CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings, one of President Donald Trump’s most reliable defenders on cable news, balked at the president’s newly announced $1.7 billion Justice Department-backed compensation fund as he admitted that the initiative made him feel a “little uncomfortable.”

On Monday, the administration unveiled its “anti-weaponization fund” that could distribute up to $1.7 billion to people investigated or prosecuted during previous Democratic administrations.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the initiative would be linked to a settlement tied to Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns during his first term.

However, not all supporters of the president were fully on board.

Hours after the announcement, Jennings expressed concern on CNN NewsNight about oversight and who could ultimately benefit from the money after concerns were raised that the fund could become a vehicle for rewarding Trump allies, including individuals connected to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots.

Jennings defended the broader principle behind the fund, arguing that Americans unfairly targeted by federal investigators should have a means of seeking compensation, but stopped short of endorsing the programme outright.

“The question is, has anyone in the history of the United States ever been unfairly targeted by the Department of Justice? Of course they have,” said Jennings. “And there ought to be, just at a top line, a way for people to seek recourse if they have been unfairly targeted.”

He continued:

That having been said, this all started by the fact that Donald Trump had his tax returns unfairly and illegally leaked by the IRS. That’s where all this started, and he was initially seeking damages for that, which he has given up. He’ll receive no money, as I understand it, and now it has morphed into this idea that there have been people that have been unfairly targeted.

…

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… 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.

Jennings went on to say that he “absolutely” wants to see “a world” where people who were “unfairly targeted by the federal government” can seek “recourse” and “some sort of damages.”

Challenged by a co-panelist on whether pardoned January 6 rioters should be allowed to seek compensation through the fund, Jennings sought to draw a line between nonviolent defendants and those convicted of attacking police officers or storming the Capitol.

“My personal view is anybody who committed documented violence against the government or against police officers, you know, they’ve not been unfairly treated. If they ended up being convicted of a crime because of the violence they committed, I got no real sympathy for them,” he said. “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. But I draw the line at violence.”

Jennings concluded, “If you’ve committed political violence, if you attack the government building, if you attack police officers, I got no sympathy.”

Watch above via CNN.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!