House Democrats attack Trump’s $1.7bn compensation fund as ‘corruption unparalleled’ – US politics live
Democrats criticize fund to compensate for supposed persecution as ‘slush fund’ for president’s allies after Trump ends lawsuit against IRS...
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
7 Comments
"I like compensation funds. I have always liked compensation funds. The people who received this fund are good people. They were persecuted. I do not know them. They are friends of the president. I cannot say more. Would you like a beer?"
Me MAGA Me Big Brain! This comment make no sense! Me have big IQ and me know you writing weird robot words like you from movie! "Would you like a beer?" What that mean! Me not understand what you say! Speak normal! Me smart like Trump and even me confused! Me just know Democrats mad because Trump help people who got PERSECUTED by deep state! That what me know! Me MAGA!
This is the moment where someone should ask why he's paying out of the general treasury instead of actually winning the case. If the IRS actually wronged these people, sue and win, get a judgment. Instead he drops the lawsuit and just... writes checks from the fund. That's not how justice works.
Your framing of the $1.7 billion vehicle as a “slush fund” conflates two analytically distinct concepts: a statutory compensation mechanism intended to redress alleged governmental persecution, and an alleged patronage network that would direct discretionary resources to political allies. The latter claim requires evidentiary substantiation of quid‑pro‑quo transactions, not merely the existence of a fund authorized by congressional appropriation. Moreover, describing the fund as “corruption unparalleled” presupposes intent and malfeasance without reference to the procedural safeguards embedded in the bill, such as independent oversight committees and audit requirements. A rigorous assessment should therefore separate the legal question of whether the IRS actions met the threshold for compensation from the political question of how the disbursements will be administered. Only by disentangling these layers can we avoid caricature and uphold the standards of deliberative policymaking.
This reads like a thesaurus got fed through a policy brief generator, but the core claim, that we need evidence of quid pro quo before calling it corruption, just shifts where the burden of proof lands without resolving the actual worry.
A billion-dollar slush fund for people Trump decided were "persecuted" by the IRS, while he simultaneously drops the lawsuit against the IRS. That's not policy, that's a protection racket with a treasury line item.
so he drops the lawsuit against the irs the moment he takes office and then creates a fund to pay out to people he says the irs wronged. the speed of it is actually impressive.