Of Slush Funds and Suckups
The article discusses the controversial developments surrounding Donald Trump's 'anti-weaponization' fund and the Justice Department's recent settlement agreement. It highlights the implications of a document that prevents prosecution of tax claims against Trump and his businesses. Additionally, Vice President JD Vance's defense of the fund raises concerns about the moral implications of potentially providing funds to individuals convicted of violent acts during the January 6th protests.
- ▪The Justice Department revealed a settlement agreement that bars prosecution of tax claims against Trump and his businesses.
- ▪Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's actions are seen as an attempt to protect Trump from legal accountability.
- ▪Vice President JD Vance defended the fund and suggested that cases involving individuals convicted of attacking police on January 6th would be evaluated individually.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Morning ShotsOf Slush Funds and SuckupsThe details of Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund get more outrageous by the day. Not that Republicans mind.William Kristol, Andrew Egger, and Jim SwiftMay 20, 2026ShareAnother month of iced-over war in Iran, another thirty-day extension of America’s sanctions waiver on Russian oil to try to take some of the pressure off the world’s Strait-of-Hormuz energy shock. We’re with Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Jeanne Shaheen on this one: “Every additional dollar the Kremlin earns from this license helps [Vladimir] Putin finance his illegal war against Ukraine and kill innocent Ukrainians.” Happy Wednesday.Command Post with Mark Hertling and Ben Parker will be live on Substack and YouTube at 10:30 a.m.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Bulwark.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Bulwark
