In Trump’s Dreams

Chris Hayes is NOT a lawyer:

"It is hard, dear viewer, to keep track of the very, very long list of shady deals and no-bid contracts and outright corrupt crypto schemes that have been the hallmark of the presidency of Donald Trump, particularly this second version of it," said Hayes. "But I ask you tonight to pay attention to the one that he appears to be about to pull off, because it's got to be the greatest heist in American history, a direct transfer of billions of your taxpayer dollars directly into the bank account, and the pockets of Donald Trump, all dressed up as a settlement of a lawsuit in which Donald Trump is both the plaintiff and also the defendant. It would be a maneuver that could nearly triple his net worth."

"All of this happening as the Trump administration is literally making your life harder and more expensive with wars and tariffs," said Hayes. "None of that has stopped Trump from trying to get his hands on more of your money."

"The president, in effect, sued himself for more than $10 billion, or he sued the government he controls," said Hayes. "$10 billion, by the way, is nearly the entire annual IRS budget. And those dollars have paid out would come from the U.S. Treasury, which he also oversees. Now, this is so novel, I don't really know how you characterize it legally, like we're out past the frontier, whether legal or not. I am of the strong opinion, and I think many would be also that this is an attempt at the largest theft ever by an American politician, plainly, flagrantly. Blatantly, in plain daylight. It is a conflict of interest so enormous the term itself, conflict of interest hardly begins to capture what's happening."

"In fact, get this: last month, a federal judge in the case ... gave them until May 20th to come back and explain how the case isn't a scam to enrich Trump," said Hayes. "She's like, wait a second, wait a second. The constitution requires cases or controversies, but I don't see one here, she writes. 'Although President Trump avers he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity, he is a sitting president and is named adversaries or entities whose decisions are subject to his direction,' she added ... What the judge is saying is, like, I don't think this is actually a real case. It can't be. You're on both sides." "So the lawyers have one more week to file briefs that would convince the judge to let Trump's $10 billion lawsuit continue," said Hayes. And this, he said, is why the Justice Department is considering settlement talks now, before that deadline: to "shovel tons of cash over to him in return for him dropping the suit. The mob has a word for that: shakedown."

Well, it would be a shakedown if Trump got the money. But as the old adage puts it, there’s many a slip between the cup and the lip.

The judge can still declare the settlement a scam. The DOJ could move to dismiss the case, but that would leave the settlement in limbo. Having already engaged the court to bless this unholy act, they can’t now expect it to be square if they go through with it and try to tell the court to fuck off.

The court has authority, including dismissing the case on its own motion. It doesn’t have to accept the motion to dismiss of the DOJ, especially in these circumstances. You can’t settle a lawsuit that doesn’t exist. And a lawsuit only exists if the court says so. Now, private parties could reach an agreement without a lawsuit. But in that case, it would require some kind of authorization, especially when at least one of the parties is a corporation. Or a government. 

So then there’s Congress.

Put simply, where does this $10 billion come from? The IRS slush fund? Petty cash? A congressional authorization?  Put it this way: the $1 billion authorized by the Senate Judiciary  Committee for the ballroom is about as popular as a whore at a prayer breakfast. 🥞  Trump can’t claim to raise those funds privately (we still don’t know where the money is he claims is paying for the ballroom now. Congress has full authority to ask, and to approve the construction; which means they can ask, and halt construction, in 2027, if they won’t do it now.). Do you think Congress is going to authorize $10 billion for this cause? 

Here I pause to remember the settlement Ken Paxton agreed to with several staff attorneys who sued the Texas AG. Paxton settled that suit, then went to the Lege to get the money. The Lege responded by impeaching Paxton. That effort failed, but the Lege never did authorize the settlement.

If the DOJ agrees the IRS will pay Trump $10 billion, we still have the question: where does the money come from? Government agencies don’t have access to all the cash in the world they could want. The Army is running short of operating funds because it’s still paying for the National Guard to pick up trash in D.C., and paid for deployments in other cities, and for deployments to the region around Iran. Which could mean Congress would have to authorize funds for those troops Trump talks of sending to polling places in November. Thinking things through is not Trump’s strong point.

So where does the money come from? Congressional authorization? Fat chance. From wherever Trump wants to skim it? Grounds for impeachment that even Alito might approve of (he has no say, but you get my point). Wherever it came from, if it did, Congress could claw it back. And they might be inclined to do that before 2027. It certainly won’t be a feather in Republicans’ caps to let it stand as of November. That ballroom’s already unpopular enough.