Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
'Quite bad': Ex-prosecutor says Trump's slush fund woes are just beginning
This will be fun to watch
President Donald Trump's .776 billion "Anti-Weaponization" slush fund is now facing jeopardy on multiple fronts, with one just pausing the fund and another reopening the Trump lawsuit against the IRS that formed the basis for it.
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-05-30T06:00:12Z
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-slush-fund-2676975085
President Donald Trump's $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization" slush fund is now facing jeopardy on multiple fronts, with one just pausing the fund and another reopening the Trump lawsuit against the IRS that formed the basis for it. And things could be about to get ugly for the president, former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara told MS NOW's Jen Psaki on Friday evening.
"Let's just start with Judge Williams' ruling tonight, which effectively reopens the IRS case that Trump supposedly settled, kind of pulled it out of court, I guess," said Psaki. "Give us your thoughts on how that order came to be and what it means."
The key takeaway, Bharara said, is that "tonight we're seeing the third branch of government as listed in the Constitution really asserting itself, right? You have the judge you just mentioned reopening the case that you've been talking about. You have another judge who's frozen the quote unquote, 'slush fund.' And the first judge undertook the thing that happened at the behest of and at the urging of 35 retired judges."
This is notable, he said because "judges, whether they're in office or out of office and still thinking about the rule of law, have made a very important statement here" — and the sitting judge in the IRS case doesn't want to be complicit in "something that's a little too cute for school," and wants a proper investigation of whether the court system is being abused to help Trump pay his allies.
Ultimately, Bharara said, "I think it might be quite bad for the administration when discovery takes place, when the court examines things."
"Let's just start with Judge Williams' ruling tonight, which effectively reopens the IRS case that Trump supposedly settled, kind of pulled it out of court, I guess," said Psaki. "Give us your thoughts on how that order came to be and what it means."
The key takeaway, Bharara said, is that "tonight we're seeing the third branch of government as listed in the Constitution really asserting itself, right? You have the judge you just mentioned reopening the case that you've been talking about. You have another judge who's frozen the quote unquote, 'slush fund.' And the first judge undertook the thing that happened at the behest of and at the urging of 35 retired judges."
This is notable, he said because "judges, whether they're in office or out of office and still thinking about the rule of law, have made a very important statement here" — and the sitting judge in the IRS case doesn't want to be complicit in "something that's a little too cute for school," and wants a proper investigation of whether the court system is being abused to help Trump pay his allies.
Ultimately, Bharara said, "I think it might be quite bad for the administration when discovery takes place, when the court examines things."
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
