Political observers never believed President Donald Trump's cancellation of his "Anti-Weaponization Fund" was sincere, especially after new reporting revealed the administration plotted to continue it secretly, correspondent Scott MacFarlane told Nicolle Wallace on Thursday.
A big reason why, he said, is that DOJ attorneys are being asked in court why they refuse to put the cancelation of the fund in writing — and they aren't giving convincing answers.
"Scott, take me inside the reporting you've done on how the victims of some of these crimes, the people who are on the other end of some of these criminals violent acts against law enforcement feel about Trump's dedication to a fund that even Republicans oppose," said Wallace.
MacFarlane noted that a number of the January 6 defendants "in court during trial claimed they were the victims of a weaponized prosecution, and that argument was laughed out of court, either by the judges, juries or some combination of the two."
"As for the slush fund. Oh, the slush fund. It reminds me of one of those corny 80s or 90s teen horror movies where everybody thinks the monster is dead, and then they go back out, running around the house and the monster comes back again and comes back again. This thing is not dead," said MacFarlane.
The court exchange in which a judge asked the DOJ legal team why they haven't "put it in writing," and the DOJ team had no clear answer even as he insisted "a dozen times" the fund was "not moving forward," tells people all they need to know, he said.
"The judge asked point-blank, why not just put it in writing? Why not just rescind the fund for now, pending future review?" MacFarlane said. "And the attorney twice said, I don't know, your honor. There was a murmur in the courtroom. There was laughter in the courtroom."
The bottom line, he said, is that "nobody takes their word this monster is dead" — and the Trump administration will keep being asked in court why they can't put it in writing that it is, as more lawsuits get filed.