If It’s Not In Writing, Is It Really A Deal?

“BREAK IT DOWN!”

A couple of weeks ago, I penned a post entitled, “It’s A Great Deal…If You Can Get It”(https://thesphinxofcharlotte.com/2026/05/20/its-a-great-deal-if-you-can-get-it/). Yesterday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made an announcement that suggests it may not be possible to get it. At least, not all of it.

The decision to abandon the Justice Department’s proposed “anti-weaponization” fund while preserving the separate ban on audits of President Donald Trump’s past tax returns underscores a familiar pattern in Washington: when a controversial package becomes politically toxic, officials often jettison the most visible liability while trying to preserve the quieter but more consequential benefit. Recent reporting indicates that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers the administration would no longer proceed with the roughly $1.776 billion fund after backlash from Republican senators as well as broader criticism that it could become a vehicle for politically sympathetic claimants, including people tied to January 6. At the same time, Blanche said the agreement shielding Trump and his family from future audits of previously filed returns would stay in place.

That split matters. The fund was always the easier target because it was public, expensive, and symbolically explosive. The Department of Justice had framed it as a mechanism to compensate victims of alleged government “lawfare,” but critics across the political spectrum saw it as a slush fund in waiting. The strongest objections were not just legal but political: lawmakers worried about taxpayer money being used to reward allies of the president or individuals who would become instant symbols of partisan grievance.

Once that perception hardened, the fund became a burden on the administration’s broader agenda, especially as Republican legislators signaled it could complicate unrelated negotiations over immigration and spending. In short, the fund generated immediate heat and limited upside. Dropping it was a way to defuse the loudest controversy.

The audit ban, however, appears to be the provision the administration most wanted to preserve. Unlike the fund, it does not require creating a new bureaucracy, distributing money, or defending visible payouts. Yet it may be far more significant in practical terms. Reporting on the settlement indicates that the IRS is barred from auditing returns filed before May 18, 2026, covering Trump, certain family members, trusts, and businesses. 

Legal and tax experts have described that kind of prospective immunity from examination as extraordinary and difficult to reverse. Because the provision is embedded in a settlement agreement rather than a headline-grabbing public program, its political profile is lower—even though its long-term implications may be greater. It diminishes scrutiny, if not controversy.

Seen that way, dropping the anti-weaponization fund while keeping the tax-audit shield is less a retreat than a recalibration. The administration appears to have concluded that it could sacrifice the most combustible piece of the arrangement while retaining the part that most directly benefits Trump and his family. Politically, that may blunt some immediate criticism, because the discarded provision was easier to explain in one shocking number: nearly $1.8 billion. But substantively, the surviving clause may prove more important, because it narrows the government’s ability to examine past tax matters involving the sitting president. If the fund was the flashpoint, the audit ban is the legacy provision. And that is why the real story is not only what was dropped, but what remains. But not so fast. Mr. Blanche was asked whether he would provide a written memo detailing the decision to forego the nearly $2 billion settlement? He declined. No disrespect to the Acting AG, but this non-legal scholar’s inquiring mind wonders, “If It’s Not In Writing, Is It Really A Deal?”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the linkhttp://thesphinxofcharlotte.comFind a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribeclick on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-boxFor more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

Memorial Day: What Your Teacher Never Taught You (Edition IX)!

BREAK IT DOWN!

Please enjoy a reprised edition of “Break It Down!” This post was originally published May 30, 2012 at: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com, reposted on May 27, 2015 at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com as Memorial Day: What Your Teacher Never Told You!,“ again on May 31, 2017, on May 29, 2019, on May 27, 2020 as Memorial Day: What Your Teacher Never Taught You, again on May 31, 2023, on May 29, 2024, and last on May 28, 2025.

OK, so Memorial Day was earlier this week. You may be familiar with my holiday week philosophy, which is: make it easy on the readers, who are always otherwise engaged, no matter the holiday. Of course, in the process, I am also giving myself a break. That makes for a natural win-win scenario.

With that overarching thought in mind, I will endeavor to apply three elementary rules of communication:

  • Utilize the KISS PrincipleAKAKeep It Short & Simple (also Keep It Simple Stupid).
  • Convey new or “not widely circulated” information.
  • Always remember to emphasize points and 2 above.

Memorial Day is a federal holiday to honor America’s fallen soldiers. It originated after the Civil War. Falling between Easter and Independence Day, it is often equated with a late spring break, or a pre-summer respite.

