← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
MAJOR LAWSUIT UNLEASHED against Trump…by J6 Officers! | The Breakdown
00:23:19
Allison speaks with former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and his lawyer Brendan Ballou about their lawsuit to dissolve the $1.8B slush fund for insurrectionists.
Loading summary
Transcript43 lines
- [00:01]
A
I'm Brian Caram, and I've spent decades covering politics. Now I'm taking you behind the scenes, one interview at a time.
- [00:09]
B
Join us as each week, Brian confronts
- [00:11]
C
the issues that matter, posing the questions you wish you could ask.
- [00:14]
A
No filter, no agenda, just the truth. We're not here for sound bites. We're here for substance. Join me, Brian Caram, every week as we cut through the noise and get straight to it. This is Just Ask the Question where curiosity will lead us to the facts. Subscribe now on your favorite podcast platform.
- [00:35]
B
And remember, when you want answers, all
- [00:38]
A
you have to do is just ask the question.
- [00:47]
C
Hey, everybody. Welcome to the Breakdown. I'm Allison Gill, host of the Daily Beans podcast. If you were here with me last week on the Midas Touch Network on the Breakdown, you'll recall I went through the amica brief filed by a group of lawyers, including retired Judge John Gleason, and they had written an amicus brief about the jurisdiction of the lawsuit Donald Trump brought. The $10 billion lawsuit Donald Trump brought against the IRS that has now resulted in the $1.7 billion slush fund for, you know, the felon to felon slush fund that's going to reward January 6th insurrectionists, domestic terrorists, domestic violent extremists, people like Rudy Giuliani, et cetera, et cetera. So we broke down that whole amicus brief. We talked about the $10 billion lawsuit. We talked about how it didn't meet the criteria for subject matter jurisdiction. Right. Because for an Article 3 court to hear a case, the parties have to be adverse to one another. They can't be on the same side. One person can't control both sides of a lawsuit, and so therefore, it should be dismissed, according to the amici. And we talked about how the amici said that if the parties were negotiating because a story come out that they were negotiating for a $1.7 billion slush fund. But he said, if the parties are negotiating on a settlement, has the doj, do they know how to follow the settlement rules in this kind of situation, such as you can't settle it under seal, the conditions have to be made public, and you absolutely cannot drop or initiate an audit into someone else's tax returns. Well, as it turned out, since we've spoken, lots has gone down. Uh, Trump unilaterally dropped his lawsuit because the IRS never answered. So he could just unilaterally drop it and the judge closed the case. Um, Judge, I believe Kathleen Williams or Catherine Williams joint closed the case, but not after noting that there's no settlement of record here. There's no legal settlement that could come out of this lawsuit. So when the fund was set up for 1.8, $1.776 billion, it was done so pursuant to nothing. The law. It's not a settlement of anything. It's just completely illegal. It's just theft. And you know, we were wondering, man, somebody should be able to sue to stop this slush fund. But who would have standing to do that? Do I? I was wondering if I had standing because I had been weaponized against by the government when I was fired from my job for having a podcast about the Mueller investigation back during Trump 1.0. But that's when my good friend Harry Dunn, who is also my co host on the cleanup on aisle 45 podcast, sent me his new lawsuit. Him and our other friend, Daniel Hodges. He is a Metropolitan Police Department officer who was there at January 6th. As we know, Harry Dunn, former Capitol Police officer, was there on January 6th protecting Congress, members of Congress and the Capitol and democracy. They have filed a lawsuit to dissolve this fund. And joining me today to talk about that lawsuit is not only Harry Dunn, but also their lawyer, Brendan Ballou. So that's what we're going to talk about on today's episode of the Breakdown. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the Breakdown. Please welcome my guests, former Capitol police officer, co host of the cleanup on all 45 podcast, and congressional candidate Harry Dunn. Hi, Harry. How are you?
- [04:13]
D
Hey, Gee, what's up, my friend? I would say long time no talk, but we, we do our amazing show together. So I feel like I talk to you every day. So.
