'Like Al Capone negotiations': How judges could block payments to J6 insurrectionists

Legal analysts are trying to figure out a way to stop the Justice Department from giving millions in cash to Jan. 6 attackers who got pardons thanks to President Donald Trump.

After hundreds of protesters beat police officers and reporters, it's the J6 attackers who are now alleging "excessive force” in a $18.4 million class action lawsuit, reported "All Rise News" reporter Adam Klasfeld on Monday. He also noted that while the class-action suit includes only some of the attackers, the DOJ may decide to compensate all of those arrested and charged.

Speaking to former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner on Tuesday, Klasfeld asked if there was any way to stop taxpayer dollars from being handed over to anyone Trump wants.

Last week, the Justice Department cut Michael Flynn a check for $1 million for what they said was "malicious prosecution." However, no court of law ruled that it was malicious prosecution. The case never went to trial

Trump is working with the Justice Department to get the government to hand him $10 billion from the IRS and U.S. Treasury Department for a "data breach" that included his tax information. He's also suing the DOJ for roughly $230 million for the 2022 Mar-a-Lago search and Russia probe inquiries.

Trump was never investigated in the Russia probe; those in his orbit were. Special counsel Robert Mueller said that Trump was never investigated because it was against the DOJ inspector general policy memo. The DOJ dismissed charges against Trump without prejudice after the judge in that case claimed that special counsel Jack Smith was not legally appointed by Congress. Those charges could be brought again if Congress were to appoint another special counsel, Smith suggested while testifying in January, the conservative Washington Examiner said at the time.

It raises the question of whether the DOJ could "settle" with Trump for whatever amount the two agree on without ever going before a judge. That is not necessarily the case for the Jan. 6 attackers.

"I always say that I can't imagine things getting any worse, but that's only because of low levels of my imagination," confessed Epner.

He explained that in the Michael Flynn case, the suit didn't even go to court. It was "just a direct case with one plaintiff and no judge [who] could step in to have anything to do with the settlement." In the case of a class action suit, however, the "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 lays out a bunch of specific issues that the judge has to consider before deciding whether or not to approve the settlement."

Epner said that at first he thought it would be difficult for a judge to find anything in the text of Rule 23 that would allow a judge to say, 'No, you can't go forward with this.' I think a creative judge might be able to use Rule 23, Section 2, Subpart B, which requires the judge to find that the proposal was negotiated at arm's length.'

In this case, a settlement like this would be "the furthest thing possible from arm's length. It's a collusive case. The plaintiff's counsel are bringing it where the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, who should be ashamed of himself every single day because he knows better and he sold his soul, was bragging only last week to people that they should feel good about Donald Trump living up to his promises to his base because he pardoned the people who were insurrectionists on Jan. 6."

So, the idea that Todd Blanche is engaged in anything at arm's length around Jan. 6 is like saying Al Capone and Frank Nitti were involved in arm's-length negotiations," Epner continued, citing the infamous mob boss (Capone) and his right-hand man (Nitti).

In the end, Epner thinks that with a creative judge, the case doesn't make it past the first court. It would then be appealed, likely all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. That would likely take longer than Trump has in the White House, and another attorney general could refuse a settlement and require a full trial.