The weekend typically includes a cornucopia of sports.  For example this week included the NASCAR Coca-Cola 600the NBA PlayoffsCollege Men’s Baseball playoffs, and College Women’s Softball competition, as well as others, such as the ACC Men’s Baseball Tournament Championship, and NCAA Women’s Lacrosse. 

Historically, there have been a plethora of other activities thrown into the mix. Uppermost for college hoops fans is the Transfer Portal and European League recruitment, with a dose of NBA Combine. As a result, the holiday is sometimes almost lost in the shuffle. 

But wait; not here. Memorial Day has a special cultural significance. In fact, it is because of that nexus we should pay special homage to this late spring holiday. 

In the annals of Trump 2.0, in which Don and his consiglieres are running it back, in new and improved (in his opinion) fashion. One of the more pronounced features of this new high octane Round 2 is a full-frontal assault on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives and the recent attack on minority voting districts. To date, the most visible aspect of this slash and burn effort is to target and un-exist positions, programs, and services, and now voting districts designed to assist, employ, or augment Black voter choice.

The irony here is, the first well-known observance of a Memorial Day type was held May 1, 1865, in Charleston, South Carolina. Over 250 Union soldiers that had been prisoners of war, died in Charleston, and were quickly buried in makeshift graves. A group of blacks, mostly freedmen, organized the observance and led cleanup and landscaping of the burial site.

Most of the nearly 10,000 people who attended were freedmen and their families. Of that number, 3.000 were children, newly enrolled in freedman’s schools. Mutual aid societies, black ministers, and white Northern missionaries were also in attendance.

David W. BlightProfessor of American History at Yale University, and Director of the school’s Gilder-Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, & Abolition, described the day this way:

“This was the first Memorial Day. African Americans invented Memorial Day in Charleston, South Carolina. What you have there is black Americans recently freed from slavery announcing to the world with their flowers, their feet, and their songs what the War had been about. What they basically were creating was the Independence Day of a Second American Revolution.”

Professor Blight conceded there is no evidence that the Charleston event led directly to the establishment of Memorial Day across the country.  But the record is clear they formed the earliest truly large-scale event, complete with media coverage.  Their effort was the prototype, if not the catalyst.

Having said that, I believe I honored the rules established above for this post:

  • Told this story in a direct and uncomplicated fashion
  • Presented information I am confident most readers did not know
  • Recognized points and 2, were accomplished and closed the post

Enjoy your bonus time and be sure to reflect on “Memorial Day: What Your Teacher Never Taught You (Edition IX)!

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Memorial_Day

http://www.davidwblight.com/

http://www.snopes.com/military/memorialday.asp

http://www.dailykos.com/story2014/05/25/1301862/-Memorial-Day-Has-African-American-Roots-First-One-Was-Conducted-By-Former-Slaves#

http://en.wiktionary.org/

wiki/KISS_principle

wiki/American_Civil_War

http://www.yale.edu/glc/index.htm

http://www.civilwarhome.com/freedmen.htm

It’s A Great Deal…If You Can Get It

BREAK IT DOWN!

This has been another eventful week for government in the United States…and it’s only Wednesday. Another GOP Congressman targeted by DJ Trump lost his re-election bid. Down goes Thomas Massie. The Kentucky solon, who lost last night, joined the five Indiana Senators who lost a couple of weeks ago, after also having been targeted by Trump. 

As an aside, Senator John Cornyn of Texas saw Trump throw his endorsement to his opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Most observers now cede next week’s runoff to Paxton, aided by Trump’s backing. While Paxton may win, his candidacy is not without concerns. He has previously overcome several controversies, including, impeachment, felony securities fraud allegations, which he ultimately settled, election integrity (attempt to overturn the 2020 Election) issues, and a marital/divorce scandal. These issues are not expected to derail his GOP runoff chances.  

Believe it or not, actual election matters are not the top line. Earlier this week, it was reported that Trump was dropping his $10 billion, that’s billion with a b, suit against his own Department of Justice. Instead of $10B, a $1.776 billion dollar settlement was reached, which will provide payouts to Trump allies, and others who have been impacted by “so-called” Biden law fare. 

Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal criminal attorney, and current Acting Attorney General negotiated the settlement, and will select a 5-person panel to oversee the “1776 Fund.” While it remains unclear who will get money from what some are referring to as a self-dealing slush fund, Neither Trump, JD Vance, nor Blanche have ruled out the prospect that individuals who committed violent acts against law enforcement at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and who on January 20, 2025 were granted a blanket pardon for their actions by Trump on the first day of his second term, will receive money from the settlement. 

