DOJ Declines Judge’s Request for Todd Blanche to Confirm Anti-Weaponization Fund’s Demise in Court
Todd Blanche | The Justice Department is rejecting a judge’s appeal for a court statement from high-ranking officials that would verify that the alleged anti-weaponization fund is not proceeding.
Visit my website for latest news BT World News
In a recent court submission on Friday, the Justice Department stated that the statements were “unneeded” and that the judge’s directive for the administration to submit them poses “significant separation of powers issues.”
The case unfolding in Alexandria, Virginia, is among several legal disputes regarding the contentious $1.8 billion fund that resulted from a settlement of a questionable lawsuit President Donald Trump initiated against the IRS. It would have reimbursed individuals who alleged they were victims of governmental “weaponization” in previous administrations, raising accusations that it would function as a slush fund for Trump’s supporters.
DOJ Rejects Judge’s Request for Todd Blanche to Verify End of Anti-Weaponization Fund
With increasing political opposition and legal challenges, the administration abandoned its fund plans, and Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, overseeing the Virginia case, suggested she was leaning towards declaring the legal matter moot in her court. However, last week, she asked for statements from acting Attorney General Todd Balance, his prominent deputy, Associate Attorney General Stan Woodward, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent affirming that “they will not take any action to establish or manage the Anti-Weaponization Fund, and that the Anti-Weaponization Fund will not move forward in any way, or under any title.”
In the absence of such a submission, the case would proceed to the next steps, she stated in the June 12 order.
In the latest submission, the Justice Department highlighted Todd Blanche statement to Congress where he claimed the fund was “not going forward, period,” along with Woodward’s signature on court documents affirming the same.
The Department contended that there was no “justification for the court to force testimony from the Associate Attorney General and two Cabinet officials.”
DOJ Refuses Court Confirmation from Todd Blanche on Anti-Weaponization Fund
A DOJ account on X provided more details on the issue on Friday: “Essentially, the judge’s request for declarations aimed to compel her to personally approve any and all future settlements, apart from this nonexistent Fund, that the department may pursue.” Judges cannot involve themselves in the department’s regular settlement powers.
The Florida judge who managed the initial lawsuit that Trump, his family, and his business brought against the IRS is being prompted to look into whether the lawsuit and the resulting settlement constituted a fraud on the court.
US District Judge Kathleen Williams is evaluating an unusual petition submitted by over 30 retired federal judges, asking her to initiate an investigation into the origins of the lawsuit and settlement, considering that Trump was suing — and subsequently negotiating a settlement with — a federal agency he oversees.
DOJ Declines Request, Todd Blanche Won’t Confirm Anti-Weaponization Fund’s End in Court
The retired judges presented on Friday their most recent set of arguments for why she ought to reopen the case, following claims by Trump’s personal attorneys in court documents last week that she lacks that authority.
The retired judges argued that several procedural regulations indeed empower her to examine if judicial “processes have been undermined by fraud.”
Read: Russell Wilson, Ciara, and Trinity Rodman were in attendance for the USA vs. Australia match
The recent submission from Trump’s lawyers “merely highlights the necessity to examine if the parties have committed fraud against this Court and compromised the integrity of the judicial process,” the retired judges stated.
They contended that the government’s decision to scrap plans for the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund indicated that the agreement was not valid.
“They stated that the fact that one ‘side’ of the alleged conflict could unilaterally eliminate an essential term without a new written agreement clearly indicates that these parties were never in opposition.”
The retired judges outlined a route for Williams to enforce non-monetary penalties on the attorneys involved, should she determine that the case constituted a fraud on the court.
