In what could be described as a monumental redirection of taxpayer funds, Tony West, the brother-in-law of Vice President Kamala Harris, has been at the center of funneling substantial amounts of money to organizations with left-leaning affiliations. West, married to Harris' sister Maya and having served as the leader of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, is reported by The New York Post to have orchestrated settlements benefiting Democratic allies under questionable circumstances. This practice raised eyebrows especially considering that many of these settlements were reached even in cases where the Department of Justice seemed poised for victory.
Historically, any civil suit settlement against the Federal government exceeding $100,000 required Congressional approval up until 1977. However, following an amendment due to the rising number of cases, this requirement was lifted. This change effectively provided the DOJ with unrestricted authority to allocate funds from "The Judgment Fund," a pool whose operations and distribution records remain largely opaque.
The turning point came with West's appointment in 2009 during Barack Obama's presidency. According to The Post's findings, it wasn't long before directives aimed at diverting funds towards preferred organizations were being issued within his department. Notably, a significant instance occurred in late 2010 involving discrimination claims by Hispanic and female farmers. Despite a looming victory for DOJ lawyers in court after a protracted legal battle, West facilitated a reversal that led to a $1.33 billion settlement encompassing claimants who hadn't initially alleged bias.
Get the latest, most crucial news stories on the web – sent straight to your inbox for FREE as soon as they hit! Sign up for WayneDupree.com Email News Alerts in just 30 seconds!
This settlement later expanded to over $4.4 billion after incorporating more plaintiffs including Native American farmers—a move criticized by many within and outside the legal community for its apparent political motivations rather than judicial merit. Critics argue that such settlements served more as political leverage rather than addressing genuine grievances.
Moreover, under West's stewardship, corporate entities faced "shakedowns" wherein they were compelled to contribute nearly one billion dollars to Democratic-supporting activist groups as part of their settlement agreements with stringent conditions attached. These conditions notably favored donations over direct relief efforts for victims affected by various crises such as those stemming from housing market failures.
A particularly striking arrangement was made in 2016 with Volkswagen which agreed to pay $2 billion towards a White House initiative on electric vehicles—a project Congress had previously declined. This deal was met with jubilation among recipients who humorously suggested erecting a statue in honor of West.
Kamala Harris herself is implicated in these controversy-ridden practices during her tenure as California’s Attorney General through her involvement in similar settlements reinforcing partisan objectives.
This pattern of utilizing settlement agreements for political gains contrasts starkly with actions taken by former President Donald Trump’s administration which moved swiftly to prohibit such use of settlement funds—a policy reversed upon Joe Biden’s ascent into office alongside Vice President Harris. This narrative not only highlights concerns regarding the ethical deployment of taxpayer dollars but also underscores the intricate web connecting politics and justice within federal operations.
Historically, any civil suit settlement against the Federal government exceeding $100,000 required Congressional approval up until 1977. However, following an amendment due to the rising number of cases, this requirement was lifted. This change effectively provided the DOJ with unrestricted authority to allocate funds from "The Judgment Fund," a pool whose operations and distribution records remain largely opaque.
The turning point came with West's appointment in 2009 during Barack Obama's presidency. According to The Post's findings, it wasn't long before directives aimed at diverting funds towards preferred organizations were being issued within his department. Notably, a significant instance occurred in late 2010 involving discrimination claims by Hispanic and female farmers. Despite a looming victory for DOJ lawyers in court after a protracted legal battle, West facilitated a reversal that led to a $1.33 billion settlement encompassing claimants who hadn't initially alleged bias.
Get the latest, most crucial news stories on the web – sent straight to your inbox for FREE as soon as they hit! Sign up for WayneDupree.com Email News Alerts in just 30 seconds!
This settlement later expanded to over $4.4 billion after incorporating more plaintiffs including Native American farmers—a move criticized by many within and outside the legal community for its apparent political motivations rather than judicial merit. Critics argue that such settlements served more as political leverage rather than addressing genuine grievances.
Moreover, under West's stewardship, corporate entities faced "shakedowns" wherein they were compelled to contribute nearly one billion dollars to Democratic-supporting activist groups as part of their settlement agreements with stringent conditions attached. These conditions notably favored donations over direct relief efforts for victims affected by various crises such as those stemming from housing market failures.
A particularly striking arrangement was made in 2016 with Volkswagen which agreed to pay $2 billion towards a White House initiative on electric vehicles—a project Congress had previously declined. This deal was met with jubilation among recipients who humorously suggested erecting a statue in honor of West.
Kamala Harris herself is implicated in these controversy-ridden practices during her tenure as California’s Attorney General through her involvement in similar settlements reinforcing partisan objectives.
This pattern of utilizing settlement agreements for political gains contrasts starkly with actions taken by former President Donald Trump’s administration which moved swiftly to prohibit such use of settlement funds—a policy reversed upon Joe Biden’s ascent into office alongside Vice President Harris. This narrative not only highlights concerns regarding the ethical deployment of taxpayer dollars but also underscores the intricate web connecting politics and justice within federal operations.
