Trump on Saturday said the deal would lead to the Strait of Hormuz being opened but did not mention Iranian management of the waterway. The Fars news agency, which is linked to Iran’s government, said Trump’s remarks about the Strait of Hormuz were “inconsistent with reality.”
Fars said that under the terms of the deal, Iran would allow the number of ships passing through the strait to return to “pre-war” levels, but that this would not “in any way mean ‘free passage’” through the strait, as Trump had contended.
So Chump lied? Again? That's what he's known for: Lying. For example, Satuday, Daniel Dale (CNN) published "Fact check: 28 separate false claims Trump made this week." Sunday, members of Chump's own party are complaining about the so-called 'deal.' Minho Kim (NEW YORK TIMES) reports:
Senate Republicans cast doubt on the viability of a potential peace deal between the United States and Iran over the weekend as President Trump doubled down in support of his administration’s negotiations to end the nearly three-month-old war.
U.S. and Iranian officials have described an emerging framework that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and in which, U.S. officials say, Iran would commit to disposing of its highly enriched uranium. Iranian officials have also said that nuclear matters would be negotiated within 30 to 60 days.
“It doesn’t make too much sense to me,” Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Mr. Tillis called the Iranians’ commitment to reopening the Strait of Hormuz “questionable” without a finalized peace deal, adding that “there are a lot of things that need to be explained.”
On Saturday, Senator Roger Wicker, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote on social media that a “60-day ceasefire — with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith — would be a disaster.”
Mr. Trump shot back on social media on Sunday afternoon, calling any deal he would negotiate “good and proper” and saying that such criticism was coming from “losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about.” He had announced on Saturday that the United States and Iran “largely negotiated” an agreement to end the war.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) delivered a scathing assessment of Donald Trump's Iran ceasefire Sunday, welcoming the end of the war while warning that the deal represents a humiliating capitulation to Tehran that leaves the United States weaker than when the conflict began.
"If this deal with Iran is real, I will welcome it because every day this insane war goes on, America gets weaker," Murphy wrote in a detailed thread on X. "But make no mistake: these are Iran's terms. Our nation emerges humiliated."
Murphy laid out his case methodically. The deal, as he understands it, gives Iran billions of dollars to return to essentially the same position it was in before the war started — while reports suggest it may also codify Iran's right to control the Strait of Hormuz, the critical waterway that has remained at the centerpiece of the violent conflict.
Chump claimed to have a peace deal on Saturday but events and comments have called that into question. Josh Marshall (TPM) notes, "With the latest “peace deal” now perhaps receding into what we might call the eternal “two weeks” I wanted to provide some mix of guidance or thoughts on what is going on. How do we go from a peace deal that is all but inked (despite only being a ceasefire and agreement to negotiate) to now where the deal is drifting off into the distance and Trump is adding new demands on Truth Social?" And last night? Another strike. Aaron Boxerman, Tyler Pager, Eric Schmitt, Ephrat Livni and Sanam Mahoozi (NEW YORK TIMES) report:
Hours after Iranian negotiators arrived in Qatar for talks on ending the war, U.S. forces struck missile launch sites in Iran and boats trying to emplace mines, American officials said Monday night.
U.S. Central Command characterized the strikes in southern Iran as defensive and said they had been intended “to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces.”
The strikes came on a day when Israel signaled that it planned to intensify its fight against the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Andre Damon (WSWS) points out, "The Trump administration confronts a deepening crisis over its failure to achieve its aims in the Iran war. It had hoped that murdering Iran’s leaders would trigger rapid regime change. When that failed, it turned to massive bombardment of the country, followed by an economic blockade. None of these methods have broken Iran’s resistance."
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards warned on Tuesday that any violation of the cease-fire would justify a “decisive reciprocal response,” after the U.S. military said it had carried out strikes in southern Iran. The warning, carried by IRNA, Iran’s state news agency, underscored the fragility of diplomatic efforts to extend the truce.
IRNA also reported that the Guards said that they had shot down an U.S. military drone and fired on a U.S. fighter jet. The claims could not be independently verified.
