Amid his bid for confirmation, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a notice Sunday night declaring that the Justice Department had rescinded its controversial “anti-weaponization fund” designed to award payouts to Capitol rioters, but journalists immediately noticed “the fine print” told a different story.
“Look what they just tried to sneak through at midnight,” wrote Brett Meiselas, co-founder of the progressive media organization MeidasTouch. “What a scam!!!!”
In Blanche’s notice, he wrote that the DOJ had “officially” rescinded its May 18 order that created the fund, which came about after President Donald Trump agreed to drop a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in exchange for a $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded settlement.
Blanche had been under pressure from some Senate Republicans – two of whom threatened to withhold their support for his confirmation to attorney general – to terminate both the fund and another agreement reached in the settlement that granted Trump, his family and businesses immunity from IRS audits.
Reading the “fine print” of Blanche’s notice, however, MeidasTouch argued that the DOJ not only neglected to terminate Trump’s IRS immunity, but had actually reaffirmed it.
“Todd Blanche’s new order rescinds the May 18 Anti-Weaponization Fund – but quietly leaves the May 19 IRS immunity settlement intact,” reads a statement from MeidasTouch published on social media.
“Instead of rescinding it, the accompanying memo reaffirms DOJ’s interpretation, arguing the immunity applies only retroactively and only to the parties involved. It appears Trump was willing to throw the Jan. 6 defendants under the bus while preserving his own IRS immunity deal. Read the fine print.”
Ben Meiselas, another founder of MeidasTouch, argued that the language of Blanche’s notice not only preserved Trump’s IRS immunity, but may not even officially terminate the $1.7 billion fund.
“This is also not signed by all the parties which is required to rescind under the terms of the original agreement, para. 8,” Meiselas wrote. “This is an unenforceable sham document.”