Scott Jennings, a conservative pundit, said he supports allowing people “unfairly targeted” by the Justice Department to seek compensation—but he sounded uneasy about the structure of a new Justice Department-backed fund, warning it could operate like a “slush
Scott Jennings didn’t start his criticism with ideology. He started with math.
On CNN’s “NewsNight” panel. the conservative pundit said he supports the broader concept that people “unfairly targeted by the Department of Justice” should have a way “to seek recourse.” But when he turned to the specific structure of the new Justice Department-backed fund. his voice shifted—less partisan. more cautious.
“All of this makes me a little uncomfortable because it’s a lot of money, and it didn’t go through the U.S. Congress. That’s number one,” Jennings said.
His second concern was about what happens when money is placed in the hands of political power. Jennings said he didn’t want to see a president picking winners for payments in a way that could look like rewarding allies.
“Number two, I don’t want to see a president necessarily handpicking people to get payments where he could be accused of just picking people out who are political allies,” he added.
Jennings then made his own line drawing explicit. He said he “absolutely” believes people who have been genuinely “unfairly targeted by the federal government” deserve a path to compensation—but only within limits.
“My personal view is: Anybody who committed documented violence against the government or against police officers, they’ve not been unfairly treated. If they ended up being convicted of a crime because of violence they committed, I got no real sympathy for them,” Jennings explained.
He contrasted those cases with people whose involvement, in his framing, was peripheral rather than central.
“Now. if there were people who were on the periphery that were swept up. over-prosecuted. whatever. and they have a way to seek recourse here. I have less of a problem with that. ” he added. “But I draw the line at violence. If you’ve committed political violence. if you attack the government building. if you attack police officers. I got really no sympathy.”.
The unease at the heart of his remarks is tied to how the fund may be perceived. Critics fear it could function as a “slush fund” for Trump’s MAGA allies and potentially benefit people involved with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol—an outcome Jennings clearly didn’t want to see.
The result is a rare moment of alignment and friction at the same time: Jennings said the principle of recourse for people “unfairly targeted” is something he supports, while insisting the process and moral boundaries matter just as much as the money itself.
Scott Jennings Trump MAGA allies Department of Justice slush fund Jan. 6 2021 U.S. Capitol attack federal government recourse political violence recourse fund
So is this just another slush fund thing? Sounds like Congress got skipped again.
He’s saying no sympathy for people who committed violence but then I’m like… who decides what counts as “violence”? Seems like that’s the whole problem.
Wait, I thought this was about paying victims? But now it’s payments for political allies? I’m confused. Like if someone got treated unfairly because of the DOJ, shouldn’t they just get help regardless?
“Slush Scott Jennings”?? lol I mean I get the fear, but also isn’t the DOJ already picking favorites anyway. And if you’re talking Jan 6 stuff, half the people in there weren’t even violent or whatever right? They always say “documented violence” but then it turns into this whole new bureaucracy fund. Not a fan.