Grand juries are the heart of the criminal justice system, the inner sanctum where prosecutors, working unchecked and in secret, have enormous power to indict their fellow citizens.
But under President Trump, the Justice Department has had serious difficulties presenting cases to grand juries, running into problems that would have seemed unthinkable a year ago.
In the past several months, prosecutors have repeatedly failed to persuade grand juries that the cases they have brought warrant criminal charges. And if it were not unusual enough, they have also been admonished at least three times since last November by federal judges who have accused them of misconduct.
The latest setback came in Chicago, where a judge cited a remarkable list of grand jury errors as her reason for dismissing charges against four Democratic activists about to face trial for impeding the police during a protest last fall at a suburban immigration detention facility.
The blunders shocked the judge, April M. Perry, who recounted from the bench on Thursday how prosecutors had spoken to grand jurors outside the grand jury room — a major breach of protocol — and had improperly coached them that the evidence they had presented was particularly strong.
The prosecutors also stacked the deck in their own favor by removing from the panel some grand jurors who had voted against them when considering an earlier version of the charges. Making matters even worse, they tried to hide these maneuvers by redacting the grand jury transcripts — that is, until Judge Perry ordered them to give her the full copies.
The government’s missteps were bad enough to necessitate tossing out the case against the critics of the president’s immigration plan just days before it was supposed to go to trial.
Chump's slush fund.
David Horsey (SEATTLE TIMES) points out, "The Justice Department was virtually certain to prevail over Trump’s weak case, but, instead of going for the win before a judge, Blanche helpfully decided to just give Trump close to $2 billion of taxpayer money." US House Rep Jamie Raskin announced in THE NEW YORK TIMES, "This week I introduced legislation to put a stop to this. It would bar the federal government from paying out monetary settlements to sitting presidents. It would also prohibit settlement payments for claims involving investigations or prosecutions related to Jan. 6 or foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election." But will it be enough to stop the corruption of Chump?
So much is wrong about the slush fund. For those new to it, Patrick Reis and Ian Prasad Philbrick (SLATE's THE SURGE) review:
Last week, the Surge explained the sordid tale of Trump suing the IRS and Treasury Department for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns, noting that the door was open to some sort of ridiculous settlement in which the president’s Department of Justice lackeys would shovel money to Trump and his allies. And wow did they waltz right through that open door.
This week, Trump (the administration) settled with Trump (the person), with the latter getting an apology and the former agreeing not to audit any of Trump’s past returns. Somehow more egregiously, the government is setting up a $1.776 billion fund (get it? Like the year 1776!) for “victims of lawfare and weaponization”—the administration’s term for people investigated or prosecuted for, you know, breaking a lot of laws during Trump’s first term and during Joe Biden’s. So who gets the cash? Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche gets to establish a five-member commission to decide who gets to feed from the trough. We don’t yet know to whom exactly the money will flow, but we do know when the flow will stop: The fund expires in December 2028, about a month before Trump’s term ends.
Across the political spectrum, people are aghast over the illegal move to create this slush fund. Patrick Martin (WSWS) offers this take:
The fund—approved by the Trump White House and the Trump Justice Department in negotiations conducted between Trump and his former personal lawyer Todd Blanche, the acting Attorney General—is an act of presidential usurpation of congressional authority without precedent in American history.
Trump agreed to drop his bogus $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for supposed negligence in the leak of his tax returns to the New York Times. In exchange, Blanche—who takes his orders from Trump and hopes to remove the “acting” from his title—agreed to set aside $1.776 billion in US government funds to pay compensation to individuals claiming to have been unfairly investigated or prosecuted by the administration of Democrat Joe Biden.
The establishment of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” through the actions of the executive branch alone is a direct and brazen violation of the US Constitution. Article I, establishing Congress as the primary branch of government, declares: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” thus vesting the spending power in Congress, not the president.
A second feature of the Trump-Blanche deal is a one-page addendum, released by the Justice Department Wednesday, which, in the all-caps style favored by Trump in his incessant social media posts, “RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES” Trump, his sons and his business entities from claims that “have been or could have been asserted” by federal defendants or “other agencies or departments.” This would include suppressing all ongoing reviews of their tax returns, which have become a byword for deception and fraud.
