The Art of the Self-Settlement
Only Donald Trump could turn suing himself into a taxpayer-funded business plan.
Welcome to The Solzy Report. I decided to rebrand Solzy on Buttondown to a new name that better fits what this newsletter has become. This space will continue covering politics, current events, books, etc. with clarity and conviction. Same logo, different title.
At this point, the only thing surprising about convicted felon Donald Trump demanding $230 million from the Justice Department is that he hasn’t yet added “emotional distress” for being forced to sit through his own legal defenses.
According to reporting by The New York Times’ Devlin Barrett and Tyler Pager, the convicted felon has filed administrative claims demanding that the Justice Department compensate him for past federal investigations—including the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago and the special counsel probe into Russian election interference. You can’t make this up. Or rather, you could, but no studio would greenlight it. Too implausible.
This isn’t just an ethical conflict; it’s a constitutional farce. The man who spent years railing against the “deep state” is now negotiating with his own appointees for a payout from the same government he runs. It’s the political equivalent of suing yourself and sending the bill to your neighbors.
The Justice Department’s regulations are clear: any settlement above $4 million must be approved by the deputy attorney general—in this case, Todd Blanche, Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer who admitted during his confirmation hearing that he still considers Trump a client. If this were a courtroom drama, the judge would’ve thrown the script across the room for being too on-the-nose.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi—who once faced scrutiny over campaign donations from Trump’s foundation—conveniently fired the department’s top ethics adviser in July. Because, of course she did. You can’t have ethical complications if you get rid of the ethics.
We’ve reached a point where the absurd has become administrative. This is what happens when corruption stops being whispered and starts filling out forms in triplicate. Standard Form 95: check the box for “malicious prosecution,” attach a few grievances about the FBI, and presto—a quarter-billion-dollar claim against the taxpayers you’re supposed to serve.
The Founders didn’t foresee everything, but I suspect if you told them a future president would literally pay himself with public funds for being investigated, they’d have stopped writing the Constitution and started drinking.
If this payout ever happens, it won’t just be a legal obscenity—it’ll be the formal declaration that the rule of law is now optional, provided you sign your own checks.
And the rest of us? We’ll be footing the bill for his victim complex.
When “I Didn’t Know” Isn’t Enough
According to Jewish Insider, Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner says he’s “not a secret Nazi” after photos surfaced of his black skull-and-crossbones tattoo—identified by a former acquaintance as a Totenkopf, a Nazi SS “death’s head.”
Platner claims he got the tattoo while drunk with fellow Marines in 2007 and didn’t know its meaning until recently. Maybe that’s true. Maybe it’s not. But here’s the thing: ignorance doesn’t erase harm, and denial doesn’t rebuild trust.
Platner’s campaign has already been rattled by antisemitic undertones and online posts that trivialized sexual assault and law enforcement. This latest revelation doesn’t happen in a vacuum—it’s part of a pattern of carelessness from someone seeking public office in a moment when antisemitism is rising worldwide.
“I didn’t know” might explain a mistake. It doesn’t justify keeping it for 18 years. Nor does it excuse brushing off concerns from the Jewish community with defensiveness. If you truly oppose Nazism, you don’t need Reddit comments to prove it. You need accountability—and a cover-up appointment at a tattoo parlor.
The Defense That Shouldn’t Exist
Common Defense, a veteran-led organization that claims to fight hate, issued a statement defending Platner, calling the controversy “a smear over a tattoo” and insisting the design is “a common military tattoo.” That defense is morally bankrupt. The Totenkopf isn’t a generic skull—it’s the emblem of SS units who ran concentration camps. There is no “military tradition” that excuses defending a symbol of genocide.
Even U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who offered context on Platner’s service and personal struggles, framed it as a story of trauma and growth—not as a defense of a Nazi tattoo. And that’s the right line: people can endure hardship and learn from mistakes—but some symbols are never excusable. A Nazi tattoo is one of them.
Whether it’s a president trying to pay himself or a Senate candidate rationalizing a Nazi tattoo, the throughline is the same: power without accountability always tests the limits of decency—and conscience.