US police sue Trump over $1.8bn ‘anti-weaponisation fund’ | Donald Trump News

Two police officers in Washington, DC, have sued President Donald Trump’s administration for their decision to establish a $1.776bn fund to compensate victims of what the government says are “weapons”.

In their lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday, officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges called the fund “the most fraudulent act of presidential fraud in years”.

Recommended Articles

list of things 3end of series

They want the fund to be frozen to prevent taxpayer money from going to those involved in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

On that day, thousands of Trump supporters descended on Congress in an attempt to block the passage of the 2020 elections, which Trump lost.

“If allowed to begin payments, the Fund will directly fund the violent acts, armed groups, and their supporters who threatened the lives of the Plaintiffs that day, and continue to do so,” the lawsuit alleges.

Both Dunn and Hodges said they were injured during the attack. Dunn, a member of the US Capitol Police, retired.

Hodges, who remains with the Metropolitan Police Department, recalled that the case was “almost crushed by violence” at the entrance of the Capitol. A police officer overheard protesters threatening to “kill him with his gun”. The police feared that they would not escape alive.

The lawsuit alleges that Trump has signed an offer to retaliate against the January 6 threats, saying he was “treated unfairly” by the justice system.

The newly created fund, he says, would allow him to do so with little supervision.

Already, on the first day of his second term, Trump issued a sweeping pardon to nearly all of those involved in the attack, and commuted the sentences of 14 others.

According to their complaint, both Dunn and Hodges continue to be threatened and harassed for their safety at the Capitol. Paying the attackers, the two men say, encourages violence.

“The Fund’s existence sends a clear and disturbing message: those who have committed violence in the name of President Trump will not only escape punishment, they will receive wealth,” the lawsuit says.

“That message, in and of itself, greatly increases the threat of violence that Dunn and Hodges face on an almost daily basis.”

Agreement to settle a disputed suit

The Trump administration has so far refused to block payments to those who will participate in the January 6 event from the “anti-weaponisation” fund.

That fund was established this week as part of an agreement between Trump and the Department of Justice, which is under his administration.

In January, Trump announced that he was suing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which is also under his jurisdiction, over its disclosure of tax returns to media organizations such as The New York Times and ProPublica.

Injuring himself, his grown children and his hobbies, Trump claimed $10bn in damages. Critics, however, said the case created a conflict between the president, who has control over the IRS and the Department of Justice.

Even the judge assigned to the case, Kathleen Williams, appeared to doubt that the two sides were “sufficiently contentious”, saying that the accused had “followed her instructions”.

There were also big questions about whether Trump filed his lawsuit within the statute of limitations, and whether the leak — which was created by a government contractor, Charles Littlejohn — was actually the IRS’s responsibility.

But Trump’s case did not go to trial. The case was closed after Monday’s announcement.

As part of the decision, the Trump administration ordered the Department of Justice to take $1.776bn from the Judgment Fund, which is used to settle cases against the government.

The money has been set aside as an “anti-weaponisation” fund, a pot of money that appears to have been predicated on Trump’s claim that he and his supporters are entitled to compensation for unfair treatment by previous administrations.

The solution (PDF) states that the United States government “does not have any responsibility to protect or defend the money” from fraud.

Also he explains that the fund will be managed by five people, appointed by the attorney general and subject to the dismissal of the president.

Tuesday, a appendices (PDF) it was published to the district, exempting Trump and his family permanently from the rules related to his taxes.

Struggle and resolve

The lawsuit filed by Dunn and Hodges is expected to be one of several lawsuits challenging the terms of the agreement.

In the past, there has been a lot of complaining, especially among Democrats, about self-interest.

In their complaint, Hodges and Dunn say the “extraordinary funding” of the anti-weaponisation fund has no “substantial basis” for Trump’s claims. They also argue that a lawsuit against the IRS should not be brought.

“That case was frivolous,” they said in their complaint. “Because Trump, as President, was the prosecutor and the director of all the defendants, Trump v IRS was not problematic.”

“Trump has all but acknowledged the lack of crisis,” the complaint added. Earlier this year, he explained that the case required him to ‘come to terms with myself’.

In the end, Dunn and Hodges said they fear the anti-arms fund will become “a financial burden for the United States military”, if it is not resolved soon.

Their case has been filed in the US District Court of Columbia.