‘It's clearly unconstitutional’: Raskin on potential Trump-IRS settlement

Key Concepts

• Congressional Power of the Purse: The constitutional authority (Article I) granted exclusively to Congress to appropriate federal funds.
• Judgment Fund: A permanent, indefinite appropriation established in the 1960s to pay court judgments and settlements against the U.S. government.
• Emoluments Clauses: Constitutional provisions (Foreign and Domestic) prohibiting the President from accepting payments, gifts, or titles from foreign states or receiving financial benefits from the federal government beyond their salary.
• Seditious Conspiracy: A criminal charge involving the conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the United States.
• Political Slush Fund: A term used to describe the unauthorized or improper use of government funds for political patronage or personal gain.

---

1. The Proposed $1.7 Billion Settlement

Congressman Jamie Raskin characterizes the proposed $1.7 billion Department of Justice settlement—intended for individuals pardoned for their roles in the January 6th riots—as a "fraud" and an unconstitutional act.

• Constitutional Argument: Raskin argues that the executive branch lacks the authority to create such a fund. Under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress has the power to appropriate money.
• 14th Amendment Violation: Raskin cites Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which explicitly prohibits the federal government from paying for "insurrection or rebellion." He argues that providing $1 million to each of the 1,600 pardoned rioters constitutes an unconstitutional use of taxpayer funds.
• Misuse of the Judgment Fund: While the administration reportedly models this on historical precedents (such as payments to Native Americans), Raskin distinguishes the two. He notes that the Judgment Fund is intended for valid legal claims proven through due process, whereas he views this proposal as a "political grievance fund" designed to pay off political allies.

2. Congressional Strategy and Oversight

Raskin emphasizes that Congress must act as a check on the executive branch, rather than relying solely on the judiciary.

• Legislative Action: Raskin asserts that House Democrats will move to block the funding. He calls on Republican colleagues to join this effort, arguing that the protection of congressional spending power is a non-partisan constitutional necessity.
• Judicial Skepticism: Raskin expresses doubt regarding the speed and impartiality of the current Supreme Court (the "Roberts Court"), suggesting it may be too slow or ideologically aligned with the administration to provide a timely remedy.

3. Financial Ethics and Presidential Conduct

The discussion extends to the broader financial dealings of the Trump administration and the systemic issue of ethics in government.

• Individual Stock Trading: Raskin advocates for a total ban on individual stock trading for members of Congress to prevent the exploitation of "political inside information." He suggests that officials should be limited to blind trusts or mutual funds managed by third parties.
• Presidential Profiteering: Raskin alleges that the Trump administration has systematically converted the presidency into a "money-making operation." He claims the President’s net worth has grown to over $11.6 billion while in office, citing this as evidence of a violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause.
• Emoluments Clause Violations: Raskin argues that the administration violates the Foreign Emoluments Clause daily by accepting payments from foreign entities, and the Domestic Emoluments Clause by seeking to extract funds from the federal government beyond the presidential salary.

4. Notable Quotes

• "Congress never voted on creating this 1.7 billion dollar political slush fund at the Department of Justice. And Congress would never pass that."
• "The idea that Donald Trump can just pass it out like a pardon is absurd."
• "We've got to ban individual stock trading, which is just an invitation to mischief and corruption."
• "The entire project of the Trump administration is to make him and his family as much money as possible."

---

Synthesis and Conclusion

Congressman Jamie Raskin’s position is that the proposed $1.7 billion settlement is a flagrant violation of the separation of powers and the 14th Amendment. He argues that the executive branch is attempting to bypass the legislative branch’s "power of the purse" to reward political allies. Beyond this specific settlement, Raskin frames the issue as part of a broader pattern of corruption, advocating for stricter ethics laws regarding stock trading and a rigorous enforcement of the Emoluments Clauses to prevent the presidency from being used for personal financial enrichment. He concludes that Congress must assert its constitutional authority to halt these actions, as he views the current judicial landscape as potentially ineffective.