Connect with us

The Dictatorship

President says he’s owed ‘lot of money’ over federal probes. Here’s how govt could pay him…

Published

on

President says he’s owed ‘lot of money’ over federal probes. Here’s how govt could pay him…

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has suggested he’s entitled to compensation from the federal government over investigations he faced that he claims were politically motivated. Now, the Justice Department that Trump has exerted control over could approve a hefty payout in taxpayer dollars.

The Republican president’s comments in the Oval Office on Tuesday have put a spotlight on a law through which people can seek damages if they believe they were wronged by the federal government.

But the potential that the president might take taxpayer money from the same government he leads has raised numerous ethical questions, especially since Trump has made cutting federal spending a top administration priority.

Adding to conflict-of-interest concerns is the fact that top Justice Department officials who would presumably have to sign off on such a settlement previously served as a defense lawyer for the president or his close allies.

Here’s a look at Trump’s claims and the process that could play out:

How the claims process works

Before reclaiming the White House, Trump filed two claims with the Justice Department seeking $230 million in damages related to the FBI’s 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago property for classified documents and for a separate investigation into potential ties between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

He filed the claims in 2023 and 2024 under a law that permits individuals to sue federal agencies, like the Justice Department, if they believe they’ve been harmed by employees of those agencies acting within the scope of their duties. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, individuals must first file an administrative claim with the government agency. The agency then has six months to either settle the claim or deny it outright.

If the agency denies the claim or doesn’t act on it within that time frame, the person can then file a federal lawsuit. Trump has not yet filed a lawsuit on either claim, even though six months have passed.

The usual source of payments for claims against the government is from what’s known as the Judgment Fund. Treasury Department records show payments from the Judgment Fund over the last year on behalf of a slew of federal agencies related to discrimination claims, violations of the Privacy Act and other matters.

In one recent high-profile case, the Justice Department in 2024 agreed to pay more than $138 million to settle 139 administrative claims brought by people who accused the FBI of grossly mishandling allegations of sexual assault against Larry Nassar in 2015 and 2016.

Why Trump says the government owes him money

Trump has long claimed he was the victim of a weaponized Justice Department that targeted him for political purposes. The Biden administration’s Justice Department abandoned both criminal cases it brought against Trump after his White House victory last November because of department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.

The president signaled his interest in compensation during a White House appearance last week with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi — telling reporters “I’m suing myself” — even though his claims to date have not been filed as lawsuits. He said he believes the government owes him a “lot of money,” but suggested he could donate any taxpayer money or use it to help pay for a ballroom he’s building at the White House.

One of the administrative claims, filed in August 2024 and reviewed by The Associated Press, seeks $115 million in compensatory and punitive damages over the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate and the resulting case alleging he hoarded classified documents and thwarted government efforts to retrieve them.

It accuses former Attorney General Merrick Garland, former FBI Director Christopher Wray and Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith of harassing and targeting Trump with a “malicious prosecution” in an effort to hurt Trump’s bid to reclaim the White House.

The Times said the other claim seeks damages related to the long-concluded Trump-Russia investigation, which continues to infuriate the president.

Defense lawyers for Trump and his allies could have the final say

Trump’s claims have raised thorny ethical issues because under Justice Department policy, proposed settlements of more than $4 million must be approved by the deputy attorney general or associate attorney general. Blanche, the deputy attorney general, was one of Trump’s lead defense lawyers in the Mar-a-Lago investigation. And Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward represented Trump’s valet and co-defendant, Walt Nauta, in the same case.

The department has not said whether Blanche and Woodward would be recused in settlement talks, but said in a statement on Tuesday that “in any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials.” Bondi, in July, however, fired the department’s top official responsible for advising the attorney general and deputy attorney general on ethics issues.

Democrats plan to investigate

Democrats pounced on the news, announcing that Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, would launch an investigation into what they called a “shakedown” that violated the Constitution.

It was not immediately clear what shape that inquiry might take, but it seems unlikely that Raskin or other Democrats will get any cooperation from Justice Department leadership, particularly in the aftermath of a combative congressional appearance that Bondi made earlier this month.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions

Published

on

Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.

In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.

Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.

In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”

A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.

Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.

Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.

In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.

It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.

On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring

Published

on

The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring

About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.

All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.

The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.

The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.

The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

The Times summarized the broader context nicely:

Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.

Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.

In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.

The article added:

Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.

Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.

This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race

Published

on

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.

* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”

* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.

* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.

* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.

* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.

* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending