A senator and the acting AG just got into a shouting match over a convicted child abuser
A $1.776 billion fund meant for Jan. 6 defendants is now at the center of a fight over who deserves taxpayer money.
It is hard to imagine a more frustrating way for our tax dollars to be spent than on someone who has harmed children. When a government official refuses to answer a simple question about that, it makes people wonder who is actually in charge.
What happened
Acting Attorney General Blanche and Senator Chris Van Hollen got into a loud argument during a hearing this week. The fight started when Van Hollen asked if Andrew Paul Johnson could get money from the new $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.
Johnson is currently serving a life sentence for sexually abusing two minors. He was pardoned for his role in the Jan. 6 riots and reportedly told his victims he would share the money he expected to get from the government.
Blanche accused Van Hollen of lying during the exchange. Van Hollen pointed his finger at the Acting AG and told him, "Don't ever do that again."
What the money/evidence shows
- The Anti-Weaponization Fund totals $1.776 billion.
- Andrew Paul Johnson is serving a life sentence for child sexual abuse.
- Johnson was convicted of abusing two minors.
- Johnson reportedly promised his victims a cut of his expected payout.
- The fund is intended for those pardoned for Jan. 6 activities.
The bigger question
We have to ask why there are not clear rules in place to stop convicted criminals from getting government payouts. If a fund is meant to help people, why is there no filter to keep money away from those who have committed violent crimes against children?
This is not just about one person. It is about whether our government has any guardrails left when it hands out massive amounts of cash. If the people running the fund cannot say "no" to a child abuser, who can they say "no" to?
The other side
Acting AG Blanche has maintained that the fund is necessary to address past actions by the department. His argument appears to be that the rules are broad to ensure fairness, though he has not explained how that applies to violent offenders.
What happens now
This fight will likely force more questions about how the DOJ manages its budget. Regular people are left wondering if their taxes are being used to pay off people who have caused real harm to others.
What we still don't know
- Will the DOJ officially block convicted violent criminals from accessing this fund?
- How many other people with serious criminal records are currently in line for these payments?
- What specific criteria does the department use to vet those who apply for this money?
Source note: All charges are allegations - Andrew Paul Johnson is presumed innocent until proven guilty regarding the specific claims of his future payouts.