What do you say about a guy who is demanding that his current legal team pay his old legal team — one and the same — for getting him out on the biggest technicality of all time? And he offers to give your and my money to his favorite charity — or maybe the ballroom ...

Donald Trump is demanding that the Department of Justice (that's his department, staffed with his former staff, that does his bidding) pay his former lawyers, many of whom are now his current lawyers, to defend him against charges he ultimately got off on the biggest loophole alive — getting elected president.

These are not small sums we're talking about. The demand was for $230 million. There was, apparently, plenty to defend.

The first claim, filed in 2023, seeks damages for claimed — but never found by anyone — violations of his rights during the F.B.I. and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and possible connections to the 2016 Trump campaign, according to reporting by The New York Times.

The second complaint, filed in the summer of 2024 against Merrick Garland and Jack Smith, accuses the F.B.I. of violating Trump's privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago in 2022 for classified documents. And seeks to brand as "malicious prosecution" the charges against him for mishandling sensitive records after he left office.

Even Trump came across as somewhat flummoxed by the idea that he would decide his own claim. "I'm the one that makes the decision and that decision would have to go across my desk and it's awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself."

It's not just strange. It's an ethical conundrum.

"What a travesty," said Bennett L. Gershman, an ethics professor at Pace University told The New York Times. "The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don't need a law professor to explain it."

He added: "And then to have people in the Justice Department decide whether his claim should be successful or not, and these are the people who serve him deciding whether he wins or loses. It's bizarre and almost too outlandish to believe."

Maybe you do need a law professor to explain it. Trump wasn't cleared of anything in the second complaint except winning the election and collecting the get-out-of-jail card free from John Roberts and the playbook of the DOJ, which doesn't prosecute sitting presidents. That doesn't mean he was maliciously prosecuted up to that time, although that's what he claimed, accusing Garland, Smith and FBI director Christopher Wray of "harassment" intended to influence the election result. "This malicious prosecution led President Trump to spend tens of millions of dollars defending the case and his reputation." That's the work of the Trump administration with its vindictive and selective prosecutions.

Will Trump and his team really have the audacity to pull this off? Never say never. Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who has to sign off on this kind of settlement, was Trump's lead criminal defense attorney. All in the family. The chief of the department's civil division represented Trump's co-defendant in the documents case — and has represented Kash Patel in Jan. 6 investigations.

And then there's the emoluments clause, referenced by the ranking House Democrats on the Oversight Committee seeking documentation of the $230 million request.

Reps. Jamie Raskin and Robert Garcia criticized the president for pursuing taxpayer money: "The Founders feared presidents like you might one day be tempted to use their powers to steal U.S. taxpayer funds. That's why they enshrined a very simple rule into the Constitution, which is called the Domestic Emoluments Clause. As President, you may not receive any payment from the federal government or any of the states, except for your salary, which is currently fixed by law at $400,000 per year." That will never satisfy him.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Jorge Alcala at Unsplash