Officers who defended Capitol from rioters sue to block payouts from $1.8B ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

[hadit]

The dipshits who9 were in prison before being pardoned by Orange Jesus Dumbass. Look the shit up. I am not your mom.

Hey, you made the accusation, it's on you to back it up, not on me to prove you wrong. Sounds like you just don't want to say.

Let's try again. What officers died that day and who killed them? Heck, while you're at it, how were they killed?

 

[Moonglow]

There was abuse by the Biden admin and DC prison officials

Judge holds DC corrections officials in contempt over treatment of Jan. 6 defendant

A federal judge on Wednesday found D.C. corrections officials in contempt over the treatment of a Jan. 6 defendant and referred the matter to the Department of Justice for a civil rights investigat…

thehill.com

Judge holds DC corrections officials in contempt over treatment of Jan. 6 defendant​

There have been abuses under the Trump administration, also, but let us turn a blind eye to those.

 

[Moonglow]

What part of the Constitution does it violate?

Legal scholars, lawmakers, and advocacy groups are actively challenging the DOJ's newly created $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund". Critics argue the fund is unconstitutional and illegal for several key reasons: [1, 2, 3, 4]

• 14th Amendment Violations: The lawsuit filed by Capitol police officers highlights Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which strictly prohibits the federal government from paying claims or obligations incurred in aid of an insurrection or rebellion. Critics fear this fund could compensate January 6th rioters.
• Emoluments Clause Issues: Government watchdog groups, including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argue the settlement that established the fund amounts to presidential self-dealing and violates the Constitution's Domestic Emoluments Clause.
• Appropriations Clause Violations: Legal experts and members of Congress point out that the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause gives Congress—not the executive branch—the sole power of the purse. Because the fund bypasses congressional approval, legislators have called it an illegal "slush fund".
• Separation of Powers: Critics point to a conflict of interest in the settlement, as the President essentially negotiated and settled his own $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and DOJ with officials he appointed, leading to the creation of the fund. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]

A pair of U.S. Capitol Police officers filed an official lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to block the DOJ payouts. You can track the progress of this challenge via the CNBC Jan. 6 police officers lawsuit coverage. [1, 2]
Additionally, on the legislative front, bipartisan lawmakers have introduced bills to prevent the DOJ from distributing this money without formal congressional oversight. You can monitor these legislative efforts through the CBS News Bipartisan House bill report. [1]

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Legal scholars, lawmakers, and advocacy groups are actively challenging the DOJ's newly created $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund". Critics argue the fund is unconstitutional and illegal for several key reasons: [1, 2, 3, 4]

• 14th Amendment Violations: The lawsuit filed by Capitol police officers highlights Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which strictly prohibits the federal government from paying claims or obligations incurred in aid of an insurrection or rebellion. Critics fear this fund could compensate January 6th rioters.
• Emoluments Clause Issues: Government watchdog groups, including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argue the settlement that established the fund amounts to presidential self-dealing and violates the Constitution's Domestic Emoluments Clause.
• Appropriations Clause Violations: Legal experts and members of Congress point out that the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause gives Congress—not the executive branch—the sole power of the purse. Because the fund bypasses congressional approval, legislators have called it an illegal "slush fund".
• Separation of Powers: Critics point to a conflict of interest in the settlement, as the President essentially negotiated and settled his own $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and DOJ with officials he appointed, leading to the creation of the fund. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]

A pair of U.S. Capitol Police officers filed an official lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to block the DOJ payouts. You can track the progress of this challenge via the CNBC Jan. 6 police officers lawsuit coverage. [1, 2]
Additionally, on the legislative front, bipartisan lawmakers have introduced bills to prevent the DOJ from distributing this money without formal congressional oversight. You can monitor these legislative efforts through the CBS News Bipartisan House bill report. [1]

So, you have no evidence that the settlement violated the Constitution?

 

[MarathonMike]

Who is funding the lawyers fighting for the two Capitol Police officers? Could it be the same shadow group of powerful anti-Americans who fund NO KINGS, F*K ICE rallies?

 

[ThisIsMe]

View attachment 1259754

Ok, I get it, so, what’s the number? Why is this so hard? What is the number that YOU think is fair?