That sounded like the top line. But then this happened. The Justice Department added an  addendum to its settlement with President Donald Trump. It immediately ignited controversy because it reportedly says the government is “forever barred and precluded” from pursuing certain tax examinations or claims against Donald Trump, his family, and his companies, involving returns filed before the settlement’s effective date. 

According to recent reporting by ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News, the addendum expands a broader agreement resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his confidential tax information. That reporting suggests the deal reaches far beyond an ordinary settlement term because it appears to shut down not just currently pending matters, but also any claims that could have been raised concerning older Trump tax returns. Even with the Justice Department later saying the addendum applies only to existing audits and not future ones, the language has landed like a political and legal earthquake, especially because it concerns the sitting president and a tax agency meant to apply the law uniformly.

The backstory matters. Trump sued after an IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, admitted leaking tax return information belonging to Trump and other wealthy Americans to the press. It should be noted that Littlejohn is current serving a jail sentence related to the matter.

That breach created a serious privacy and accountability issue for the government. But critics argue that redressing an unlawful leak is not the same thing as granting a president sweeping protection from tax scrutiny. The question is not whether Trump had grounds to complain about the disclosure of his returns; plainly he did. The question is whether a settlement negotiated by a Justice Department led by his own administration can lawfully or appropriately insulate him, his family, and associated businesses from tax enforcement on prior filings. That is where the matter becomes far more significant than a simple damages dispute.

This is the nexus where both the broader settlement, and especially the addendum appears to earn the label self-dealing. The benefits do not inure just to Trump, but also to his family members and businesses. As one analyst noted, he sued himself, settled with himself, and is now paying himself. Trump supporters are quick to counter; Trump is not getting any of the money. 

Seriously? Stop playing! The addendum itself is undoubtedly worth millions. Think of all the past returns that will now not be reviewed. Don’t be ridiculous. Trump’s taxes have long drawn attention and at least one long-running audit could have carried a very substantial financial consequence. In that light, the addendum is not a symbolic gesture. It could amount to a durable shield against significant liability, which is why opponents see it as a direct challenge to principles of equal treatment under the law. “It’s A Great Deal…If You Can Get It!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the linkhttp://thesphinxofcharlotte.comFind a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribeclick on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-boxFor more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

Two Kings: Sleep On It At Your Own Peril

BREAK IT DOWN!

The White House’s official social media account posted a photo of President Donald Trump standing alongside Britain’s King Charles III  and captioned it: “TWO KINGS.” With a single line (and a crown emoji), a routine image from a diplomatic visit instantly became a cultural Rorschach test—read by supporters as humor and by critics as something more pointed, and decidedly ominous.

The timing, as always, mattered. King Charles’ trip came wrapped in ceremony—greetings, speeches, and the pageantry and pomp that follows a monarch abroad—while American politics at home has been simmering with arguments over executive power, democratic norms, and the language leaders use to describe themselves. Set against that backdrop, “Two Kings” didn’t land as a neutral joke; it landed as a message…explicitly distinct, and wildly divergent.

In the United Kingdom, “King” is a constitutional role tied to tradition and heredity. In the United States, it’s a warning label—etched into the country’s origin story and its suspicion of concentrated power. That’s but one of the reasons why the phrase can feel jarring, when applied to an elected president, even as metaphor. And let’s be clear, many Americans do not believe for a nanosecond that there is even a scintilla of jest, or metaphorical nature associated with the principal occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue making comments about being a king. It collapses two very different kinds of authority into one punchline, and it invites the public to argue over whether that collapse is harmless branding or an intentional provocation.

It also imposes a collision with the slogan that has shown up at rallies and on signs: “No Kings.” For opponents of everything Trump, the language of monarchy is shorthand for fears about an “imperial presidency.” For all-in supporters, it’s often used ironically—as an eyeroll at critics, or a boast about strength and dominance. When an official government account steps into that arena, it blurs lines: between governance and campaigning, between state communication and internet trolling, and between viscerally competing narratives of saving America.

There’s a diplomatic cost to that blur, too. Visits like this are usually meant to highlight shared interests—security, trade, alliances, and the long, complicated history between two close nation state partners. But social media rewards the sharp caption over the substantive agenda. “Two Kings” dominated the conversation because it was designed to: it’s short, loaded, and impossible to ignore.

