"The Department of Justice’s grift store for friends and supporters of the president, laying a solid foundation for settlement payouts, should be an affront to every taxpayer in America"

In the past few weeks, Michael Flynn, a 2016 Trump campaign adviser, seems to have benefited twice from DOJ largesse. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about discussions with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 transition — a case that was dismissed after President Trump pardoned him.

Not satisfied with the good fortune of a pardon and dismissal, Flynn sued the government, alleging malicious prosecution and related claims. 

The DOJ, which had been successfully fighting the case, reversed course under the Trump administration, paying a reported $1.25 million taxpayer-funded settlement to Flynn. And just days ago, the government submitted a court filing asserting it had reached yet another settlement in principle with Flynn on a different claim.

The DOJ also reportedly paid $1.25 million to former 2016 Trump campaign adviser Carter Page for his claims against the government relating to the Russia investigation, notwithstanding that lower courts had dismissed Page’s lawsuit and an appeal was pending.

At the start of his second term, Trump continued to upend history’s retelling of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by issuing blanket clemency to more than 1,600 January 6 riot defendants and absolving the attackers from owing restitution for the millions in damages they caused. Many of those pardoned have become repeat offenders.

Now, in a display of jaw-dropping audacity, pardoned January 6 rioters have sued the federal government for tens of millions of dollars for alleged physical and emotional damages caused by the police seeking to repel the attacks. 

Another DOJ settlement seems more likely in light of the department’s recent move to vacate the conspiracy and sedition convictions against Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders. Poly-market is likely planning its betting odds on how long the pardon-to-payout pipeline will take before a taxpayer funded settlement from the DOJ is achieved.

In this administration, loyalty and personal benefit are mutually reinforcing. It’s worth comparing, as the grift grows, the government’s efforts to protect its friends and supporters from accountability with this country’s treatment of wrongly convicted individuals. The justice system has long been marred by the numbers of people who have languished in prison for years, seeking to prove their innocence.

Those who are fortunate enough to ultimately be exonerated struggle — often unsuccessfully — to receive any compensation. Unlike those who are pardoned, an exonerated prisoner is declared innocent in the eyes of the law, as opposed to being forgiven by a presidential benefactor.

The settlements to Trump’s cronies, however, may merely be practice for the ultimate payment to the president and his family that would result in one of the most brazen examples of public corruption in history.

The president, his two sons, and The Trump Organization have sued the Internal Revenue Service — an agency the president oversees — for $10 billion, alleging the IRS disclosed confidential tax information to the media. The president had previously filed claims before the DOJ seeking $230 million as compensation for grievances that included the search for classified documents at Trump’s Florida home and the Russia investigation.

The president controls both sides of these cases. 

Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general and Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer, demonstrates the same slavish devotion to the president that his fired predecessor, Pam Bondi, exhibited.

While recently defending the firing of DOJ lawyers for working on assigned cases during the prior administration, Blanche stated that, if he is not nominated as attorney general or otherwise retained at DOJ, he would thank the president and say, “I love you, sir.”

The president requested, with the DOJ’s consent, an extension of a key deadline in his IRS suit, claiming that the parties were engaging in settlement discussions. If the DOJ resolves this case for even a fraction of the billions sought, it will validate its disdain toward the taxpaying public and its contempt for conflict-of-interest requirements.

Paying taxes is an act of trust that is based on an expectation that the government will use those funds to perform essential functions on behalf of the public. DOJ settlements and potential settlements with the administration’s friends and supporters (and possibly the president and his family) undermine its responsibility to seek accountability and serve as a stunning breach of that trust at the taxpayers’ expense.

Lauren Stiller Rikleen is the executive director of Lawyers Defending American Democracy and the editor of Her Honor—Stories of Challenge and Triumph from Women Judges.

---

The Contrarian is reader-supported. To receive new posts, enable our work, help with litigation efforts, and keep this opposition movement alive and engaged, please consider joining the fight by becoming a paid subscriber.