- [04:22]
C
Yeah, we talk every other. Yeah, pretty much twice a week at least. And please welcome the lawyer, the mastermind behind this and another suit that we've talked about here on the Breakdown, the one that Katie, where Katie Fang is suing to get at the the Epstein Files, a very novel legal lawsuit. Somebody who's not afraid to go out on a limb with not with novel legal theor test, test the courts. Please welcome Brendan Ballou. Hi, Brendan, how are you?
- [04:47]
B
Hey, thank you so much for having me.
- [04:49]
C
This is so cool to talk to you. You all, we, you know, Andy McCabe and I also did a podcast about January 6th and all of the prosecutions there. And we, we talked a lot about you and your work as a prosecutor in a lot of those cases from, from, you know, you, we were at the Department of Justice.
- [05:05]
B
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's been two years on the the team prosecuting January six rioters. I mean, it was Incredibly important, meaningful experience. I, but I should say I was very small part of a very large team. You know, there are probably over 100 lawyers that were involved at various points. Many much so, much more so than me. But, you know, now almost all of us are out of government.
- [05:25]
C
Right. Because of weaponization, oddly enough, which is interesting, ironically enough, which is what we're here to talk about today in this lawsuit. We're going to, we're going to get it. I'm going to ask you about some of the details, but I want to point out that you've drawn, I believe, Jud Leon, is that correct?
- [05:44]
B
That's right, yep.
- [05:45]
C
74 year old GW Bush appointee. If that name sounds familiar, it's because I've been covering the lawsuit to block the ballroom, Trump's Ballroom, which Judge Leon is, is the judge overseeing that case. And he has yet to respond to two pretty insane filings. Brendan, did you read these filings where Todd Blanche is trying to justify the ballroom because of what happened at the White House Correspondents D. And it's just, it's like a truth social post. They're like, these people have Trump derangement syndrome, otherwise known as tds. It's just an insane filing. And they've, they've done a filing and there's been a response where the National Historic Trust is like, we don't even know how to respond to that. That's insanity. And then they responded again, just insane stuff on Judge Leon's docket.
- [06:37]
B
Yeah, I've been blessed. I haven't actually had to read the briefs, but I've seen the coverage and the clips. You know, I think it's obviously very sad. Todd Blanche is running for, he would like to become Attorney General. He's acting Attorney General right now and seems to be willing to do virtually anything to do so. Even when it, you know, not only humiliates himself, but, you know, dramatically undercuts the credibility of the Department of Justice. You know, when the DOJ is filing documents like this, you know, it hurts the ability of the department to convince judges or juries of anything. And not just now, but years, maybe decades from now. So the harm that he's doing isn't just in the present moment, but for a generation into the future.
- [07:18]
C
Right. And the rule of law. Andy McCabe and I, former acting FBI director, former Deputy director of the FBI, have a podcast and in that podcast we have a segment about the presumption of regularity and how it's been completely destroyed. Because every week we have more examples and more examples of it this week it was the Broadview Six, where apparently they were doing something called, I can't remember the term, but basically they were, yes, vouching, where they would take a grand jury vote, get a no true bill, then remove the grand jurors that voted against them and then vote on it again and not tell anyone that they got a no true bill. That's just insanity. But it's just all around destruction under Todd Blanche of the rule of law and the presumption of regularity here. It's, it's really sad. A lot of, I know a lot of folks who are former Department of Justice folks who are just, you know, they're, it's very hard to watch this happen to the department.
- [08:16]
D
Real quick, Ag, you got to think that Todd Blanche, you know, he's the acting attorney general who is supposed to be the lawyer for the American people. It's kind of awkward that he is Donald Trump's personal lawyer. And though he says he's separating the two, let's be clear, he is not separating the 2. He is 100% operating under what Donald Trump tells him to do. They can say it, they can disguise it any way that they want. But let's be clear. And he said that this fund is going to be decided by five individually appointed people who are going to act independently. No, those five people are appointed by Todd Blanche. And Todd Blanche is going to be doing what Donald Trump wants him to do to those people are going to be doing what Todd Blanche wants him to do. So there's nothing independent about this. The transparency part is completely gone. And it's like, it just stinks to high hell. Like, you know, one thing that we could always count on, we used to be able to count on with the Department of Justice, is that they are going to act in the best interest of justice. They are acting in the best interest of Donald Trump. Now, now, as a personal lawyer, that's what you want. You want your personal. But the attorney general is not anybody's personal lawyer. They are America's lawyer, the American people's lawyer. And they are absolutely, in this moment, not acting like it.
