6 Comments
User's avatar
Tucker Lieberman's avatar

As you observe, the hold to which Trump agreed is only temporary, pending a court case where a judge will make a more permanent decision about whether he can steal this money. Something else I notice: The heavily implied purpose of the $1.776 billion was for Trump to hand out approximately $1 million to each January 6 rioter who had faced federal charges (before Trump pardoned them all, of course). Those hardcore Trump supporters would each really, really like a million dollars in their pocket. For Trump to "offer" them that money, then for Trump to "allow" a judge to put the payout on hold, is Trump's way of building narrative tension. The January 6 rioters must be simmering and saber-rattling right now, more furious by the day. If a court ultimately denies them their payout, they'll riot again. Trump doesn't care if they ever get paid, as long as they stay on his side. He wants his chaos army. It's for spectacle, as always.

Smash the Hype!'s avatar

🧵I certainly hope you’re getting ready to wear that Edward R. Murrow mantle of justice.

Particularly because robber-baron owners are defanging their own media empires (CBS & The Washington Post, for just two), and equally as sad, CBS Radio is no more.

We need a hero. We need a hero REAL BAD!

Tom Cushing's avatar

Isn't it possible that the 'fund' was always merely a shiny object - an outrageous distraction from what he Really cares about - the Family IRS immunity? When the slush fund melts away, we can all congratulate ourselves on democracy's endurance and the Founders' ingenuity. We then move on to some other outrage, leaving the incredibly corrupt immunity intact. It's a standard-issue competitive bargaining tactic - pretend to care about one thing to disguise your interest in something else.

Jonathan Fowler's avatar

This reminds me of some Psych 101 lessons on dissent, specifically Solomon Asch’s 1950s experiments on conformity. There, a solo subject could be manipulated into endorsing obviously and verifiably incorrect bullshit if the group unanimously agreed with that bullshit. The classic experiment used seven “confederates” working with Asch, instructed to lie about the length of three lines. Rather than tell the truth, subjects folded in the face of peer pressure roughly 30% of the time… being the lone wolf was psychologically intolerable for them. BUT if a single dissenter (also in on the gag) was introduced, breaking ranks and going along with the truth, this gave the subject the confidence to call bullshit as such… and the conformity rate dropped from 30% to about 5%. The power of having another strong-willed companion in your midst is wildly underestimated. Dissent has a snowball effect. Maybe the Founding Fathers knew this instinctively when they designed our system of checks and balances? It’s a safeguard against collective delusion on the government level. Unfortunately, and jaw droppingly, when all three branches are under the spell of a grifting jackass, in a cult of shameless greed and performative cruelty, the safeguard falls apart.

Michael AK's avatar

I think you are exactly right. When has Trumo ever cared about giving other people money? He only cares about his own, and he sees the IRS immunity as his golden ticket.