State’s governor looks to thwart US president’s plan to divert money to allies, including January 6 rioters

State’s governor looks to thwart US president’s plan to divert money to allies, including January 6 rioters

California governor Gavin Newsom is looking to thwart Donald Trump’s $1.776bn “anti-weaponization fund” by imposing a 100% tax on any payout received by state residents.

In May, the Department of Justice (DoJ) announced a fund to compensate alleged “victims of lawfare and weaponization”. It’s unclear who qualifies under this category.

The fund was the product of a settlement reached between Trump and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – the agency the president sued over his leaked tax returns.

Critics, including Newsom, have slammed the fund as a “boondoggle” designed to divert money to Trump’s allies. Speculation has swirled that its benefactors could include the individuals who were arrested in the 6 January 2021 siege of the US Capitol. The Trump administration has described the rioters as patriots and since pardoned many who were charged in relation to the attack.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    7·
    2 hours ago

    I like Newsom’s energy in getting attention to another of the administration’s illegal actions

    …. But can this actually happen or is it just noise?

    • Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
      41·
      37 minutes ago

      The police can take money from citizens on suspicion but no evidence of criminal activity.

      Why wouldn’t California be able to take money given to criminals by criminals that was fraudulently taken from the IRS in the first place?

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        1·
        3 minutes ago
        • states do not have jurisdiction over irs, no “standing”
        • the new crime was not perpetrated by the defendant. Trump illegally taking money from IRS as a slush fund to criminals who forward hi s desires is his crime

        I think you’d need to make the argument that a slush fund payout is directly profiting from your crime but you’d have to argue that

      • 7101334@lemmy.world
        1·
        10 minutes ago

        Why wouldn’t California be able to take money given to criminals by criminals that was fraudulently taken from the IRS in the first place?

        Would the Supremacy Clause apply here? Genuinely not sure, because it’s not California superseding federal law per se (as preventing the payments entirely would likely be), it’s just them doing something after-the-fact which is contrary to the goals of the federal government.