James Comey Looks To ‘Get in Line’ for Weaponization Payday — but Trump’s Pot of Gold Might Be Unconstitutional

The former FBI director, James Comey, is eyeing a potential treasure trove — the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” President Trump is seeking to establish as a codicil to his settlement with the Internal Revenue Service for unlawfully leaking his tax returns.That fund allocates $1,776,000,000 to compensate victims of “weaponization” and “lawfare.” Mr. Comey, who has twice been indicted by the Department of Justice — he currently faces criminal charges for an Instagram post allegedly threatening the president — told CNN on Monday that the notion seemed like a “piece from the Onion” but that if it survives he’d look to “get in line.”Mr. Comey added that the fund “certainly sounds intended for someone like me” because it’s meant to “compensate people who’ve been targeted by the Justice Department for, they say, personal, political or ideological reasons.” Mr. Comey has proclaimed his innocence both in respect of the social media post and his previous indictment for lying to Congress. His daughter, Maurene, a decorated prosecutor, is suing the DOJ for firing her unlawfully on the basis of animus toward her father.The fund was created as part of a settlement to Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit, now withdrawn, against the Internal Revenue Service after a contractor leaked his tax return information to the press. That contractor, Charles Littlejohn, pleaded guilty and is serving a five year prison sentence. The weaponization fund is intended to be part of the settlement of Mr. Trump’s civil suit. The acting attorney, Todd Blanche, announced the initiative by declaring that the “machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again. As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”House Democrats call the endowment a “slush fund” that “raises the specter of corruption unparalleled in American history.” Congresswoman Lucy McBath denounces it as “reparations for white supremacists.” An irony, though, is that for Mr. Trump’s adversaries to claim money from the fund they would be required to acknowledge — explicitly or implicitly — that there was no “insurrection” under the terms of the 14th Amendment. The announcement of the fund was quickly met by a lawsuit filed on Tuesday by two police officers, Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodge, who came under attack at the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. They are seeking to block the fund by citing the 14th Amendment’s prohibition, contained in Section Four, on paying “any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”No participant in January 6 — including Mr. Trump — was charged with insurrection. The president, though, was the subject of an effort to disqualify him from the 2024 presidential ballot as an insurrectionist in accordance with Section Three of the 14th Amendment. That push succeeded in Colorado, but was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. Eighteen members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys were charged with seditious conspiracy, an adjacent charge to insurrection. The lawsuit contends that the prohibition means that any attempt to compensate those charged or convicted for the riot at the Capitol is illegal. Mr. Trump extended presidential clemency to all of the more than 1,500 January 6 defendants prosecuted by the Biden Administration. This lawsuit, though, argues in respect of the fund that “No statute authorizes its creation, the settlement on which it is premised is a corrupt sham, and its design violates the Constitution and federal law.” The suit also insists that Mr. Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS was “frivolous” because it lacked the constitutional requirement of adversity. If the suit was baseless, this settlement would likewise be built on sand. The police officers argue that “because Trump, as the sitting President, was both the plaintiff and in direct control of all defendants,” it did not amount to an Article III case or controversy. Earlier this year, Mr. Trump mused that the case required him to “work out a settlement with myself.” One initial challenge Messrs. Dunn and Hodge could face is a possible motion to dismiss from the government taking the position that they lack standing to sue. To ward off this, they allege in their filing that the fund “will both compensate and empower the very people” still threatening them. The lawsuit reckons that “militias like the Proud Boys will use money from the Fund to arm and equip themselves. The Fund will grant their past acts of violence legal imprimatur.”Mr. Blanche’s primary deputy, Stanley Woodward, told reporters on Wednesday that “it’s way, way, way too early for us to rush to judgment on whether this was a good or a bad idea or to describe it as a slush fund, or really even to criticize it.”

James Comey Looks To ‘Get in Line’ for Weaponization Payday — but Trump’s Pot of Gold Might Be Unconstitutional

More from the New York Sun

‘Top Gun’ at 40: The Real Story Behind the Blockbuster That Sealed Tom Cruise’s Stardom

Justice Alito’s Duty To Sit

Progressive Candidates in Colorado Call for Democratic Governor’s Impeachment

More from the New York Sun

‘Top Gun’ at 40: The Real Story Behind the Blockbuster That Sealed Tom Cruise’s Stardom

Justice Alito’s Duty To Sit

Progressive Candidates in Colorado Call for Democratic Governor’s Impeachment

Women’s Sports Podcasts Are Fueling the Next Media Gold Rush

Trump Drops IRS Lawsuit as DOJ Creates $1.776 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’

New York Times Reporters ‘Exasperated’ by Column Claiming Israeli Abuse of Palestinian Prisoners, ‘Suspicious’ of Sourcing

Israel Reportedly Jams Gaza Flotilla’s Radio With Britney Spears Hit

Judge Throws Out Some, Permits Some of Evidence Collection in Mangione Trial