Announcing President Donald Trump’s new $1.776 billion fund for people targeted through “lawfare” in the nation’s courts, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche insisted “the machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American.”
Three days later, a federal judge in Chicago revealed that an indictment against six Operation Midway Blitz protesters was the result of alleged misconduct by prosecutors — conduct that left her “incredibly shocked.”
The defendants, known as the “Broadview Six,” are largely involved in Democratic politics in Chicago. But now, their attorneys say they might apply for relief under Trump’s new “anti-weaponization fund” after the case was dismissed.
“You want an example of weaponization?” Christopher Parente, one of their defense attorneys, told reporters when charges were dropped on May 21. “You’ve got prosecutors going into the grand jury targeting political candidates and political figures improperly. These guys should be Exhibit 1.”
It’s highly unlikely the six protesters, including progressive former congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh, are the intended targets of what critics are calling a “slush fund” for Trump’s allies.
Still, their application could serve as a test of the fund’s purportedly nonpartisan nature.
It’s also possible that, if they accept money from the Trump fund, they’d be giving up any relief they might secure in a federal courtroom down the road. Anyone who chooses to do so, records show, “must forgo all other relief, including judicial relief.”
Controversy and claims of wrongdoing
The fund was created May 18 in exchange for Trump and two of his sons dropping their $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of their tax returns. The Trumps also agreed to drop two separate administration claims against the federal government.
The fund will be overseen by five commissioners appointed by Blanche, one of whom will be selected in consultation with congressional leadership. Trump will have the authority to fire any of them.
“The use of government power to target individuals or entities for improper and unlawful political, personal, or ideological reasons should not be tolerated by any Administration,” Trent McCotter, an official in the Department of Justice, wrote in a statement announcing the fund.
The feds have provided few additional details on how the fund will operate or who exactly will be eligible for compensation. But Blanche told a Senate subcommittee anyone can apply regardless of political affiliation.
Michael Caputo, a longtime Trump ally who served as a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services during his first term, appears to have submitted the first known claim to the fund.
Caputo argued he and his family were targeted in the “illegal” Crossfire Hurricane investigation into potential Russian interference in the 2016 election. He’s requesting $2.7 million in restitution and reimbursement from the fund.
Another prominent ally, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, also said he plans to file a claim. And former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, convicted for his role in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, said he would seek millions.
But the fund is already facing political and legal challenges.
A law professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents during an immigration protest and a fired federal prosecutor who helped lead the investigation of the U.S. Capitol riot have sued to block the fund. So have two U.S. Capitol police officers who defended the building, calling the fund the “most brazen act of presidential corruption this century.”
“President Donald J. Trump has created a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name,” the lawsuit states.
What does this mean for the ‘Broadview Six’?
The Broadview defendants are far from Trump allies.
The group was charged in the midst of Operation Midway Blitz, the Trump administration’s pummeling deportation campaign in the Chicago area last year. They were accused of joining a larger group of people who surrounded a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent’s vehicle and pushed, scratched and otherwise damaged it outside an ICE facility in suburban Broadview.
Charged along with Abughazaleh were Oak Park village trustee Brian Straw, then-Cook County Board candidate Catherine “Cat” Sharp, 45th Ward Democratic committeeperson Michael Rabbitt, musician Joselyn Walsh and Andre Martin, a member of Abughazaleh’s campaign staff.
A grand jury indictment accused them of a conspiracy to impede a federal agent, and they each initially faced a maximum sentence of seven years behind bars.
Charges against Sharp and Walsh were dropped in March.
Then on May 21, Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros made a rare courtroom appearance and admitted to apparent misconduct by his staff before a grand jury last fall. He announced his office would permanently dismiss all charges against the remaining protesters.
U.S. District Judge April Perry told lawyers she was “incredibly shocked” by what she saw in a set of grand jury transcripts. “I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts,” Perry said.
But worst of all, Perry said, the problematic behavior had been redacted out of transcripts given to her by the feds. Defense attorneys called the alleged misconduct “unheard of.”
“I think our clients have been dragged through the mud repeatedly by this [U.S. attorney’s] office,” said Parente, Straw’s lawyer. “And knowing … that they were sitting on this the whole time is just infuriating.
“Things are happening in this country every minute. There is a weaponization fund that I think we are now eligible for, and I think people need to see what this DOJ is doing.”
During a hearing Tuesday, defense attorneys said Boutros may have had contact with the grand jury, himself.
Barbara McQuade, a former federal prosecutor and professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said based on the judge’s findings, the protesters appear to qualify for the Anti-Weaponization Fund — but would likely be unsuccessful in receiving any actual relief.
“Because the panel members will be selected by Blanche and fireable by Trump, I would not expect their claims to prevail,” McQuade said. “But denial of a claim would give them standing to file a lawsuit challenging not only the denial of their claims, but the unlawful creation of the entire apparatus.”
Other more prominent Trump opponents appear to be mulling over applications — or at least joking about it.
Former FBI Director James Comey told CNN he thought news of the fund was a “piece from ‘The Onion,’” the satirical newspaper and website.
“I’m guessing I’ll be in line,” he added. “I hope I’ll be ahead of those who savagely beat police officers and sacked the Capitol.”