Posted on 06/01/2026 11:17:39 AM PDT by John Semmens
President Trump's attempt to donate the $1.8 billion settlement he reached with the Internal Revenue Service for publicly releasing his personal income tax data to an "Anti-Weaponization Fund" that would make compensation payments to individuals wrongly targeted by the government has run into some opposition.
Virginia US District Judge Leonie Brinkema has issued an order saying "the administration cannot take any action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund."
California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) announced that "I will impose a 100% tax on any California resident who is awarded compensation by this so-called 'Anti-Weaponization Fund.' The anticipated beneficiaries of this fund are almost exclusively January 6 insurrectionists. The special Congressional January 6 Committee has already determined that all of these people were duly and legally prosecuted for their actions in their attempt to overthrow the US government. Not a one of them deserves a single penny of compensation."
Trump is reportedly having second thoughts about how to achieve the objective of compensating persons who were wrongly or excessively penalized for what he considers "was mostly a peaceful protest. None of the protesters brought arms with them, which would normally be essential to a real insurrection attempt. Persons whose only offense was entering the Capitol--some where Capitol Police opened the doors and invited them in--were coerced into entering plea agreements by being told they would go to prison for 20 years for trying to overthrow the government."
"Maybe I shouldn't trust the government to handle the settlement money," Trump added. "I won't always be the president. Democrats may gain power and pervert the intentions of the Fund. If the Fund were to be set up as a private organization it could hear the cases of those victimized by the weaponization of prosecutions by the Biden Administration and decide whether or how much compensation was justified in each case."
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
The fund would have more support if Republicans got the truth out about J6 victims. The lies have been winning by sheer repetition.
Dipstick Court “judgette”, Leonie Brinkema. The rogue skanks are still out trying to bring down the President of the United States. “Dew process” my eye. The only “dew” Americans get from the skanks in robes is a face full of pee.
The poor/bad legal parts of the DOJ deal are not the fund, but that the DOJ (not the IRS) claiming in the “settlement” (1) the prohibition of ANY future IRS audits of DJT (2) and/or ANY family or business relation to DJT, and (3) whether for any past year or future year. That (3) is done by language that just says no audits, without any date specific or date limitation. The language of that part of the deal will definitely be legally challenged and likely not supported by the courts, as will the breadth of who is covered by that audit restriction beyond DJT himself. I think the bad legal language in the settlement might get the entire settlement thrown out.
“If the Fund were to be set up as a private organization it could hear the cases of those victimized . . . “
I suggested the very same thing on an earlier thread. Trump and his rich donors and supporters should set up the funds to assist the J6 victims weaponized by the Biden DOJ. If Trump gets billions in his settlement case with the IRS, that could fund it in itself.
I suggested that Rudy Giuliani be in charge of a commission that decides on the worthiness of the claims.
“If Trump gets billions in his settlement case with the IRS, that could fund it in itself.”
Trump agreed to settle for $0.00 and instead have the anti-weaponization fund set up.
I think it is strange how the press kept referring to the issue of one where Trump the individual was suing Trump the head of the federal government, because the AG and his DOJ are under Trump.
Maybe what the AG needed to do was set up a special DOJ contracted official to remove the AG from any oversight on any settlement on Trump’s suit. But that would have been Pam Bondi that needed to do that as the suit was filed shortly after Trump took office in 2025. Then nothing happened until after Bondi left office and the new AG took over.
Maybe Bondi had better legal advice on the matter than the new AG. But, maybe her inaction on this matter is really what got her fired.
Ok, so can Trump go back to suing the IRS since the anti-weaponization fund is probably not going to get funded by the Senate? Hopefully, whoever drew up the IRS settlement had a clause to go back to square one if the anti-weaponization fund does not materialize.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.