Todd Blanche Backs Donald Trump's $1.77B Anti-Weaponization Slush Fund

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was cornered over President Donald Trump’s divisive $1.77 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.

The slush fund has left congressional Democrats and legal observers angered, with opponents believing that it is an unfair use of public money politically targeted toward rewarding the president's right-wing allies.

Blanche hushed those claims and backed the fund, insisting that the American masses prefer to spend their hard-earned taxpayers' money on correcting institutional overreach.

He also called out Trump’s critics, who claimed that the slush fund would be used to finance violence.

During an exclusive interview with CNN's Paula Reid, the interviewer asked Blanche if he would be comfortable with people convicted of hurting cops “getting taxpayer money” from the fund.

He replied, “Just to be clear, people that hurt police get money all the time, okay?”

He stated that any citizens who believe their constitutional rights have been violated by the government can follow standard administrative processes to sue, file a lawsuit, or even take federal agencies to court.

Blanche claimed that in most large-scale civil cases involving a high volume of claimants, different government bodies will routinely settle to avoid high litigious costs.

“It’s important to ever, ever touch a law enforcement officer, which is why a federal officer will prosecute them. But that’s a completely different question,” Blanche said.

He defended the fund, claiming, “I think they want their tax dollars spent on things like that. If you’re just upset, you’re not getting a dime.”

The acting attorney general continued that if an American believes there’s a horrible wrong committed against them by the government, they can apply directly to the new system.

Approved applicants will even have their attorney's fees fully reimbursed and will be compensated for what they lost financially, he said. “What American would say, ‘Oh my gosh, that’s terrible?’” Blanche asked.

He disagreed with the notion that a taxpayer would be “indignant” about a payout going to “a victim of weaponization,” arguing that an individual's life would have turned upside down by an inappropriate, politicized investigation.

“If it was appropriate, there should be no compensation,” he said.

Blanche said that he will have five commissioners take a look at the fund. He added, “I do not think the American people have issues with that. To the contrary, I do think they want their tax dollars spent on things like that.”

“The only thing illegal and corrupt about this situation is the brazen weaponization of federal resources by previous administrations to retaliate against those with opposing political beliefs,” a spokesperson for the DOJ told The Independent.

Trump administration's fund has raised questions about who exactly will get paid, including individuals linked to the riots at the Capitol building in 2021.

The report claims the fund acts as a settlement to end the president's civil lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the leaking of his confidential tax returns during his first term.

Blanche had told the Senate Appropriations subcommittee, “This was done during the Obama administration, something almost identical in structure. It is true that this is unusual. That is true, but it is not unprecedented.”

However, prominent legal experts disagree with Blanche’s justification. Adam Zimmerman, a professor at the USC Gould School of Law, stated, “I don't even think we have a word for how unprecedented this is.”

He remarked, “This is in a totally different solar system than any past government settlement on record.”

Zimmerman stated that the federal judgment fund is reserved for resolving lawsuits, and it is not meant to distribute cash to an “amorphous group of people who feel like they've been wronged generally by a prior administration.”