Concerns about DOJ's "anti-weaponization fund" grow

追加: 2026-05-23

[00:00:00]Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tario is one of the latest people to say he intends to apply for this fund. He was sentenced to 22 years for sedicious conspiracy for his role in planning and orchestrating the attack on the capital in January 6th, but President Trump pardoned him last year. CBS News Miami investigative reporter Jim Defiti asked Tario why he's still seeking money from the government.

[00:00:21]>> Isn't that compensation enough that that you were pardoned and released from prison?

[00:00:27]>> No. to make to make somebody whole, right? Uh I I and Jixer stand on three pillars. One is that the convictions need to be overturned, right? Whether through pardon um or through the courts.

[00:00:40]And then the second pillar that we stand on is compensation. All right. Um uh restitution for again everything that we went through.

[00:00:50]>> President Trump's former fixer turned critic, Michael Cohen, also tells CBS News he plans to file a claim for the fund. Cohen served three years in prison after pleading guilty to campaign finance violations tied to payments to women who alleged affairs with then candidate Trump. Cohen says he's applying because he believes the issues that prompted Trump to sue the government are quote identical to what had happened to me. CBS News contributor Rebecca Roy is here to provide some more legal context. So remind us what where this money is coming from that's going to be moved into this new so-called anti-weaponization fund and the constitutional questions surrounding it.

[00:01:25]Yeah, absolutely. So, this all started as a suit that President Trump and his affiliates brought against the IRS for10 billion dollars claiming um that somebody had leaked an individual had leaked personal tax financial information, >> which somebody had leaked it, right?

[00:01:42]It's just he was accusing the government of not preventing it, >> right? Part of what was unusual about this suit was that it was the president who has essentially controls the agencies that he's suing and definitely controls all the lawyers who are representing that agency though. So that made it quite unusual to start with and the judge was questioning is this a real case? We need to have adversaries to have a case in controversy. A court can't just reach in and decide something. You need to have two people who are opposed. So the court was saying, I don't think I even have a case here because this is a person essentially suing himself and that's not a case. And so the court was thinking of throwing this out at the point at which this settlement fell down. So that the briefs were due the day that this settlement was reached. And so there are some questions about how this was essentially taken out of control of a court that could have eventually had just said, "We're going to dismiss this case entirely." And this is a fund that typically the DOJ has to settle suits, but in everything that you've just laid out, it appears that the fund was set up without any judicial overview. There's no congressional oversight. So legally, as it stands now, can it be challenged on any of these grounds?

[00:02:58]>> Right. So Errol, that's exactly the point, which is we know that Congress has the power of the purse. The government isn't just the executive isn't allowed to just spend money as it chooses. It needs to have the have Congress have said this is something we want to spend money on. So Congress has set up this judgment fund that is there to settle cases. But there's a question about whether or not this is in fact a settlement. That is both because this may not have been a case to start with and also because the money is not going to the litigants. It is going to these third parties who seem to have unrelated claims. um if they have claims at all against the government, they're not related to this particular lawsuit. So, that could be a substantial problem um that is a constitutional problem. But there's a another issue which is there isn't a clear legal avenue to redress because in order to challenge a a something as unconstitutional, you need to have a case in controversy. It has to be something that specifically hurt you.

[00:03:59]And it's unclear who has what's called standing who could bring this lawsuit.

[00:04:05]And so, um, we have two police officers who were hurt, um, who are trying to bring a lawsuit. You spoke with one of >> Yeah, I did. I spoke with Daniel Hajes, and he's still a current officer. And I asked him about standing, and I wanted to bring it to you. So, this is perfect timing. Let's listen to what he said when I asked, "How would you be hurt through this fight?"

[00:04:23]Unfortunately, I've been receiving all sorts of threats since January 6, 2021.

[00:04:29]And even since we announced the um the lawsuit today, I've received threats, new ones. Um >> what have people been saying since today, the new threats?

[00:04:38]>> Just that I'm about to be taken out of the game. Um in the past, there have been references that, you know, they're they're coming to get me on a pale horse, which is a reference to Revelations and death in the Bible. Um the MPD intel actually contacted me about that one because they were concerned. It's been there have been more explicit threats to my colleagues, actual assaults on their families, bomb threats and events we attend and giving these people money would just empower them, give them an incredible amount of resources to further carry out these threats.

[00:05:11]>> How do you view that response through a legal lens?

[00:05:15]>> I you know I certainly believe that he is hurt um and and and that is at least an alleged injury. It's a question of whether a court would see that as an alleged injury that stems from this weaponization anti-weaponization fund as opposed to something that stems from January 6 itself or from the pardons or from any number of statements that have been made by the current sitting president. So it's unclear to me whether that would establish standing under these circumstances and I think that there's a question that it would.

[00:05:42]Somebody who obviously has standing is Congress, but it seems like, you know, especially now, Congress will not have the willpower to bring this case.

[00:05:50]Congress could also, as you've said, there's a bill could pass a bill saying that this is, you know, not lawful. They take this money away. Um, but again, that requires political will. So the problem for anybody who wants to challenge the legality of this is that there may be a lack of political will and then there may be um it may be unclear who has um who has this the position to bring to question these complicated legal questions that are at issue here.

[00:06:18]>> Very helpful analysis, Rebecca Wy. Thank you.

[00:06:20]>> Good to see you. I see you.