Donald Trump’s attempt to create an "Anti-Weaponization Fund" for his political allies, potentially extending to individuals connected to the January 6 attack, has collapsed for the time being following strong Republican opposition. While the plan was seen as a resource to be distributed by Trump’s circle, Todd Blanche, the acting head of the U.S. Department of Justice, announced its closure.
The article notes that this fund initiative is not just a financial plan but also part of Trump’s long-standing narrative that "the state has been weaponized against me." However, the text argues that the core allegations underpinning this narrative are not supported by official investigations.
Russia Investigation Found Legitimate
Regarding the Russia investigation, one of Trump’s most targeted issues, previous official assessments have shown that the investigation was legitimately initiated and was not a political conspiracy. Among these are the 2019 Department of Justice Inspector General report, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reports published in 2020, and the final report by special counsel John Durham in 2023.
The article stresses that although these reports criticize some investigative methods, they do not change the conclusion that the Russia probe was neither a "hoax" nor a "witch hunt." It also recalls that the Senate report and special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report confirmed Moscow’s covert interference in the 2016 elections, some of which aimed to help Trump win.
The emergence of serious indictments against figures like Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone during the investigation process, according to the article, demonstrates that there were concrete legal consequences rather than fabricated pressure. Trump’s later pardoning of all these individuals is presented as a politicizing move.
Election and Document Cases Back in Focus
Trump’s second major grievance concerns federal investigations related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the classified documents he retained after leaving office. The article states that both investigations have legal grounds, noting that many Republicans who testified before the January 6 Committee said Trump took potentially criminal steps to remain in power.
The Senate’s bipartisan majority nearing conviction of Trump on impeachment charges is also mentioned in this context. According to the article, jury or judge rulings against Trump indicate the seriousness of the cases.
In the documents case, it is highlighted that the National Archives and the Department of Justice made efforts throughout 2021 and 2022 to retrieve documents from Trump, and if the documents had been returned, the prosecution would not have been initiated. Nevertheless, Trump did not return some materials, and despite one of his lawyers certifying that all documents were returned, this was not accurate. The FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago uncovered 25 boxes of documents with the highest classification level.
The federal cases opened by Smith were closed because Trump won the 2024 election and due to the Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for federal crimes. The article argues that this closure stems from a legal rule related to the presidency, not from weakness in the cases.
New York Cases and MAGA Claims
It is recalled that Trump is also fighting allegations of tax fraud and falsifying business records in New York. In cases related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, juries or judges have ruled against Trump.
The article also addresses MAGA claims that the federal government was weaponized against right-wing groups during the Biden administration. It notes that an internal memo leaked from the FBI field office in Richmond, which viewed the "radical-traditionalist Catholic" ideology as a potential path to domestic extremist violence, was withdrawn. This memo was the work of a single young analyst and did not lead to investigations or prosecutions.
Similarly, a note requesting the Department of Justice to consult with local authorities about complaints related to protests at school board meetings was issued, but this did not result in a broad operation against conservatives.
January 6 and New Debate on Use of Force
The article’s strongest section concerns the January 6 insurgents. It states that Trump and the MAGA circle portray convicted insurgents as victims of unjust prosecutions, a claim repeated on the White House website. The fund Trump sought to establish raised concerns because it could channel millions to these violent individuals.
The article argues that labeling these prosecutions as "weaponization of the state" is a major distortion. It asserts that the events of January 6 happened in full view of everyone, and portraying the subsequent pursuit of justice as repression is an Orwellian reversal.
The final part of the article focuses on Trump repositioning himself through a victimhood narrative. According to it, Trump and his circle try to legitimize their legal battles by claiming they are targeted by the Deep State; conversely, Trump is shown to have revealed how the state is truly used through new investigations he has triggered.
