"I'm guessing I'll be in line," former FBI Director James Comey quipped after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a "settlement agreement" between President Donald Trump and the IRS that included $1.8 billion in taxpayer money for targets of "lawfare and weaponization." Comey's joke encompasses two reasons why the Senate should not confirm Blanche as attorney general: a flagrantly unconstitutional prosecution and a brazenly corrupt arrangement that delivered huge favors to Trump, his family and his followers at taxpayers' expense.

Blanche's participation in both of those scams demonstrated his eagerness to please his boss, which explains why Trump nominated him to replace Pam Bondi. But that same tendency should alarm anyone who thinks the attorney general should pursue justice rather than the president's personal agenda.

In a scathing ruling on Monday, a federal judge described Trump's lawsuit against the IRS as a pretext for "a 'settlement' that had no viable basis in law or fact." Kathleen Williams, who oversaw the case in the Southern District of Florida, concluded that it never involved a genuine controversy between adverse parties, since both sides were controlled by the president.

Trump's lawsuit, which was joined by two of his sons and the Trump Organization, preposterously alleged that an IRS contractor's illegal disclosure of their tax returns had caused "at least" $10 billion in damages. In addition to offering an improbable estimate of the injury he had suffered, Trump filed the lawsuit more than two years after learning about the leak, exceeding the time limit set by the statute he invoked.

That law covers unauthorized disclosures by "any officer or employee of the United States." So even if Trump had filed his lawsuit on time, he would have faced the challenge of arguing that a contractor employed by a consulting business fit into that category — a point that the Justice Department has disputed in other cases involving similar claims.

Despite those legal weaknesses, the Justice Department never bothered to contest Trump's claims, in sharp contrast with the way it usually treats such lawsuits. That failure highlighted the blatant conflicts of interest created by a case that pitted Trump against agencies he oversees, represented by lawyers who also answer to him.

Further compromising the Justice Department's ability to defend the IRS, a February 2025 executive order bars the government's lawyers from taking legal positions at odds with the president's. As Williams saw it, that order, the Justice Department's lassitude and Trump's "direct, unassailable control over Defendants" proved the case was phony from the beginning.

Blanche nevertheless approved the resulting "settlement with myself," which provoked a fierce bipartisan backlash that persuaded him to abandon the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" two weeks after he announced it. That decision left in place another provision of this cozy deal: Blanche's order shielding Trump and his relatives from liability for tax violations and any other federal offenses they may have committed, which could save the president more than $100 million in back taxes, interest and penalties.

Even as Blanche promised compensation for victims of politically motivated government abuse, he was compounding that problem by pursuing a laughable criminal case against Comey. According to Blanche, Comey committed two federal felonies by posting a photograph of seashells arranged to form the slogan "86 47," which Blanche conceded is a ubiquitous expression of opposition to the president.

That message, which did not even come close to meeting the constitutional test for a "true threat," was indisputably political speech protected by the First Amendment. Yet there was Blanche, claiming with a straight face that Comey's seashell picture justifiably provoked an 11-month investigation culminating in an indictment that threatens him with up to 10 years in prison.

That case shows Blanche is willing to subvert justice in service of the president's grudges, and his participation in the IRS "settlement" shows he is happy to bless a grossly unethical product of self-dealing. Either would be enough to disqualify him from the job he is seeking.

Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine, is the author of Beyond Control: Drug Prohibition, Gun Regulation, and the Search for Sensible Alternatives (Prometheus Books). Follow him on X: @jacobsullum. To find out more about Jacob Sullum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Gaétan Marceau Caron at Unsplash