Fossel came up short on Trump slush fund | Letter

A reader from Augusta is pushing back on a recent column that downplayed concerns about a multimillion-dollar legal fund tied to President Donald Trump.

Harvey Versteeg wrote in a letter to the editor that while he regularly reads Jim Fossel's columns and finds them well-researched and thought-provoking, he disagreed with Fossel's May 24 piece in the Maine Sunday Telegram. In that column, Fossel argued point by point that Trump's actions in establishing a large legal defense settlement and resolving a frivolous lawsuit with the IRS were technically legal, even if outrageous. Fossel suggested that Congress would need to change the law to prevent similar arrangements in the future.

Versteeg wrote that Fossel "almost had me convinced," but said the columnist failed to look beyond Trump's own claims. Versteeg pointed to reporting from multiple mainstream media outlets, as well as analysis from the Cato Institute, suggesting the arrangement is not as legally airtight as supporters claim.

Versteeg also noted that a federal judge has temporarily blocked the fund's operations while litigation challenging it moves forward, according to reporting from The Associated Press.

The exchange highlights an ongoing debate over the legal and ethical questions surrounding the fund, which Trump established after dropping a lawsuit against the IRS. Critics have described the arrangement as a "slush fund" and a "get-out-of-jail-free" card, while defenders, including Fossel, have argued it falls within the bounds of existing law.

The temporary judicial block signals that the legal questions are far from settled and that courts may yet have a significant say in the fund's future.