jasdooit

Reporter Scott MacFarlane stated that a federal judge recently “dismantled” the credibility of acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in a four-page ruling, stating that his claims regarding a Trump slush fund are not reliable.

MacFarlane wrote on Xthat the order was “truly extraordinary” — and emphasized it again by calling it extraordinary once more. The judge, he stated, “obviously lacks confidence in the statements made by the country’s leading law enforcement officer.”

Also Read: Knives out as scandal-ridden Republicans crowd into a Florida race: ‘You ended up in jail’

“Judge Brinkema completely dismisses the arguments of the acting U.S. Attorney General,” MacFarlaneposted on X.

The order, issued on Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, determines that a legal case concerning President Donald Trump’s approximately $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” remains active — and directs the Department of Justice to provide a response by July 17.

Looking for additional updates on political developments?Click to view the most recent news updates on Raw Story.

The fund was established to compensate individuals who allege the government “weaponized” against them — potentially including supporters who were charged in connection with the January 6 Capitol incident. Opponents refer to it as an unlawful reserve fund.

The Department of Justice had an easy method to end the lawsuit: testify under oath that the fund is no longer active. Brinkema granted them a week to do so, but they declined.

“It is especially worrying that the defendants have not shown a true level of confidence in their statements regarding the Fund’s continuation,” Brinkema wrote.in the order, referencing Blanche’s own statement that the fund “remains ‘important.’”

The judge highlighted a central issue: Blanche informed Congress that the fund was no longer active — however, he was not sworn in at the time of his statement. When questioned directly about whether he would revoke the May 18 memo that established the fund’s framework, Blanche was straightforward.

I’m not agreeing to put anything in writing,” he stated to the legislators. “And I have mentioned it repeatedly.

The Department of Justice claimed that its commitments to Congress and in court documents already included “significant penalties for falsehood.” Brinkema disagreed — thoroughly. She examined the applicable laws and court procedures and discovered that none of them actually enforced the penalties the Justice Department asserted. The voluntary-abandonment doctrine — a legal concept stating that defendants cannot dismiss a lawsuit simply by promising to cease the disputed conduct — kept the case ongoing.

The response from the Department of Justice is due on July 17.