Look, I'm very sympathetic to the people whose lives were impacted by the lawfare of the Biden administration. I mean, you're talking about hundreds of people whose lives were essentially ruined. They were dealing with years of litigation.
I mean, went into massive $100,000 debt. You're talking about the people who broke into the Capitol, assaulted police officers. No, I'm talking about people who worked with him in the administration who couldn't get jobs, were blacklisted after.
So I'm very sympathetic. Like who? Like Hope Hicks.
You know, people who couldn't get jobs. Hope Hicks was never charged with anything. In today's video, Abby Phillip caught Lydia Moynihan lying on news night with Abby Phillip as tensions erupt over Donald Trump's proposed $1.
7 billion MAGA compensation fund tied to January 6th investigations. Abby Phillip questions the ethics of using taxpayer money for Trump allies while Lydia Moynihan defends the proposal during the heated CNN clash over corruption, accountability, and political favoritism. So let's dive in and watch how Abby Phillip shuts down Lydia Moynihan on Newsnight with Abby Phillip.
Tonight, an unusual proposal from the Trump administration that critics are calling absurd, extraordinary, and outright corrupt. According to ABC, Donald Trump is expected to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for the creation of of a political slush fund for MAGA allies who were investigated by President Biden. Now, the $1.
7 billion weaponization fund for MAGA allies would get out ahead of a judge potentially just dismissing Trump's IRS case, and it would be paid for by taxpayers, according to The New York Times. For months, Trump World has explored the concept of a compensation fund for allies who incurred legal fees during those Biden-era investigations of Trump. And the money would be made available to the nearly 1,600 people with charges related to the Capitol riot.
According to ABC, final terms of the settlement will not be set until they are officially announced. This is on several levels a pretty extraordinary thing. And I think just to understand why we're even talking about this, one thing you've got to know is that The case that Trump has against the government for the IRS might be thrown out simply because he runs the government.
And for obvious reasons, it doesn't really make a lot of sense for his own Justice Department to decide whether or not he gets a massive multibillion dollar payout. So instead, they're going to create a one point seven billion dollar fund to potentially compensate Trump. pardoned January 6th rioters?
How does that work? Look, I'm very sympathetic to the people whose lives were impacted by the lawfare of the Biden administration. I mean, you're talking about hundreds of people whose lives were essentially ruined.
They were dealing with years of litigation. I mean, went into massive $100,000 debt. You're talking about the people who broke into the Capitol, assaulted police officers.
No, I'm talking about people who worked with him in the administration who couldn't get jobs, were blacklisted after. So I'm very sympathetic. Like who?
Like Hope Hicks, people who couldn't get jobs. Hope Hicks was never charged with anything. No, but I'm saying the lawfare, the people who had to spend years of their lives in response, I'm very sympathetic to that.
She was held accountable for upholding an insurrection so people wouldn't hire her? People who happened to be working in the administration to defend America and do what they thought was best, their lives were abandoned. But also, I'm very sympathetic to that.
I don't think she's a great example because Hope Hicks was hired, okay? She was hired in private sector jobs after leaving the administration. She's fine.
My point is I'm very sympathetic to those people. I don't know that this is the mechanism to right that wrong. I think there's a lot of questions about how the funds will be allocated and how it's actually going to be.
I think this puts Todd Bland. This really highlighted why so many Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of taxpayer money being tied to political loyalty. A proposed $1.
7 billion compensation fund connected to Trump allies and January 6th investigations raises huge ethical concerns, especially because there are already legal systems in place for people who believe they were unfairly prosecuted. Courts exist for that exact reason. creating a separate government-backed fund specifically benefiting one political movement makes it look less like justice and more like political favoritism.
Another issue is accountability. Federal prosecutors reported that more than 140 police officers were injured during the Capitol attack And courts convicted multiple participants for violent crimes, obstruction and assault. Even if some people involved were treated unfairly or faced excessive legal pressure, combining everyone into one giant reimbursement program ignores the seriousness of what happened that day.
