Andrew Weissmann SHREDS Trump's SLUSH FUND SCHEME

Andrew Weissmann asserts that the $1.776 billion "settlement" between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Donald Trump is not a legitimate agreement but a "piece of paper written by one side" designed to function as a political slush fund. The settlement lacks a valid cause of action, was filed outside the statutory time limit, and involved the DOJ acting against the public interest by not defending against a meritless claim. The sum itself, $1.776 billion, is politically symbolic rather than tethered to actual damages.

The host notes the case was past the 2-year window. The IRS issued an internal report objecting to it, and the Treasury Department's general counsel resigned in protest. The judge questioned the lack of adversity and dismissed the case, noting "substantial issues" with the public interest. Weissmann compares it to "Donald Trump going into Fort Knox and just taking some gold."

The "agreement" establishes a five-member commission, chosen by Todd Blanch (acting Attorney General), to decide who qualifies for the money. Weissmann argues this structure allows for the fund to be used to reward ideological allies and those who participated in events like January 6th, effectively creating a "private army." He highlights the president's public declarations of convicted criminals as "victims" as a clear indicator of intent.

Blanch will choose all five commission members, who can be removed if they "aren't playing ball." Weissmann questions if convicted Oathkeepers and Proud Boys, whom the president has called "victims," would receive compensation, contrasting them with actual victims of vindictive prosecution. He cites Mike Flynn and Carter Page receiving over a million dollars in separate agreements as precedent for how this fund would operate.

Weissmann clarifies that the claim of a "Russia hoax" is false. The Mueller investigation, supported by a bipartisan Senate report (signed by Marco Rubio), definitively established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump. He distinguishes this from the question of criminal conspiracy with the Trump campaign, for which there was insufficient evidence, and the obstruction of justice findings, where Mueller laid out facts but did not make a prosecutorial judgment due to DOJ policy.

Weissmann states, "Russia was interfering and that it was doing so to get Donald Trump elected. That is in black and white and that is there is no question that happened." He refers to the Mueller report and a bipartisan Senate report signed by Marco Rubio. He explains the three components of the investigation: Russian interference (proven), Trump campaign complicity (insufficient evidence for criminal conspiracy), and obstruction of justice (facts laid out, no prosecutorial conclusion).