By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Andrew Weissmann discusses the nature of election lies, differentiating them from the thousands of other falsehoods attributed to Donald Trump. The conversation also explores international strategies for combating disinformation, referencing practices in Brazil and the United Kingdom. Additionally, the segment touches upon the concerning example of a publisher disappearing following a Trump executive order, and even includes a brief mention of mob bosses.
Read the original article here
The idea that Donald Trump’s handling of a significant financial settlement, often referred to as an “anti-weaponization fund,” goes beyond mere corruption and constitutes outright criminality is a serious assertion, and one that legal experts like Andrew Weissmann have been emphasizing. It’s not just about unethical behavior; it’s about actions that could, and perhaps should, be prosecuted as specific crimes. The core of the argument seems to revolve around the notion that this fund was essentially a “slush fund,” and that its establishment and management involved elements of embezzlement and collusive fraud.
When we talk about something being a “slush fund,” we’re implying that money is being moved or managed in a way that isn’t transparent or is being used for purposes other than what was originally intended or legally permissible. In this context, the concern is that taxpayer money or funds that were intended for specific governmental purposes were instead diverted or managed in a manner that benefited individuals or entities improperly. This raises serious questions about the integrity of financial dealings and the potential for illegal enrichment.
The concept of embezzlement immediately comes to mind when discussing a slush fund. Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property or funds by a person to whom that property or those funds have been entrusted. If funds were diverted from their intended use for personal gain or to improperly benefit certain parties, this would certainly fit the definition of embezzlement. The sheer scale of the sums involved only amplifies the gravity of such allegations, making it far from a minor infraction.
Furthermore, the notion of “collusive fraud” is particularly pertinent here. Fraudulent collusion in settlements occurs when there isn’t a genuine effort to defend against liability or to contest claims for damages. If a settlement is reached without a true adversary process, where one party essentially “lies down” to accept a judgment, particularly if the amount is not grounded in reality, it strongly suggests a fraudulent arrangement. This implies an agreement where the paid amount is not tethered to any genuine assessment of reality or legal obligation.
The involvement of lawyers in this process also raises crucial ethical and legal questions. If legal professionals facilitate or participate in arrangements that are designed to defraud, they too can face serious repercussions, including charges related to conspiracy and fraud. The integrity of the legal system relies on adherence to ethical standards, and any deviation that enables criminal activity can have far-reaching consequences for both the individuals involved and public trust.
The idea of immunity for official acts, while a legal concept, is often debated when actions appear to exceed the bounds of legitimate official duties. When a president or former president engages in activities that can be construed as personal enrichment or as crimes unrelated to their presidential responsibilities, the scope of such immunity becomes a critical point of contention. The distinction between an “official act” and a personal or criminal one is paramount in determining whether immunity applies.
This situation is being framed as potentially the “most blatant actual crime” committed, especially when compared to actions that might have a thinner veil of deniability, like insider trading. The argument is that this alleged fraudulent scheme is so transparent and direct in its potential for personal gain that it constitutes a clear and undeniable criminal act, rather than something that requires extensive interpretation or is shielded by ambiguity.
The question of who will hold individuals accountable is also a recurring theme. If federal prosecutions are perceived as unlikely due to political considerations or legal hurdles, the focus can shift to state-level prosecutions or other avenues of accountability. The hope is that even if one avenue is blocked, others may emerge, ensuring that alleged criminal behavior is not left unaddressed.
Ultimately, the core assertion is that what is happening isn’t just ethically questionable or corrupt in a general sense. It’s being argued that specific, identifiable crimes are being committed, including embezzlement and collusive fraud, and that these actions should be treated as such by the justice system. The frustration stems from the perception that such serious offenses are occurring, yet definitive legal action is not being taken, leading to a sense of impunity for those involved and a erosion of faith in the system.