Taxpayers would essentially be funding legal relief tied to an event many Americans still see as an attack on democratic institutions. There's also a major conflict of interest concern surrounding the timing of this proposal. Reports suggest it surfaced while Trump's lawsuit against the IRS could potentially be dismissed because his own administration now oversees the Justice Department.
That naturally creates skepticism about whether political influence is being used to avoid normal judicial scrutiny. And beyond politics, the numbers themselves are staggering. The proposed fund is larger than the annual budgets of many federal oversight programs.
Yet there are still unanswered questions about who qualifies. how claims would be reviewed, and what safeguards would prevent abuse. That lack of transparency is exactly why critics are alarmed.
At the end of the day, this debate is bigger than left versus right. Whether someone supports Trump or not, government money should never be distributed based on political loyalty without strict oversight, public transparency, and equal legal standards for everyone involved. in a tricky position as well, because Tom Tillis, senator from North Carolina, has said that he is iffy on pushing forth his nomination if Todd Blanch doesn't admit that the people at January 6th committed a crime.
So I think being a part of this fund, it'll be interesting to see how the Justice Department is able to get Todd Blanch forward if this moves forward with the January 6th. Yeah, I'll say on the surface, I mean, it It smells bad when you hear this and you read the stories. But I would make two points.
First, in the New York Times version of this story, they claim that this fund is being fast-tracked, but then at the same time, twice, they say that nothing has been improved, nothing has been finalized. This wouldn't be the first time that stories like this pop up about the administration, something leaks out, it's kind of trial ballooned, and then nothing ever comes of it. The second point is I do believe that people in this country who are wrongfully accused, wrongfully prosecuted, are eligible for restitution.
I'm not saying every single person that we're talking about here should get it. I don't think all 1,600 rioters on January 6th should get a single dime or cent out of this. But if there are people who can make a case that they were wrongfully prosecuted, wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration, then they should have some restitution just like any other American.
That's a generic statement that I think sounds good if you don't pay attention to the details of what we're actually talking about here, which is that these are all people that Trump has already, through an official act, suggested were wrongfully prosecuted. The president is then now saying, potentially, that they're going to create a fund that would allow those very people. .
. There's no mechanism for distinguishing the pardons of cop beaters from anybody else. Right.
They're all pardoned. They could all be. Why would they not all be eligible for this?
Can I just say I want to say very genuinely, I appreciate Lydia and Pete, you all acknowledging how bad this looks. I think it's important that Republicans, that conservatives call this out. My second challenge to you will be, what are you going to do about it?
Because I can just tell you, Donald Trump does things like this all the time. He creates these tests for folks like you. Again, this is still a hypothetical.
It hasn't happened. Let's say hypothetically a billion-dollar slush fund paid by taxpayers is created. I hope that you continue to use your voice the way you do.
And I hope that Republicans in elected office take a cue from you and actually do their job, hold them accountable, do the oversight. And if they don't do the oversight, it's going to be part of the reason why they are not in office come this November. Is that a challenge to Todd Bland?
I think so. This really exposed how quickly a restitution argument turns complicated once you look at how government compensation programs actually work in practice. In the US, claims tied to wrongful prosecution usually go through strict legal channels like the Federal Tort Claims Act or specific civil rights lawsuits where courts examine evidence case by case.
What makes this proposal so controversial is that it appears to bypass those safeguards entirely, bundling a politically charged group into a single potential payout with unclear eligibility rules. Another major concern is precedent. Historically, when governments have created compensation funds, like the 9-11's Victim Compensation Fund or Japanese-American Internment Reparations, they were established through congress with defined criteria independent administrators and bipartisan oversight what's being discussed here according to reporting lacks that legislative structure which is why legal experts are raising red flags about accountability and separation of powers There's also the issue of blanket categorization.
January 6th, defendants span a wide spectrum of conduct, from misdemeanor trespassing to felony assault on law enforcement. The Department of Justice itself documented hundreds of cases involving officers injured in significant property damage at the Capitol. Treating that entire group as uniformly eligible for taxpayer compensation would be inconsistent with how federal restitution programs are normally designed.
And politically, the timing matters. Several Senate Republicans, including members on Judiciary Committees, have already signaled discomfort with nominations tied to January 6th legal interpretations, which suggests this could create downstream confirmation battles if it moves forward. Even beyond partisanship, The transparency problem is hard to ignore.
