Here’s How GOP Lawmakers Are Privately Talking About Trump’s J6er Slush Fund
It doesn’t quite match up with what they’re saying in public
The Best of Both Worlds
Earlier this week, I put out an ask to Bulwark readers to share any direct communications they received from their members of Congress about the January 6th cop-beater compensation slush fund currently causing outrage and consternation on Capitol Hill. The constituent letters I reviewed show just how differently Republican lawmakers can sound when dealing one-on-one with constituents instead of addressing the public at large, when they know the world’s most prolific media consumer might be watching what they say.
For example, after the administration announced the “settlement”1 establishing the “anti-weaponization” slush fund, Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-N.Y.) expressed tepid skepticism and a desire to see more details, as did many of his similarly cautious and ambivalent Republican colleagues.
“I have, I guess, more questions than answers about this fund, in general, as to how it would be executed, how it would be put together. I mean, I think we’re also a little scant on detail. I do think it needs congressional oversight,” he said, according to Erie News Now.
“We have to have really tight scrutiny, a really high burden of proof as to how those monies are going to be distributed,” said Langworthy. “I don’t think this should be seen as some direct slush fund for one particular event. I mean, there’s obviously a lot of arguments about people that claim to be falsely imprisoned. Just because they were pardoned, doesn’t mean that they were falsely imprisoned. They were charged and convicted of crimes—and there were juries of their peers that did that. I just think that we need far more answers, and I think that there’s many of us asking our leadership to go get to the bottom of that.”
In a separate comment posted by Chataqua Today, Langworthy echoed the Trump administration’s line that the government had in the past employed “lawfare” against innocent people.
“People’s lives and livelihoods have been ruined by lawfare and, you know, excessive aggression by the government,” he said. “But, you know, the way that this came together with a settlement, I think we have a little ways to go.”
But in a letter to a constituent this week, Langworthy was more forthright in personally opposing the fund, writing that under no circumstances should taxpayer dollars be used to settle the president’s grievances.