By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Treasury’s General Counsel, Brian Morrissey, resigned just hours after the Trump administration announced a $1.776 billion fund intended to compensate individuals allegedly targeted by the Biden administration’s Justice Department, a sum that could include those charged in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. This abrupt departure occurred on the same day acting Attorney General Todd Blanche revealed the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” which originated from Donald Trump’s dropped lawsuit against the IRS. The fund, overseen by a commission appointed by Blanche, has drawn widespread condemnation from Democrats who denounce it as a misuse of taxpayer funds, with recipients and payout amounts to remain undisclosed.
Read the original article here
It appears that a lawyer handpicked by Donald Trump has recently resigned from his position at the Treasury Department, reportedly in disgust over what is being described as a massive $1.8 billion grift. This departure comes at a time when details are emerging about how this substantial sum is being managed, raising significant questions about its legality and purpose.
The Treasury, tasked with depositing this eye-watering amount into an account overseen by a commission hand-picked by Blanche, has remained notably silent on the specifics of Morrissey’s exit. This lack of transparency fuels speculation about the true reasons behind his resignation and the nature of the funds themselves.
Central to the concerns is the mechanism through which this money is being allocated, which some argue directly contravenes constitutional principles. Specifically, the Appropriations Clause of Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, states that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” This clause inherently requires a formal act of Congress to authorize the allocation of funds, a step that appears to have been bypassed in this instance.
The implication is that Trump’s criminal defense attorney, Todd Blanche, has potentially devised a method to circumvent these legal safeguards, effectively creating a way to move funds from the Treasury without proper congressional oversight. The secrecy surrounding the intended recipients of these payouts, as reported by The Beast, further compounds these concerns, as the public is being kept in the dark about who will benefit and by how much.
The choice of the figure $1.776 billion, an amount that deliberately echoes the year of American independence, is seen by some as a blatant and absurd mockery of the nation and its founding principles, further suggesting an intent to treat these funds as personal spoils rather than public assets. The sentiment expressed is one of outright theft, with accusations that the former President is orchestrating the misappropriation of public funds for his own purposes.
The idea that this money is being used to create a slush fund for a select group of individuals, including billionaires and the elite, has drawn sharp criticism. The stark contrast between this alleged action and the public’s focus on other perceived instances of financial impropriety highlights a perceived double standard and a lack of accountability.
There is a strong sentiment that this situation is not merely a “grift” but a direct act of theft from the American people. The call for Democrats to make this issue a central and persistent message underscores the perceived severity of the situation and the need for public awareness and opposition.
The narrative suggests that Trump has used taxpayer money to establish a fund for a favored circle, and the silence from certain political factions on this matter is interpreted as complicity. The comparison to other alleged financial dealings, such as those involving California’s governor, is used to illustrate a perceived pattern of questionable financial activities that are either ignored or downplayed depending on political affiliation.
The suggestion that Morrissey’s resignation was not an act of moral disgust but a calculated move to protect his own future career prospects is also prevalent. The notion that he may have been sidelined or left out of the inner circle of beneficiaries adds another layer to the speculation surrounding his departure.
The underlying concern is that when such actions are not immediately and decisively addressed, it emboldens those involved to push the boundaries further. The argument is made that enabling criminality, especially when it is a pattern of behavior, ultimately leads to further transgressions because there are no immediate consequences.
The idea that the figure of $1.8 billion is being debated as if the exact amount somehow mitigates the fundamental issue of corruption is seen as a distraction. Corruption, regardless of the scale, remains corruption.
The question of whether Morrissey resigned in genuine disgust or as part of a planned exit, perhaps after his role was fulfilled, is a point of contention. Some believe that the rotating cast of individuals involved is a strategy to evade accountability, with each person serving their purpose before moving on.
The principle of accountability is central to these criticisms. The argument is made that when individuals are not stopped after their first transgression, they learn that they can continue to push the envelope. The lack of decisive action from various entities is seen as tacit permission for continued wrongdoing.
The idea that the Republican party is complicit and part of this alleged criminal enterprise is a recurring theme. Their silence is interpreted not as ignorance but as agreement and direct involvement in the alleged scheme. The possibility of them facing repercussions is seen as unlikely unless the actions become so egregious as to be undeniable, such as a direct attack on citizens.
The comparison to authoritarian regimes, where control over party leaders is paramount for maintaining power, is used to illustrate the dynamics at play. The GOP’s inability or unwillingness to hold Trump accountable is seen as a symptom of this authoritarian grip.
The accusation that the GOP is the most successful criminal enterprise in history, driven by greed that outweighs their governing responsibilities, is a strong indictment. The silence of specific Republican figures is pointed to as evidence of their entanglement in the alleged “grift.”
The narrative suggests that a fundamental disconnect exists within the MAGA movement, where certain transgressions are overlooked while others are amplified, often based on political affiliation rather than the merits of the actions themselves. The argument is that if certain figures can overlook more severe alleged wrongdoings, then this financial matter is unlikely to be a breaking point.
The concept that these actions are not isolated incidents but deliberate steps to establish a precedent for future misappropriation of funds is a significant concern. The fear is that this initial sum is just the beginning, and it will escalate until no public money remains untouched.
The perceived silence from those who would have been vocal about perceived impropriety under a different administration highlights a double standard. The contrast between the outrage over smaller sums attributed to other figures and the relative quiet surrounding this $1.8 billion allocation is striking to many.
The idea that Trump himself might be a recipient of these funds, justified by claims of unfair treatment, is seen as a predictable outcome. The timing of certain financial events, like the alleged “hijacking” of the Treasury payment system, is brought up in connection with these broader concerns.
The fact that these events occurred during Trump’s presidency and involved his own appointees adds a layer of irony and self-inflicted criticism. The notion of him suing his own administration for damages caused by his previous administration is seen as illogical and indicative of deep-seated conflicts of interest.
The figure of $1.776 billion is presented as a dark symbol, a stark contrast to the ideals of American democracy. The overall sentiment is one of deep disappointment and concern for the future of the nation’s financial integrity and governance.