Without clear eligibility rules, oversight mechanisms, or congressional authorization, it's difficult to see how such a fund could be implemented without triggering legal challenges. That's why critics keep returning to the same point. Sympathy for individual hardship is one thing, but turning a politically connected group into a taxpayer-funded class without strict legal structure opens the door to serious abuse and long-term institutional damage.
I mean, this is uncapped money. It doesn't need congressional approval. I think that's a little tricky.
Yeah, and I mean, to your point, we don't know all the details, right? We don't know the details. We don't know what conditions will be placed.
We don't know if you have to apply. We don't know any of that. So it's all literally tax payers will pay for it.
I guess my point is, really, does it matter? If we're talking about. .
. Details always matter. Absolutely.
If we're talking about a specially created fund for people that the president has determined, for whatever reason, were wrongfully prosecuted, and honestly, mainly because he thinks that everything that was done by Biden was wrong, it doesn't really matter whether you have to fill out an application or not. I mean, isn't the principle. .
. this should or should not be happening? I mean, do you think there's any world in which this should be happening?
I mean, it's probably going to be litigated, just like everything this administration does. But do you think that in any world this should be happening, period? Because there are mechanisms.
If you have a grievance against the government and you're just a regular citizen, you can file your own lawsuit. Why is Trump creating a special pathway for his allies? Well, they've done their homework, and I'm not saying it is right.
I'm not saying it's correct. I don't know all the legalities behind it. But their argument is that this is very similar to an Obama-era fund that was created for Native American farmers.
How is it very similar to that? I said their argument. I didn't say I agree.
I said their argument. I'm telling you what's in the reporting. But they've clearly done enough homework to say, hey, this will be our case if it ends up going to court.
Then courts will decide whether it's right or wrong. I think every Republican in America needs to be asked, do you think that our tax dollars should go to pay off Donald Trump's political grievances? They shouldn't.
Period. This exchange really highlights a bigger constitutional tension that often gets lost in the political back and forth, how taxpayer money can and cannot be distributed without Congress. Under the Appropriations Clause of the US Constitution, federal spending is generally required to be authorized by legislation, which is why most compensation programs in American history Whether for terrorism victims, veterans, or wrongful imprisonment, have gone through formal congressional approval rather than executive design.
That's why critics are raising alarms here. Even in past administrative compensation programs like the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act or Gulf War Claims processes, eligibility criteria were tightly defined and overseen by independent boards to prevent political influence. What's being floated now, by contrast, appears to rely heavily on executive discretion, which immediately triggers separation of powers concerns among legal scholars.
There's also a practical fairness issue. The Department of Justice already has established civil remedies for wrongful prosecution, including Section 1983 civil rights claims and federal tort pathways, where courts, not political actors, decide compensation. Creating a parallel system tied to a president's determination of wrongful prosecution risks bypassing decades of precedent designed to keep justice claims neutral.
And then there's the political optics problem. Public trust in government compensation programs tends to drop sharply when beneficiaries are linked to partisan loyalty rather than objective harm. That's been studied in public administration research from institutions like Brookings and the Congressional Research Service, which consistently emphasize that perceived neutrality is key to legitimacy.
So even if supporters argue precedent or legal justification, the deeper issue remains structure and oversight. Without congressional authorization, transparent criteria, and independent review, any such fund would almost certainly face immediate constitutional challenges and prolonged court scrutiny. That's why skepticism isn't just political, it's institutional.
When public money is involved, process matters just as much as intent. because the system only works when it applies the same rules to everyone, regardless of political alignment. Pause.
Are you getting tired of getting half the story from biased news sources? One outlet says one thing, and another says the complete opposite. How are you supposed to know what's actually true?
That's where Ground News comes in. It lets you compare how different media outlets left, right and center are covering the same story so you can see the full picture instead of just the echo chamber. And here's the best part, click the link in the description and get 40% off the Vantage tier which gives you even deeper insights into media bias and political trends.
Stay informed, think for yourself and check out Ground News in the description down below.
