(Official White House Photo by Patrick B. Ruddy)Guest post by Jonathon MoseleyA fund for victims of the weaponization of government for partisan political purposes was announced on May 18, 2026, by Donald Trump and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Blanche has turned out to be surprisingly effective, insightful, and motivated.The Left, including both Mitch McConnell Republicans and all Democrats, is throwing temper tantrums, probably just to exploit a controversy.As reported in The Gateway Pundit, California Governor Gavin Newsom has announced a plan to tax all payouts from the Fund.The more one thinks about that, the more strange that sounds because pay-outs would be based on people being wronged and ex post facto taxation of specific individuals would be unconstitutional.In fact, the awards under most lawsuits are not taxable, because they are compensation for injuries, not income from work. So pay-outs from the Weaponization Fund would not be reported to California.Bottom line: Nobody knows how this fund is actually going to work. Whenever this is discussed, remember that the critics do not know what they are talking about. Because the fund is poorly-defined, Trump critics of both parties are exploiting any possible misconception.Todd Blanche explained that the right to apply does not mean that an applicant will be approved, receive any money, or how much they might be awarded.The Biden Administration broke the law against the Trump family, including leaking personal and hundreds of tax returns. Trump sued for $10 billion. Others should have sued as well.The Trump family then settled – as court parties can always do – by having $1.776 billion redirected as donations to victims of political weaponization.On May 19, Todd Blanche was grilled in Congress and explained again and again that most details have not yet been worked out. He explained that five “Commissioners” will be appointed to run the fund. One will require approval by Congress. Who will appoint those generates controversy.Every left-wing lawyer is suing to stop the fund. This will probably result in clarification of the purposes, procedures, and standards of the fund as the DOJ has to respond in court. But even a guest on MSNOW (MSNBC) explained that the plaintiffs may not have standing to sue.In fact, as reported in The Gateway Pundit, liberal Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia temporarily blocked the Weaponization Fund.This sounds to this former Virginia lawyer like just giving the Judge time to hold hearings and read the pleadings, which happens. But Brinkema’s ruling is illogical in completely halting all work on the fund. This prevents the Judge from finding out what the details will actually be.A Miami, Florida, U.S. Judge Kathleen Williams has launched an investigation into whether Trump’s settlement of his lawsuit was a pretext.Approximately 90% to 95% of all civil lawsuits settle before trial. Judge Williams questioning whether a settlement reveals a pre-lawsuit bad faith plan is incompatible with normal litigation.Clearly this is not limited to January 6. It is compensation for government being “weaponized” to illegally achieve partisan political goals, per se a very serious abuse of government. Freaking out about January 6 is just to inflame the Leftist base.Those bulldozed by the Russia hoax, Arctic Frost, Cross-Fire Hurricane would all be eligible. Carter Page, for example, could apply.These were Obama/Biden era efforts to corrupt our nation’s elections and forcibly install the establishment’s choice for President with government power. If the Fund relaxes statutes of limitations, remember all the tea party leaders targeted by the IRS?Catholics targeted for surveillance or interference can and no doubt will apply. Grandmothers arrested for praying outside an abortion clinic (that is, clearly to silence one point of view).Those placed for purely partisan reasons on TSA “no fly lists” like Tulsi Gabbard interfering with their freedom to travel (found to be a constitutional right by the Supreme Court). Gun owners, Bible purchasers, critics of Obama-Biden were victimized.Can members of the Trump family apply? No. The fund is a settlement of a lawsuit brought by them. The fund is a resolution of their lawsuit. Their claim is fully concluded, legally.The big grandstanding controversy is: Can January 6 protestors “who beat up police” apply? They can apply but they probably won’t receive anything. But almost no one on January 6 beat up police. Some did.Probably 99% of police officers were great, careful, appropriate, at times courteous and at times even heroic. Video widely broadcast show very small areas maybe 30 feet across out of the 751 foot Capitol building were some alarming melees occurred.However, other protestors – as shown on videos – reacted in self-defense to excessive use of police force. One elderly woman was kicked three times down concrete stairs by an officer, all caught on body-cam video.The reader should understand: You still can’t see most of the videos and evidence from January 6, 2021. I can. I represented Zachary Rehl and Kelly Meggs and helped with many dozens of others.The evidence is mostly still kept under “protective orders” by D.C. judges. I have seen body cam videos of officers saying they are going to lie. Maybe they were joking.It is obvious to this author that police radio traffic created hysteria among police officers by exaggerating each escalating event as it happened.As just one example, an out-of-control panicky voice blares “shots fired!” over the police radio band but did not inform fellow police officers that it was the police, Lt. Michael Byrd, who had done the shooting.A member of the police shot and killed Ashli Babbitt. Police would be expected to interpret that radio call as all-out war. The police then over-reacted.Police officers in the affected jurisdictions are required to report any on-the-job injuries. Again, criminal defense attorneys have access to this information but the public does not. Very few officers reported injuries to their departments. Some were serious, most were not.At The Atlantic Magazine, analyst Quinta Jurecic concedes (in order to attack I.C.E.) that “I was able to tally more than a hundred prosecutions charged under Section 111 in recent months…” concerning January 6.However, the U.S. Capitol Police estimated (high end of several estimates) that 10,000 demonstrators were at and around the U.S. Capitol demonstrating on January 6, 2021. That means about 1% of the total turn-out were charged with “assaulting” police officers.But it gets worse. 18 U.S.C. 111 concerning assaulting federal officers has six different topics mangled together: “[1] assaults, [2] resists, [3] opposes, [4] impedes, [5] intimidates, or [6] interferes with” (numbering added).But when a jury goes into the jury room for deliberation, there is no way to know which of those categories the jury found a person guilty of. We will literally never know how many January 6 protestors were convicted of assaulting a police officer.Juries (unless ordered to report a special verdict) simply decide guilty or not-guilty. And it is tempting to compromise on the lowest level offense, as in: “Well at least he interfered with, right? So let’s just go with that.”The Trump Administration needs to (a) establish standards and guidelines including factors in favor and against receiving an actual pay-out, (b) identify what categories of injuries, expenses, losses, legal bills can be compensated, (c) waive the statute of limitations for a reasonable extension because the delay is part of the government abuse, (d) re-evaluate the Federal Tort Claims Act Standard Form (SF) 90 demands previously filed along with new applications, (e) investigate any issues or questions that need to be clarified.The post What NOT to Know About the Weaponization Fund appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.