Legal Analyst: Jan. 6th officers sue to block payouts

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-21

[00:00:00]Two Capitol police officers who helped defend the US capital during the January 6th riots are suing to block payouts from a new fund. More than 100 police officers were hurt in that day in 2021.

[00:00:12]>> Yeah. The US Department of Justice set up a nearly $2 billion anti-weaponization fund. The acting attorney general Todd Blanch said it is for those who think they were unfairly targeted by the Justice Department under previous administrations. The fund is from a settlement of President Trump's 10 billion dollar lawsuit against the IRS.

[00:00:30]>> A five-person commission appointed by acting attorney general Blanch will decide how money from the fund is given out. Blanch said that he wouldn't rule out the possibility that people who attacked police officers on January 6th would be eligible for money. The lawsuit filed by the officer says that the fund violates the constitution and federal law. All right, joining us now are chief legal analyst Khalif Rose Khalif and we spoke with you about this on Tuesday, the creation of the fund that is. You said no doubt there are going to be lawsuits challenging that less than 48 hours later we got that. What do you think about the merits?

[00:01:06]>> My crystal ball still works. I got >> Let's Let's be clear. This is there are a number of things that are wrong with this settlement and I said it on Tuesday. I I I think this is the first step of probably countless litigation that will come from this. And and I'm this is not just coming from me. It's coming from the judge that was overseeing the hearing itself um for the initial process with President Trump's claim against the IRS for his release or leak of his tax um return information.

[00:01:34]That judge brought up a key point that I want to bring up as well here that Todd Blanch, your personal attorney, is now the acting attorney general. So the person that was representing you on the one side of this claim at some point is now representing or defending the government on the other side of the same claim. And so >> part of this settlement is the money which has caused an outrage 1.776 billion dollars with a B that's set aside right and it had no causal connection to the claim. But then it's this part that they sent out the other day with the hyperlink to the settlement saying that the federal government is forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing claims or examinations arising for matters pending before the IRS, including tax returns filed by Trump before this agreement was reached. So on top of a $1.7 billion settlement, you also have this barring of investigating the president for anything that he's ever submitted in the past forever. Those are the types of things when the judge would say you were involved on the other side of this. So you would know exactly what was there that you're attempting to bar from being ever investigated in the future. There are a number of problems in terms of um con uh conflicts of interest with the rules of professional responsibility that the judge issued and that I would say I'd echo.

[00:02:59]>> Excuse [clears throat] me. So, these officers obviously have already filed a lawsuit. We do expect more. Who gets this case first to say, "Hey, this can go forward or uh no, you guys need to stop what you're doing." It >> it it really just depends. I mean, I I'd first have to see, do they have standing because this claim is extremely vague.

[00:03:15]Yes, I I I understand what they're alleging that this the way that this fund was set up and did they have the proper mechanism to set it up. I'm just not sure if they as two individuals that were officers that were assaulted would have standing to bring a claim and or stop this from going forward. Um members of Congress have attempted to do that. I think they probably are the proper folks to bring a claim like this. Um, I think this claim it has potential legs, but I'd have to flush out exactly what they're alleging as to what gives them the ability to be parties to stop this.

[00:03:49]Do I think it it it there is a party there that could bring multiple claims to stop it? Yes. I'm just not sure if these two individuals, just because they were involved and were injured doesn't give them standing to stop the funding process from happening. it would be more from an administrative agency uh uh in terms of the rulemaking. Um the settlement process was not properly filed. A due process I think there are a number of other complaints that can be brought that would stop something like this from going forward but two individuals that would injured. I'm not sure are there individuals that should bring the claim.

[00:04:20]>> And now also I want to add in the White House has said we haven't even said the money is going to go to them yet. We haven't had the application. We haven't set up the board. So more things could come if this moves forward. But Khif what would be the action legally? Would you put a a pause on this saying, "Hey, before you move anything forward, we need to hear this in courts first." What would that challenge look like?

[00:04:38]>> Yeah, I mean the challenge would be first of all, typically if you're having a settlement like this, a judge would approve the process of the settlement.

[00:04:44]So regardless of what the funds and the funds being that now create this fivep person commission we didn't even have to step back and say, was the settlement appropriately granted? And that's something I think would probably be the appropriate way.

[00:04:56]This settlement wasn't approved by a court. the court. Now you're saying the taxpayers dollars didn't weren't appropriated by Congress. That's why I mentioned the congressional angle as well. But I think either way, if a court is listening to this and they were attempting to make payments, they would have to stop because the court would stay, pause anything like that from happening until a final resolution from the court had taken place. You mentioned that nothing has started yet. Tosh Blanch mentioned that in Congress the other day. Mentioned that in a number of interviews that he had. But he's also mentioned that he's open to individuals that have in fact assaulted law enforcement officers to get access to these payments.

[00:05:30]>> Wouldn't rule it out. Right.

[00:05:31]>> Right. Wouldn't rule it out. He said a number of times that yes, it's wrong. We don't agree with it. But it went on to say that the existence of compensation packages like this are things that have happened in the past and is something that this would be open to in the future.

[00:05:44]>> All right, our chief legal analyst, Kieods, thank you so much.

[00:05:47]>> Queen City News Plus. Just search Queen City News on your smart TV's app store.