests. He claimed it only impacts actions brought by the IRS and Treasury Department, despite the text of the agreement explicitly saying it impacts matters “before Defendants or other agencies or departments.” When asked about that discrepancy in the written questions sent to Blanche, the nominee responded only that the document “speaks for itself.” He has also noted it doesn’t use the word “audit” to discuss Trump’s taxes, claiming it doesn’t bar audits of his tax returns, and suggested it doesn’t preclude the government from bringing prosecutions—despite the language of the agreement saying otherwise. He has declined to elaborate on whom exactly the agreement covers. Its language appears to extend its legal protections to “related or affiliated individuals,” which has sparked concern among Democrats over whether companies tied to Trump and his sons could use it to evade government scrutiny. The unclear nature of what exactly the deal covers means any actual efforts to enforce it would likely have to be litigated in court and left up to a judge to determine whether or not the deal applies.
What About The Anti-Weaponization Fund?
The other part of Trump’s settlement with the IRS was the $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund” dedicated to getting money to people who felt they’d been victimized by the judicial system, including Jan. 6 rioters. Blanche previously told Congress the fund was not moving forward after even Republican lawmakers expressed concerns about it, and reiterated that to the Senate Judiciary Committee in his written responses. “The Anti Weaponization Fund is dead,” Blanche wrote. The acting attorney general has been criticized for not issuing a more official written document rescinding the deal or taking further steps to ensure it can’t be revived, however, and has failed to clearly dismiss reports suggesting the DOJ could find another way to get payouts to political allies, such as by establishing a different kind of fund or paying out individual settlement claims to people who challenge their prosecutions in court. In his written responses to senators, Blanche was asked whether he would issue a memorandum barring the government from paying out settlement claims to people convicted of assaulting law enforcement on Jan. 6. He responded only that “every claim” would be “reviewed on the merits” and handled through normal legal processes, and “the compromise and/or settlement of any claim is made only in the best interest of the United States.”
Further Reading
Judge Smacks Down Trump’s IRS Settlement And Orders Sanctions (Forbes)
Todd Blanche Says ‘Sorry’ To Epstein Victims—But Defends DOJ—In Testy Confirmation Hearing (Forbes)
Read more US Passport Stuck At No. 10 In Power Rankings—As 36 Countries Offer More Freedom Of Movement
Are Trump-Linked Companies Benefiting From His IRS Immunity Deal? Democrats Want To Find Out. (Forbes)
Trump’s IRS Immunity Deal Sparks Concerns He’s Giving Himself A Self-Pardon (Forbes)
Read more Novo Nordisk Sues GLP-1 Rival Eli Lilly For Misleading Advertising
Trump’s Tax Immunity Could Save Him More Than $600 Million (Forbes)