Trump’s $1.8 billion anti-gun fund is ‘dead’. So why does the judge want his architects exposed? | Today’s news
A US federal judge wants to know who helped create a controversial $1.8 billion “anti-gun fund” linked to President Donald Trump, despite Attorney General Todd Blanche saying the fund is now “dead.” NBC reported.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis of the Eastern District of Virginia on Friday granted part of the prosecutors’ request for information from the federal government. Among the details the administration was expected to provide are the names of people who helped design the fund’s structure, according to a person who was in court at the time of the order.
The New York Times announced details of the judge’s order.
For the plaintiffs, the ruling is an important step in finding out how the fund was created.
“Today’s order allowing discovery is a significant step toward getting to the bottom of the slush fund,” Aman George, senior counsel for Democracy Forward, the nonprofit representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “We will continue to meet the government in court until our investigation is complete and the slush fund is permanently stopped.”
What was the $1.8 billion fund?
The fund was created under an agreement involving Trump, his two sons, his company and the Internal Revenue Service.
Under the deal, roughly $1.8 billion of taxpayer money was to be earmarked for payments to people who claimed they had “suffered from arms and laws.”
One particularly controversial aspect was that the provision could potentially apply to the January 6 rioters who were convicted of violent crimes and later pardoned by Trump.
The arrangement soon ran into legal trouble.
In May, a federal judge temporarily blocked the fund after a lawsuit filed Jan. 6 by a fired prosecutor and law professor sued by the Trump administration. Career IRS employees later joined a legal challenge to the Trump-IRS deal, which also gave Trump and several members of his family immunity from IRS audits.
Why is the fund still a problem?
The proposal faced criticism from both Republicans and Democrats in Washington and became an issue for Blanche’s nomination for attorney general.
Blanche later wrote that the fund “is abolished” and that “there is no fund”.
But the questions did not end there.
The document signed by Blanche did not include the other signatories of the original agreement. Critics argued that this left open a legal avenue through which the fund and related IRS immunity could potentially be revived.
Trump himself also stopped short of dismissing the idea outright.
He told a cabinet meeting this summer that the fund “is dead, but you know, I wish it wasn’t,” adding that he believed “people were treated horribly.”
The defendant is demanding $1 million on January 6
The matter returned to the spotlight this week when Treniss Evans III, the defendant seeking a $1 million payment from the government on Jan. 6, posted a photo of himself in Blanche’s office.
A person familiar with the matter said Evans has not met with the attorney general.
Evans was previously sentenced to 20 days in jail and three years of probation for his involvement in the attack on the US Capitol.