This addendum comes just short of two years since the US Supreme Court, in its notorious decision in Trump v. United States, held that Trump—and by extension any president—was immune from prosecution for any action he took, no matter how criminal, in the course of exercising his powers as chief of the executive branch.
In effect, Trump has now been immunized both for his public actions and his private actions.
Todd Blanche has demonstrated that he's incapable of being acting attorney general because he doesn't understand the law. Sabrina Haake outlines the wrongfulness with regards to Chump's attorney Todd Blanche and how he has distorted and broken the law with this slush fund
Because Blanche served as Trump’s personal criminal lawyer prior to assuming the AG role, he explicitly swore during his Senate confirmation hearing that he would recuse himself from any case relating to Trump personally, if advised to do so by government ethics lawyers. Blanche was, in fact, advised to recuse by government ethics lawyers, who presented Blanche a PowerPoint presentation on DOJ ethics that explicitly detailed his recusal requirement.
Blanche did not recuse. Instead he fired the lawyer who so advised him, and continued representing the DOJ in Trump’s personal lawsuit seeking a preposterous $10 billion from the IRS. Trump filed the suit in his personal capacity, after a contracted IRS employee embarrassed him by revealing that Trump paid only $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017, and paid zero in federal income taxes for ten years before that.
Blanche, who is legally required to represent the public interest on behalf of the federal government, engineered Trump’s $1.8 billion theft of the U.S. treasury before a judge could stop it.
Trump filed his IRS complaint in January 2026. By April, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams had expressed obvious doubts about the merits of the case because Trump was both plaintiff and defendant. If a party sits on both sides of lawsuit, there’s no real case in controversy as required under Article III of the Constitution, and the court lacks jurisdiction to even hear the case. Seeing the obvious flaw, Judge Williams ordered both parties to file legal briefs addressing “whether a case and controversy” even existed by May 20.
Instead of submitting legally vacuous arguments, Blanche sought formal dismissal of the complaint, which was granted. Blanche then announced the “anti-weaponization fund” to “settle” a case that had already been dismissed on his request. It is important to understand that after a case is formally dismissed, there’s nothing left to settle. The court did not approve the ‘settlement,’ having never acceded to jurisdiction over the claim in the first place.
The $1.776 billion “resolution” was not authorized by any statute either. Blanche claims that 31 U.S.C. § 1304authorizes it, but the Judgment Fund is statutorily limited to paying legal settlements and judgments against the United States, which this was not, because there was no case in controversy, no jurisdiction, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, there was no judgment, and no “settlement” was approved by any court. The $1.8 billion fund is simply untethered from the law or case, Blanche’s own legal invention to hold open the treasury cookie jar while Trump dug deep.
The deal Blanche approved in Trump’s IRS lawsuit also granted Trump Audit Immunity through a highly controversial addendum that forever seals and ends any IRS investigation or audit into Trump, his family members, and his businesses. Blanche signed the addendum on behalf of the citizens whose interests he is supposed to represent.
Blanche is licensed to practice law in New York. All practicing lawyers, including those employed by the government, are bound by ethics rules, standards, and commitments. Under the American Bar Association’s model Rules, a lawyer cannot assist a client in breaking the law, nor can they advise a client how to commit a crime or fraud with impunity. They can explain legal consequences, including the scope and application of laws, but they cannot help their client get around them.
In pursuing money on behalf of a former client at the expense of a current client, Blanche is not only violating long-standing conflict of interest rules, he is also concocting another violation of the 14th Amendment. Blanche is obviously planning illegal payments to white supremacists and J6 insurrectionists who attacked the US capital. When asked to deny that plan, Blanche refused, repeatedly.
The 14th Amendment could not be any clearer that the US shall not “assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States…” but Blanche appears to be helping Trump get around it. The only reason to openly violate the 14th Amendment by paying J6 insurrectionists up to $1 million each is to reward them and publicly inspire others to do it again at Trump’s behest. Blanche not only helped Trump break the law with this IRS heist, but also seems to be paving the way for Trump’s future criminality.
