Trump mused about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. This is much worse

This is far worse than shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.

President Donald Trump is demanding nearly a quarter of a billion U.S. tax dollars to satisfy a claim of his — a frivolous, absurd and specious claim — that he had been maliciously prosecuted by the Department of Justice. He wasn’t. But that won’t keep him from trying to have a cool $230 million transferred from Americans’ bank accounts to his.

If Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue, as he once famously mused he could do, it would be a terrible thing with blood, guts and gore. But at least there’d be only one victim.

What he’s doing now at the DOJ doesn’t involve the hypothetical of someone getting shot. But it is real life and would defraud an entire nation.

And we’re not talking chump change: Trump’s haul would more than double what thieves heisted last Sunday in jewels from the Louvre in Paris, in one of the most famous robberies in history.

And back here at home, the American taxpayer would be paying the thief.

Pulling off this con in plain sight requires only the approval of — wait for it — his very own lawyers, who Trump has conveniently placed in control of that very DOJ. Perhaps they’ll deliberate agonizingly over the ethics of this. I’m going to guess not.

The New York Times led with the story Tuesday. But early on, it’s not catching fire — not breaking through the partisan wall — as much as it deserves.

In it, Trump came off like the Joker.

“I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said, I’m sort of suing myself,” Mr. Trump said, adding: “It sort of looks bad, I’m suing myself, right? So I don’t know. But that was a lawsuit that was very strong, very powerful.”

Credit Trump for some uncommon candor. It sort of looks bad.

Actually, as the Times noted, it’s a civil claim — not a lawsuit — that’s involved here. Or more precisely, a “demand” now that Trump has returned to the presidency.

The Times summed up the outrageousness of the heist pretty well:

The situation has no parallel in American history, as Mr. Trump, a presidential candidate, was pursued by federal law enforcement and eventually won the election, taking over the very government that must now review his claims. It is also the starkest example yet of potential ethical conflicts created by installing the president’s former lawyers atop the Justice Department.

Let’s not call this a “potential ethical conflict.” The word “potential” doesn’t belong in that sentence any more than the word “ethical” should find itself in the same paragraph with “Trump.”

And let’s not forget that this is the same Trump who told ABC News in 2019, “Article II allows me to do whatever I want.”

In this case, it means not just using the DOJ as his personal law firm. It’s more like an investment firm.

Before he was president, Trump had filed two administrative claims against the Justice Department. The first demands roughly $100 million for the Russia investigation. The second seeks $130 million for the Mar-a-Lago search and classified documents prosecution.

His legal theory? “Malicious prosecution” — that investigating him violated his rights.

But “malicious prosecution” requires proof that prosecution was initiated without probable cause. Trump can’t meet that standard because probable cause clearly existed.

• On Russia: Intelligence agencies documented election interference. Trump campaign officials had documented contacts with Russian operatives. Multiple associates were convicted. Grand juries — ordinary citizens, not political appointees — reviewed evidence and voted to indict. That’s textbook probable cause.
• On Mar-a-Lago: The National Archives requested documents. Trump’s lawyers falsely certified all were returned. A subpoena was issued. Trump still didn’t comply. The FBI executed a lawfully authorized search warrant — approved by a federal judge who reviewed probable cause — and found classified documents exactly where they said they would be.

The facts are obvious here: Trump has no serious claim against the DOJ, not anymore than he has some non-existent lawsuit he has been referencing publicly. But since former AG Merrick Garland and staff never got around to tossing the claim in the garbage — there’s a shocker — Trump has landed upon what he truly does best.

He has himself one brilliant con job.

Consider this: Justice Department regulations require approval by the Deputy Attorney General or the head of the Civil Division for settlements of $4 million or more.

And who might the deputy attorney general be? Why, it’s Todd Blanche — Trump’s former lead criminal defense lawyer — recently famous for his white-glove treatment of convicted child-sex predator Ghislaine Maxwell in an utterly inappropriate visit in prison.

Everyone knows Blanche is Trump’s legal muscle. And there’s Stanley Woodward Jr., chief of the Civil Division, who represented Trump’s co-defendant Walt Nauta in the classified documents case. And numerous Trump associates in January 6 investigations.

Oh, and in July, Attorney General Pam Bondi fired the Justice Department’s top ethics adviser — the person whose job was to flag exactly this kind of conflict. What could possibly go wrong now?

America can rest easy noting that these independent tigers will bring total objectivity to evaluating whether their master should receive the $230 million he so obviously deserves to cover a tiny piece of the pain and suffering he endured at the hands of horrible people trying to enforce so-called “laws.”

And the DOJ Trump team will not be alone. They’ll be joined by his Congressional servants and the MAGA state-media stars who undoubtedly will either bury the story or reinvent it as good deed by the president.

There was a hint in the Times story about how that might be spun:

“Asked about the issue at the White House after this article published, the president said, ‘I was damaged very greatly and any money I would get, I would give to charity.’

He added, ‘I’m the one that makes the decision and that decision would have to go across my desk and it’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself.’”

Yes, awfully strange. If by strange you mean “openly corrupt.” But the real tell was Trump’s assertion about the heist benefitting charity.

What a comforting thought from the greatest grifter of all time.

A 2016 audit by the Washington Post found that Trump claimed to have given more than $100 million to charity over about five years, but in fact many of the contributions could not be verified and much of the actual giving appeared minimal.

Or as Vanity Fair noted that year, “We found less than $10,000 over seven years” given to charities that Trump claimed to have donated to.

But if Trump can pull off his con, the charity detail will get lost as a footnote. In fact, what’s as troubling as anything is how this scandalous conduct may get washed away by the “flooding the zone” strategy diabolically authored by Trump whisperer Steve Bannon.

Sure, what Trump’s doing with the DOJ “has no parallel in American history,” as the Times noted. That probably won’t matter because as wrongdoing goes, it’s not going to be nearly as famous as Trump’s Fifth Avenue shooting hypothetical.

Even though it’s worse.

• Ray Hartmann writes on Substack at Ray Hartmann's Soapbox.