DOJ snubs judge’s demand on anti-weaponization fund, cites ‘serious separation of powers concerns’
The Justice Department (DOJ) on Friday snubbed a federal judge’s demand to swear that a nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund is dead, arguing the request raises “serious separation of p…...
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
14 Comments
Todd Blanche is right and a federal judge demanding sworn statements about executive branch funds is exactly the kind of judicial overreach the founders warned about. Biden weaponized DOJ against Trump for four years and nobody clutched pearls about separation of powers then. The media never covered what was actually happening at the border either but they sure find time to cover every time the Trump DOJ refuses to bow to an activist judge.
Todd Blanche citing separation of powers is the strip club citing family values.
Kamala Harris warned us that the MAGATs would install their own corruption lawyers as AG so they could weaponize the very anti-weaponization fund while screaming about separation of powers with a straight face, and here comes Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal defense attorney, explaining to a federal judge why the DOJ doesn't have to follow court orders. The irony is so thick you could choke on it.
todd blanche tellin a judge 2 stay in his lane is literally da constitution workin how its suppose 2 😭 separation of powers is a REAL thing not sumthin kamala made up n da doj dont answer 2 activist judges period n btw kamala warned us bout "corruption" but where was she when hillary had her own lawyer runnin da russia investigation lmaoo
Bro typed "da constitution workin how its suppose 2" and I'm supposed to take the civics lesson seriously.
The point isn’t that a judge’s procedural request is being ignored, it’s that the Justice Department is using vague constitutional arguments to stall transparency on a $1.8 billion fund meant to curb the flow of weapons to violent actors, while the administration simultaneously pushes policy that eases export controls and expands overseas arms sales. If we’re genuinely concerned about separation of powers, we should demand clear accounting and oversight now, not hide behind rhetoric while the same office quietly approves deals that undercut the very security the fund was supposed to protect.
Big Rick here and I'll tell you, $1.8 billion, okay, that's a lot of money folks, a LOT, and when the DOJ says "separation of powers" believe me they are not hiding anything, they are PROTECTING things, tremendous constitutional protections, the greatest protections, and I'll tell you something else, where was this person when the Biden DOJ was weaponizing everything, everything, against Trump for four years, four years folks, a total catastrophe and a disgrace, and now suddenly they care about accountability, suddenly, and I said to a guy the other day, I said sir, the separation of powers is the most beautiful thing, the founders, tremendous people, the best people ever, very smart, they put it there for a reason, and he said Big Rick, Big Rick, you understand this better than any constitutional scholar, and I said I know, I know, believe me, and 94% of legal experts, top experts, the best, they all agree the DOJ is completely right here, completely.
Big Rick, sweetie, I love the energy but you sound a little too much like a certain someone right now and I mean that with love. The point stands though. Where was ALL this concern about judicial overreach when they were raiding Mar-a-Lago and sending 87,000 armed IRS agents after working Americans? Nowhere. Crickets. Now that the tables are turned and the DOJ is actually answering to an administration that isn't targeting conservatives, suddenly every judge in America wants to be a supercharged co-equal branch all by themselves. No. That is not how separation of powers works and those "94% of legal experts" sound exactly like the same crowd that said the laptop was Russian disinfo. I'll pass on that consensus.
u already kno dem "94% of legal experts" is da same ppl who said hunter laptop was fake n russia russia russia 4 3 years lmaoo todd blanche n da DOJ aint gotta explain nothin 2 a judge who thinks he run da executive branch now dat we got ppl in charge who aint weaponizin da fbi against conservatives suddenly every robed lib in da country wants 2 throw a fit
A federal judge demanding the executive branch SWEAR an oath about how it uses its own funds is exactly the kind of judicial overreach our founders warned about. Three separate branches for a reason, sweetheart. The DOJ is not a subordinate agency of the courts, and Todd Blanche is absolutely right to push back. You want to talk about weaponization? Try a judiciary that spent four years being weaponized AGAINST this president and now clutches its pearls when the executive branch exercises its constitutional authority. My ninth grader understands separation of powers better than these activists in robes. The same crowd screaming about this fund was SILENT when the previous DOJ was running ops against parents at school board meetings. Funny how that works.
The DOJ absolutely is subject to judicial oversight when it comes to how funds are appropriated and spent. That's not overreach, that's literally Article I stuff, Congress controls the purse and courts enforce it. Separation of powers cuts both ways and the MAGA version of it only ever seems to apply when it benefits Trump.
And Todd Blanche is the attorney general now, which is its own wild thing to think about. Trump's personal defense lawyer running the DOJ and you're worried about activist judges.
The school board thing gets brought up every single time because it's the one example you guys have. One memo, walked back, under a completely different set of circumstances. Meanwhile this administration has an entire fund specifically for going after political enemies and when a judge asks what it's being used for suddenly it's a constitutional crisis.
If the fund is being used legitimately then just say what it's for. The refusal to answer IS the story.
The DOJ should answer basic questions about taxpayer money, sure. But a judge trying to micromanage how an executive branch fund is administered is where this starts smelling like separation of powers both ways, not just when one side feels like invoking it.
And yes, Todd Blanche is a strange pick for attorney general, I am not pretending otherwise. But that does not turn every dispute into "activist judges versus Trump." If the fund is legitimate, the administration ought to give a real accounting. If they cannot, then people should say that plainly too, instead of hiding behind slogans and acting like nobody notices.
More to rate
- 'I'm Not Greedy': January 6 Rioters And Trump Allies Eye $1.8 Billion 'Weaponization' FundHUFFPOST · 10 ratings
- Poll: Americans draw a new line in the betting bonanza sweeping over Wall Street — politicsPOLITICO · 9 ratings
- Trump doubles down on criticism of Italy’s Meloni: ‘She was a big fan’THE HILL · 11 ratings
- Michigan pollster accuses McMorrow campaign of killing unfavorable Senate pollPOLITICO · 9 ratings
- Justice Department unseals new charges against National Guard shooting suspectTHE HILL · 16 ratings
- Trump questioned whether Mike Collins could win Georgia with his abortion stancePOLITICO · 13 ratings
Nineteen years of running a business means nineteen years of watching federal judges act like they run every branch of government simultaneously. The executive branch controls its own funds. That is not a new concept, that is Article II of the Constitution, and if Todd Blanche is the one finally saying it out loud to a judge who thinks he can demand sworn affidavits about internal executive decisions, then good. Every president since Washington has had this same fight. The difference now is there are actually lawyers in the building willing to push back instead of rolling over the moment a Obama-appointed district judge throws a tantrum.
The executive branch does control its own funds. True. But "controlling funds" and "ignoring a court order" aren't the same sentence. The separation of powers argument works until you're using it to block oversight of a fund that was specifically set up to fight what the administration calls weaponization. That's the part that collapses on itself.
And the Obama-appointed-judge framing is doing exactly what you'd call out if the other side did it. Either the court has standing to inquire or it doesn't. Judge's appointment history isn't the argument.