A lawsuit was filed last week. Nia Prater (NEW YORK) notes:
It also gave rapid rise to legal challenges. On Wednesday, officers who fended off rioters on January 6 filed the first lawsuit to block the fund. And 93 House Democrats, represented by former New Jersey attorney general Matt Platkin and his firm, Platkin LLP, filed an amicus brief challenging the settlement as unconstitutional. But will this be enough to block payments from going out? I spoke with Platkin about the legal recourse to the Trump administration’s brazen new plan.
You are representing 93 House Democrats in a brief challenging the settlement, arguing that the lawsuit runs afoul of Article III of the U.S. Constitution and that Trump’s “blatant self-dealing makes this matter a collusive suit.” Could you walk me through your position?
For
people to get into court, there has to be an actual conflict between
them. They actually have to disagree. Like, you can’t call somebody up
and say, “Hey, I’m going to sue you. You’re going to settle this. Let’s
go in and do it together and it’ll sort of work out for everyone.” That’s
a collusive suit, which is illegal under our Constitution. So, in order
for a court to have jurisdiction, there has to be actual adversity and,
without that actual adversity, the Department of Justice can’t just
settle a suit.
That prevents you from doing exactly what the president did, essentially somebody in a position of power or with connections calling up the government and saying, “Hey, I want you to pay me. I want you to do something. I’ll just sue you, you’ll settle it out, and we’ll be done.” That’s what happened here, and that’s why we weighed in. But the 93 members weighed in to say that the judge, even if they settled the case, could have asked some tough questions of the parties.
Allison Detzel (MS NOW) quotes legal analyst Andrew Weissmann who states, "I understand why people are concerned about how the money would be spent, but I really think it’s important for people to focus on this: The money should never be used at all in the first place." Because Chump and Blanche can't create a slush fund. Yes, the money shouldn't go to January 6ers but there is no money there to begin with. Congress is in charge of the purse. Congress has not created any funding for this slush fund. There's so much wrong with this.
And Dan Mangan and Kevin Breuninger (CNBC) noted that two more cases were filed on Friday:
Two new lawsuits challenging the creation of the controversial $1.8 billion ’lawfare” fund by the Department of Justice were filed Friday in federal courts in Washington, D.C. and Virginia.
The civil complaints come as several members of Congress have introduced legislation to block the fund, and as President Donald Trump and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche have defended it.
The two suits say the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund, which was set up as part of a settlement of a $10 billion lawsuit by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service, violate the federal Administrative Procedure Act. One also alleges that it violates the U.S. Constitution, while the other says it violates the Freedom of Information Act.
In other news, Steve Holland, Andy Sullivan, Richard Cowan and Nandita Bose (REUTERS) reported on Sunday:
A billion dollars for his ballroom "is peanuts," he says. He says as Americans struggle to buy groceries. Ruth Igielnik (NEW YORK TIMES) reports:
Concern about rising prices has reached a fever pitch as Americans sit down to Memorial Day barbecues across the country. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents said that they had changed their purchases from grocery stores to stay within budget in the last several months, according to polling from CNN.
Another 59 percent of Americans said they had cut back on extras and entertainment.
More than three quarters of Americans, including 55 percent of Republicans, said President Trump’s policies had increased the cost of living in their community.
Survey after survey has found that Americans are feeling growing financial uncertainty. Nearly half of all voters gave the economy the lowest rating, “poor,” in the latest New York Times/Siena poll, up 11 percentage points since January.
And economic confidence has hit a four-year low, according to Gallup.
But Chump insists that a billion dollars spent on a ballroom would be "peanuts."
New settlement terminates all pending audits of Trump, his family, and businesses, creates $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund for Trump allies
Senators open probe into whether agreement breaks federal laws or is consistent with IRS procedures
“(The settlement) essentially (makes) it official United States government policy that President Trump, his family, and many other allies are above the law.”