- [09:35]
C
Yeah, I agree. Harry and Brendan, let's talk a little bit about the lawsuit and, and something that's called a standing because that's going to be, I think probably the major question here is bas, you know, the judge is going to, Judge Leon is going to be like, what gives Harry Dunn and Danny Hodges the right to sue here? Right. How do they have standing in this case? Can you explain their standing.
- [10:00]
A
Yep.
- [10:01]
B
So two things here. One is what makes the fund illegal in the first place. And then two is how can anybody sue over it? In particular, why are Officers Dun and Hodges particularly harmed? So, you know, on the first question, what makes this illegal? There are really at least two basic problems. One is, as you mentioned at the outset here, you know, this is in response to a lawsuit that really can't even exist. To have a lawsuit in federal court, you need called a case or controversy. The two sides actually need to be opposed to each other. That's not the case here. Donald Trump was suing his own irs. He controls the irs. There wasn't actually disagreement to resolve. But even if there were a disagreement to resolve, the Department of Justice can't functionally create a new department or agency pursuant to a settlement agreement. You know, I don't think Republicans would be very happy if Barack Obama, you know, orchestrated a lawsuit and then propose to settle it by creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or something like that. You know, that's just not how it works. Those are things that Congress has to do, which, you know, the, the administration obviously has not. So, you know, this is a fund that lacks any sort of statutory authority. The DOJ is acting completely outside of its jurisdiction and bringing the in and establishing this. Now, as for Officers Hodges and Dunn, you know, think about the fact these are men that not only defended their Capitol on January 6th, but continue to receive persistent threats, persistent threats of violence or death because of their actions that day, because they continue to speak out about what January 6th is. You know, if rioters and their supporters are literally given money for breaking the law and trying to kill people like Officer Dunn, it means two things. One, it means that the presidential imprimatur is going to be put on their actions. They're going to have the endorsement of the President, not just being put beyond the reach of the law, but actually financially compensated for their violence. Why wouldn't they continue to be violent? And two, it's actually going to give them the money to do it. You think about paramilitary organizations like the Proud Boys. They need money to buy guns, to buy ammunitions, to buy tactical gear and communications equipment. This allows them to act on their violent threats. So by establishing this illegal fund, the President is increasing the danger to Officers Dunn and Hodges and so many others who have spoken out about January 6th.
- [12:27]
C
And Harry, what are your thoughts on standing here and your position and our friend Danny's position regarding these threats and potential future threats possibly getting worse or piling on because they're emboldened with not just the endorsement of the president but money along with it.
- [12:49]
D
Absolutely. So obviously everything that Brendan said, what a lot of people know us for is what they see on tv. They see us in courts, they say. What they don't see is the messages that we get in our inboxes daily, weekly. I mean, shoot, even after we filed this lawsuit. Just go look under Daniel Hodges Twitter feed, go look under it right now and see the vitriol, the death threats in public that are being made publicly. Pictures of nooses, pictures of telling go playing trap. You know, they're not even hiding it anymore. Ag. Whereas they used to just run to our inbox with it with some made up fake screen name but now they're openly doing it publicly and just continuing. I mean I've got just the TV appearances that we've done since we've announced this on Wednesday. Was it Wednesday when we announced this? This, when we announced it on Wednesday? The amount have. It's. I, you know, they were, I was getting like maybe once one a week here and there but I probably got 10 or 11 since Wednesday. So it's only continued to just spike and just make us even more paranoid and just, you know, but let's be clear, nothing is going to stop me from. You can't win these. They're not going to bully me or threaten me to shut up. What's right is right, what's wrong is wrong and we're always going to continue to stand up for it. But it is, it's scary. You know, my family members are calling me. Are you sure you want to do this? Hey, make sure you're taking extra steps to take care of yourself. Friends that love Harry, this is a lot. Are you sure you're okay? Are you sure you're good with doing this? And I'm clear eyed. My North Star is brightly clear. And you know this is wrong, this is illegal. And you know, like Brendan said, I'm glad that we have a great legal mind like Brendan that's able to articulate through law, through legal terms what I'm feeling emotionally, which, which does include fear. This is scary. Let's be clear. These people are pardoned, pardoned convicted felons, which makes them not felons and able to buy guns. You know, I mean Enrique Taro, the leader of the proud boys has already stated he's his, his quote is I'm not greedy. I want between 2 and 4 or 5 million dollars. So like let's be clear, they want to continue them getting this money isn't going to make the Proud boys go away. And in fact, it's only going to empower them to continue to exist and do more.
