Well, well, isn't this an interesting situation.  
Agriculture suspended $500 million in food deliveries previously allocated under TEFAP as part of efforts by President Donald Trump's administration to reduce federal spending and people are scrambling for food!
​ My, my - could this be any more calllous? 

Trump wants DOJ to pay him $230M Taxpayer money would be diverted to him for his claims of violations of his rights during federal investigations. By DEVLIN BARRETT and TYLER PAGER • The New York Times

​
WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump is demanding that the Justice Department pay him about $230 million in compensation for the federal investigations into him, according to people familiar with the matter, who added that any settlement might ultimately be approved by senior department officials who defended him or those in his orbit.

The situation has no parallel in American history, as Trump, a presidential candidate, was pursued by federal law enforcement and eventually won the election, taking over the very government that must now review his claims. It is also the starkest example yet of potential ethical conflicts created by installing the president's former lawyers atop the Justice Department.

Trump submitted complaints through an administrative claim process that often is the precursor to lawsuits. The first claim, lodged in late 2023, seeks damages for a number of purported violations of his rights, including the FBI and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and possible connections to the 2016 Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the claim has not been made public.

The second complaint, filed in the summer of 2024, accuses the FBI of violating Trump's privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago, his club and residence in Florida, in 2022 for classified documents.

It also accuses the Justice Department of malicious prosecution in charging him with mishandling sensitive records after he left office.
Lawyers said the nature of the claims posed undeniable ethics challenges. "What a travesty," said Bennett L. Gershman, an ethics professor at Pace University.

"The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don't need a law professor to explain it."

He added, "And then to have people in the Justice Department decide whether his claim should be successful or not, and these are the people who serve him deciding whether he wins or loses. It's bizarre and almost too outlandish to believe."

Even the president seemed to acknowledge that point in the Oval Office last week, when he alluded vaguely to the situation while standing next to FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche. According to Justice Department regulations, the deputy attorney general — in this case, Blanche — is one of two people eligible to sign off on such a settlement.

"I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said, I'm sort of suing myself. I don't know, how do you settle the lawsuit? I'll say give me X dollars, and I don't know what to do with the lawsuit," Trump said, adding, "It sort of looks bad, I'm suing myself, right? So I don't know. But that was a lawsuit that was very strong, very powerful."

Administrative claims are not technically lawsuits. Such complaints are submitted first to the Justice Department on what is called a Standard Form 95, to see if a settlement can be reached without a lawsuit in federal court. If the department formally rejects such a claim or declines to act on it, a person could then sue in court. Still, that is an unlikely outcome in this instance, given that Trump is already negotiating, in essence, with his subordinates.

Compensation is typically covered by taxpayers. Two people familiar with the president's legal claims said that he had not been paid by the federal government but that he expected to be.

The second claim accused Merrick Garland, then the attorney general; Christopher Wray, then the FBI director; and Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating Trump at the time, of "harassment" intended to sway the electoral outcome. "This malicious prosecution led President Trump to spend tens of millions of dollars defending the case and his reputation," the claim said.

According to the Justice Department manual, settlements of claims against the department for more than $4 million "must be approved by the deputy attorney general or associate attorney general," meaning the person who runs the agency's civil division.

The current deputy attorney general, Blanche, served as Trump's lead criminal defense lawyer and said at his confirmation hearing in February that his attorney-client relationship with the president continued. The chief of the department's civil division, Stanley Woodward Jr., represented Trump's co-defendant, Walt Nauta, in the classified documents case. Woodward has also represented a number of other Trump aides, including Patel, in investigations related to Trump or the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
A White House spokesperson referred questions to the Justice Department. Asked if either of those top officials would recuse or have been recused from overseeing the possible settlement with Trump, a Justice Department spokesperson, Chad Gilmartin, said, "In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials."
In July, Bondi fired the agency's top ethics adviser.

Trump famously hates recusals.
He complained bitterly after his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, withdrew from overseeing the Russia investigation that is now the subject of one of his demands for money.

"The attorney general made a terrible mistake when he did this and when he recused himself," Trump said in 2018.

"He should have certainly let us know if he was going to recuse himself, and we would have used a — put a different attorney general in."