Text of Letter to Admin (PDF) / Text of Letter to TIGTA (PDF)
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, demanded answers from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) CEO Frank Bisignano on the “outrageously corrupt settlement agreement” that the Treasury Department and IRS recently entered into with President Trump. The lawmakers also wrote to the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), requesting that the IG immediately open an investigation into this untrammeled corruption.
“Through this settlement, you and the President have created a nearly $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund for the President’s political allies, including potentially the January 6th insurrectionists…essentially making it official United States government policy that President Trump, his family, and many other allies are above the law,” wrote the lawmakers.
Earlier this year, President Trump sued Treasury and the IRS for $10 billion over leaks of his tax information which occurred during his first term, creating an unprecedented situation where the President acted as plaintiff while wielding authority over the defendants. This week, in exchange for President Trump dropping the lawsuit, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reached an agreement with Treasury and the IRS establishing a nearly $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” for so-called victims of “weaponization” of the federal government. Multiple Trump administration officials have suggested that January 6th insurrectionists could be eligible for payouts from this fund.
“This agreement appears to be a brazen scheme to corruptly dole out taxpayer money to President Trump’s allies and violent insurrectionists,” wrote the lawmakers. “There appears to be no binding limitation that would prevent the President and his family from dipping into the settlement fund for as much money as they want.”
Just one day after the settlement agreement was announced, DOJ issued an addendum requiring the IRS to permanently drop all pending audits or other enforcement actions involving President Trump, his family, his businesses, and “related or affiliated individuals.”
“This is an astonishing abuse of presidential power and a corrupt giveaway of an unknown amount of taxpayer funds to the President,” wrote the lawmakers. “There is no conceivable rationale for this immunity agreement other than to personally enrich the President and his family by allowing them to get away with underpaying their taxes or violating tax law.”
The lawmakers also argue that the agreement appears to be illegal on its face, as DOJ lacks the legal authority to terminate audits unrelated to a case referred to DOJ, and federal law bars the President and Treasury Secretary from “directly or indirectly” requesting the IRS to terminate any ongoing audits.
The lawmakers pressed for more information on the circumstances surrounding the settlement agreement, including: whether any laws or IRS procedures were violated with this agreement, details of the agencies’ deliberations on how to respond to the lawsuit, the President and White House’s role in negotiating the settlement, the list of individuals and organizations covered by the audit exemption, and the enforcement actions and audits being dropped due to the agreement.
Senator Warren has led Congressional efforts to prevent President Trump and his family from corruptly profiting from their positions:
- In April 2026, Senator Warren (D-Mass.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), along with Representatives Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Dave Min (D-Calif.)introduced the Ban Presidential Plunder of Taxpayer Funds Act, a new bill to ban the Presidents and Vice Presidents from abusing their power to steal taxpayer funds.
- In March 2026, following the Trump sons’ investment in Powerus, a drone company, Senators Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) sent follow-up questions to the Pentagon on potential conflicts of interest and corruption involving the President’s family and the defense contracting process.
- In January 2026, Senators Warren (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Andy Kim (D-N.J.), opened an investigation into potential corruption related to the awarding of multiple lucrative defense contracts and loans to companies associated with President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr.
- In December 2025, Senator Warren (D-Mass.) and Representative Dave Min (D-Calif.) led their colleagues in questioning seven giant corporations on their reported donations to President Trump’s White House ballroom and whether there were any quid-pro-quo arrangements connected to them. The corporations — Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, Comcast, and Union Pacific Railroad — all have antitrust business pending in front of the Trump administration, raising concerns about influence-peddling and bribery.
- In November 2025. Senator Warren (D-Mass.) and Representative Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) introduced the Stop Ballroom Bribery Act to root out apparent bribery and corruption involving President Trump’s ballroom, the first piece of legislation addressing the ballroom that would impose donation restrictions.
- In July 2025, Senator Warren (D-Mass.) released a new report exposing how companies, special interests, and foreign governments may be pledging donations to President Trump’s future Presidential Library as a corrupt tool to secure favorable outcomes from his administration.
###
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Idiot of the Week3 days ago
-
The worthless Chump3 days ago
-
-
Chump is a very old man3 days ago
-
-