- [15:18]
C
Yeah. And Brendan, let me ask you about the standing a little. Like, if I'm, if may, if I may play a little devil's advocate, are you going to maybe perhaps file an amended complaint with these concrete examples of mathematically increased number of threats? Because, you know, there's a, like, there's an old case, Clapper 2013, where the court held that fear of future harm is insufficient unless the threatened injury is certainly impending. But there's room to work within that phrase certainly impending. And I'm wondering what your argument is there.
- [15:53]
B
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the sad fact is the facts have developed exactly how we predicted they would. You know, since we filed the complaint, Donald Trump said that he plans to give money to the Capitol rioters. They absolutely deserve it. You know, as Harry said, the Proud boys have already said that they're planning to seek money. We've seen any number of other folks associated with January 6th saying they plan to. You know, you couple that with the increase in threats that, you know, the officers have already seen and that are only going to increase once these folks actually start getting payouts from the government, I think it's going to be a very clear line to draw showing how the president is encouraging, you know, functionally terrorism in the United States. And I think what, you know, one argument that I think is going to be helpful to make in the briefing here is, you know, think about if this happened in any other country, you know, if an illiberal leader set up a fund to give money to paramilitary organizations who previously tried to overthrow the government, would we have any doubt that they would continue to act on their violent threats? You know, and we have any number of historical examples where this has happened domestically. We have examples of this, you know, the 1960s and before with the Ku Klux Klan. You know, we have a history of paramilitary violence, at least in the past, in the United States. And I think we can make clear to a judge that that is in our future if this fund is allowed to continue.
- [17:17]
C
Yeah.
- [17:18]
D
Also, can I, can I add, too, also, and let's be clear, yes, they were pardoned, but they were also convicted. And in those trials, it was also revealed that they were planning to stop anybody, even police officers that got in their way. So they were prepared to put us down with a quick reaction force that we saw with the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys that where they had guns, stashed across the Potomac river where they were prepared to take on the force of meet the officers. What's this only going to get? They've already shown the desire and the will and a plan. Not just a will and a want to do it. They had a plan to do it to take to cause harm to people that got in their way. We are still continuing to be in their way right now. We are in Donald Trump's way right now. We are thorn in Donald Trump's side. We're thorn in the Oath Keepers, in the proud boys side right now because we're standing between them and millions of dollars. The threats only continue to grow. They're only this, this is scary shit just to be, you know, but I'm not unmoved because it's the right thing to do. But let's be clear. They had a plan to use force, deadly force against us. And like I said, that's only going to continue to grow.
- [18:32]
C
Yeah. Not much different from the plan of one Cole Allen, who, who fired upon the White House correspondents dinner bringing weapons across state lines. They stashed theirs. The Oath Keepers and the proud boys across the Potomac for a quick reaction for us, this guy just checked into the Hilton where the White House correspondents dinner was going to be and nobody decided it would be a good idea to make it a national special security event. But I digress. Let's talk a little bit about another way that people are trying to stop this. I know Jamie Raskin has introduced legislation and Harry, I want to read what Jamie Raskin has to say, say about this slush fund and get your reaction and get yours too, Brendan. He says Trump is trying to commandeer nearly 1.8 billion in taxpayer funds to bankroll a slush fund for January 6th. Cop beaters and aggrieved MAGA foot soldiers. This massive abuse of public money also has glaring constitutional defects. Only Congress has the power to appropriate federal dollars and we didn't appropriate assent for the J6 Millionaire Trust Fund. That's why I'm introducing the no Taxpayer Funded Settlement Slush Funds act to shut down this high robbery and restore basic guardrails on how taxpayer dollars are spent. So I think it's interesting that Congress is taking a look at that. And, and, and I also, I also want to say it's not just Democrats, Republicans hate this too. Thom Tillis called it stupid on stilts. McConnell said it's corrupt. It's brought, you know, take your pick, whatever. Who, by the way, McConnell could have prevented all of this by Just voting to convict after January 6th in the Senate. But anyway, talk a little bit about what you. What our Congress members are saying about this.