The Justice Department does not specifically require a public announcement of settlements made for administrative claims before they become lawsuits. If or when the Trump administration pays the president what could be hundreds of millions of dollars, there may be no immediate official declaration that it did so, according to current and former department officials.
​
Some former officials have privately expressed misgivings that the department's leaders did not reject Trump's legal claims in the waning days of the Biden administration. It has long been standard practice for civil litigation, including lawsuits against the government, to be paused until any criminal cases around the same facts have been resolved.

Harv's Corner

​Hate is a burden no one needs
OUTSWIMMING THE SHARKS
By HARVEY MACKAY For the Minnesota Star Tribune

​One day, a teacher told her students to bring a bag of potatoes to school. She said each potato should be given the name of a person the child hated. The more people the child hated, the more potatoes in his or her bag.

Some bags had just one or two potatoes, while other bags were almost full. The teacher then told her students they had to carry their bags with them everywhere they went for a full week.

After a while, the students started to complain. The bags were heavy and awkward to carry, plus the potatoes were starting to smell bad. They couldn't run or play games because they had to carry their sacks everywhere.

Finally, the teacher told her students they could put their sacks down. Then she told them the meaning of the assignment: "This is what happens when you carry hate for another person in your heart. You carry it everywhere, and it weighs you down.

The stench grows worse every day. The more hatred you carry, the heavier your burden. In the end, you can choose to set it down and be free."

This story is particularly appropriate for our times, as we see so much hatred and anger all around us. Hate blocks clarity, clouding our judgment and causing us to be more impulsive and aggressive. Anger can lead to unacceptable actions that we immediately regret. Rather than enabling us to see possible solutions, we become so entrenched in our own position that we become irrational.

In my view, hate is a destructive force that we should strive to let go of, replacing it with understanding and positive perspectives.

Just as hate can be taught, so can love, and it's important to focus on fostering flexibility of mind and body to counteract the negative effects of hatred.

Most of us have experienced feelings of hatred at one time or another.
Disarming hate in the workplace requires a thoughtful and strategic approach. Here are some steps you can consider: Foster open communication: Create a safe space for employees to express their concerns and feelings. Regular team meetings or one-on-one check-ins can be effective. Pay attention to what is being said and show empathy.

People just need to feel heard.
Lead by example:
Demonstrate the behavior you wish to see in others. Treat everyone with respect and kindness.

When you notice negative behavior, address it immediately.
Implement clear policies and ensure accountability: Make sure there are clear policies regarding acceptable behavior and the consequences of hate or discrimination. Hold individuals accountable for their actions.

Focus on solutions:
If conflicts persist, consider bringing in a mediator.
Here's a final story to illustrate my point. In a small village, two neighboring families had been feuding for generations.

The source of their animosity was long forgotten, but the hatred persisted, affecting everyone in the community.
​
One day, a wise elder visited the village and gathered both families together. He proposed a challenge: "Build a bridge over the river that divides your lands.

Work together, and you will find peace."
Reluctantly, the families agreed. As they worked side by side, they began to talk, share stories and learn about each other's lives. Slowly, the barriers of hate began to crumble, replaced by understanding and friendship.

When the bridge was finally completed, it stood not just as a physical structure but as a symbol of their newfound unity. The families realized that the effort to understand one another had transformed their hearts, and the feud was forgotten.

Mackay's Moral: Building bridges of understanding can transform hostility into harmony, creating pathways to peace and friendship.

Harvey Mackay is a Minneapolis businessman. Contact him at 612-378- 6202 or email [email protected].

Harv's Corner

YOU COULD BE COUGHT DEAD WITHOUT IT!

​The latest updated COVID-19 booster shot, the 2025-2026 formula, began rolling out to the public in September and October 2025. 

This new vaccine is designed to target the currently circulating variants of the virus, offering enhanced protection for the fall and winter respiratory virus season.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the updated formula from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna in late August 2025. Following the FDA's authorization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its recommendations, paving the way for distribution to pharmacies and healthcare providers across the country. This rollout follows the availability of the 2024-2025 formula, which was released in the fall of 2024 and targeted the JN.1 lineage of the Omicron variant. The new 2025-2026 boosters are an updated formulation to better match the evolving virus.

Individuals seeking the latest booster should contact their local pharmacies or healthcare providers to confirm availability. Public health officials encourage eligible individuals to stay up-to-date with their COVID-19 vaccinations to protect themselves against severe illness, hospitalization, and death.

Get that booster! NOW!
​Harv