Whether you saw the post as playful (own the libs) or provocative (he seriously wants to be a King), it’s a reminder that in a Faulkner-ish, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past” kind of way, symbolism is never “just” symbolism when it comes from an institution with the imprimatur of the Office of the President. A White House account doesn’t speak like a private citizen; it speaks with the weight and gravitas of the Presidency…(or the would be King). And when it chooses the language of crowns, it shouldn’t be surprising that the public responds by asking the question America has asked since its founding and rejection of King George III: who holds power—and how should they talk about it? “Two Kings: Sleep at Your Own Peril!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the linkhttp://thesphinxofcharlotte.comFind a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribeclick on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-boxFor more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

James Earl Carter, Jr.: Centenarian

It’s time to Break It Down!

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, set a record yesterday, October 1, when he observed his birthday, and became the first American president to reach triple digits.

It’s a milestone more and more Americans will reach in the years to come – and frankly, it’s something for which our national social safety net is unprepared.

Carter left office in 1981 after Ronald Reagan defeated him in his reelection bid. He was 56, at the time, too young for Social Security and Medicare.

A very long, incredible retirement

Carter opted not to follow the traditional post presidential path of dedicating himself to sitting on corporate boards and raking in speaking fees.

Instead, Carter got his hands dirty building houses, took on peace missions to Cuba and the Middle East, negotiated the release of hostages, lived in his hometown, taught Sunday school and college classes, wrote books, and won Grammys.

His has been, indisputably, the longest, most righteous and most productive post-presidency in history, although John Quincy Adams’ post-presidential, anti-slavery efforts in Congress get honorable mention.

In the nearly 44 years since leaving office, Carter helped essentially eradicate Guinea worm, a parasite that infected around 3.5 million people in the mid-’80s and just 14 in 2023, according to The Carter Center.

It’s been 22 years since he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, just as the US was preparing for war in Iraq. Carter also paid a landmark visit to Cuba that year.

It has been nine years since Carter announced at a news conference that he had been diagnosed with brain cancer and might not have long to live.

CNN’s Stephen Collinson wrote at the time:

“I have had a wonderful life,” Carter said with the same unsparing honesty and meticulous detail that marked his presidency. “I’m ready for anything and I’m looking forward to new adventure,” Carter said, in the 40-minute appearance before the cameras, in which he frequently beamed his huge smile and never fell prey to emotion. “It is in the hands of God, whom I worship.”

Carter had more to do

By December 2015, Carter announced that after treatment, the cancer was gone. A timeline of his life maintained by CNN’s research library has many more notable entries.

It’s been nine years since Carter published an autobiography, “A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety.” He won a Grammy Award– his second – for the audiobook. He would win a third a few years later.

It’s been seven years since he was hospitalized for dehydration in Winnipeg, Canada, where he was outdoors – still working! – for Habitat for Humanity, the organization with which he had a long association.

It’s been five years since he won that third Grammy in 2019, broke his hip and joked that there should be an age limit on the presidency since he couldn’t have done the job at 80. He also turned 95 that year, and became the longest-living American president, surpassing George H.W. Bush.

It’s been nearly two years since Carter entered hospice care and almost a year since his wife, Rosalynn, died. They were married in 1946.

More people will turn 100

As remarkable as Carter made his years since American voters retired him from the White House, there’s also something increasingly normal about people living to 100.

Former presidents, all well-to-do and protected by a generous pension, aren’t a representative sample of society, but it’s notable that the four oldest former presidents – Carter, Bush, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan – all lived in the 21st century.

Overall, US life expectancy dropped during the Covid-19 pandemic. It has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels, and it lags behind other developed countries, according to an analysis by KFF. As of 2022, the life expectancy for US males was 74.8 and for US females was 80.2.

But the population of 100-year-olds is expected to quadruple in the coming decades, according to PewResearch Center. It estimated in January that the current number of centenarians was around 101,000 and that the figure would increase to about 422,000 within 30 years, a small but growing portion of the US population as the average age increases and the birth rate declines. Today, celebrate James Earl Carter, Jr.: Centenarian!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the linkhttp://thesphinxofcharlotte.comFind a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribeclick on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/30/politics/jimmy-carter-presidents-what-matters/index.html

https://www.axios.com/2024/10/01/jimmy-carter-100-birthday-president-record