- [20:13]
D
I always love hearing what Jamie Raskin has to respond, especially about this. He has such a way with words and he has such a brilliant knowledge of the Constitution, of how things work. So it's kind of like if Jamie Raskin says it for God's ears, it must be. It must be true, and it must be 100% right. But that's just my little praise for JB Raskin about how great he is. But look, he's entirely right. And also, like you said, Allison, it is not just Democrats, it's Republicans. But also, Brendan and I were talking earlier, you know. Yeah. What if Congress does pass a law to stop this? Great. And, you know, there's a chance that it may pass both chambers. It will be an uphill battle because I won't hold my breath for Republicans to do the right thing. It's just, I mean, we've seen it with the plaque that we're still fighting now. Republicans had the opportunity to do it and they still went on the police. So I won't hold my breath for Republicans to do the right thing. But just for chance, if they do, they do the right thing, what will happen afterwards? It has to go to Donald Trump's desk to be signed into law. There's no way in hell Donald Trump signs this. So I think the best action, the best recourse to stop this is the lawsuit that we have going forward.
- [21:15]
C
Yeah. And, Brendan, I'll give you the last word. Anything else you want to say about. About the lawsuit and your thoughts on its chances and what the next steps are?
- [21:25]
B
Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, bottom line. Well, let me first thank my colleague, Sam Ward Packard, who, who really came up with this case and executed on it in 40 hours, which is just incredible. And thanks to Danny and Harry for their courage in bringing cases like this. I mean, they have been. They were heroes on January 6th. They continue to be heroes for what they're doing. I think that this is ultimately going to have a court resolution. I think we are going to be able to move quickly here. I think the advantage that we have is that Donald Trump is absolutely committed to funding the most violent people who are acting on his behalf. And because of that, I think the risks are very real, and I think the courts are going to recognize that.
- [22:06]
C
All right, well, we look forward to seeing the next steps, obviously. Harry, thank you so much for all you're doing. Brendan, appreciate you. And thank you both for coming here on the Breakdown to explain the lawsuit a little bit, to talk about standing and where we are and how we're going to move forward on this. Everybody, if you want to, this is pro bono work. And if you would like to support this lawsuit, I got so many messages I have to tell you, both of you from listeners and viewers of this and the Daily Beans podcast. How can I help? How can I pitch in with this lawsuit to help stop this slush fund, this highway robbery under the guise of weaponization, which is what we see from this DOJ against Trump's political enemies every day. And you sent me a link that you can actually donate. There's a 501C3, so it's tax deductible. And if you wanna make a donation to help support this lawsuit, you can do it at Public Integrity. We'll put that up here on the Chiron publicintegrity project.org Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining me today. I really appreciate it.
- [23:11]
D
Thanks for having us.
- [23:12]
C
Thank you everybody else, we'll see you next week on the Breakdown.
- [23:48]
D
Love this video.
- [23:48]
B
Support independent media and unlock exclusive content ad free videos and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.
- [24:06]
A
I'm Brian Caram and I've spent decades covering politics. Now I'm taking you behind the scenes, one interview at a time.
- [24:14]
B
Join us as each week Brian confronts
- [24:16]
A
the issues that matter, posing the questions
- [24:18]
C
you wish you could ask.
- [24:20]
A
No filter, no agenda, just the truth. We're not here for sound bites. We're here for substance. Join me, Brian Caram, every week as we cut through the noise and get straight to it. This is Just Ask the Question for Curiosity will lead us to the facts. Subscribe now on your favorite podcast platform
- [24:40]
B
and remember, when you want answers, all
- [24:43]
A
you have to do is just ask the question.