LEILA FADEL, HOST:
For more legal analysis of the settlement, we're joined by Harry Sandick. He's a former federal prosecutor. He is now a partner with the law firm Patterson Belknap. Good morning, and welcome to the program.
HARRY SANDICK: Good morning. Thanks for inviting me.
FADEL: I'm curious if you agree with the assessment we just heard from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that this is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history.
SANDICK: I do agree with it broadly. Nothing like this has ever happened before. For a president to sort of reach with his, you know, with one hand as the litigant and with another hand as the person who controls the government. And to take almost $2 billion and intend to use it, with almost no controls, to provide, you know, settlements, I guess is what they'll call it, to people who were engaged in the January 6 insurrection. So there's - I've never seen anything like this before.
FADEL: You talk about almost no oversight. So we heard from Carrie Johnson there that the judge closed the case in part because the administration didn't file the details of the settlement, so the judge no longer had jurisdiction. And then hours later, the DOJ did share those details. How unusual is that?
SANDICK: It's very unusual because the government is supposed to conduct its business in the most transparent way possible. And to specifically avoid judicial oversight, as they did here, is definitely a red flag. The settlement proceeds are being put into the hands, as Carrie just said, of a five-member commission that is obliged only to follow the wishes of the president, also a red flag from the perspective of due process.
FADEL: Will there be legal guardrails? I mean, will there be a way for there to be legal challenges to this fund?
SANDICK: Well, the problem with that is that the Supreme Court in recent years has very much narrowed what we call standing doctrine. So it is harder than ever before for an individual to file a lawsuit to challenge government action. There's some potential ways to do that here. Some have suggested maybe a claim under the False Claims Act against the people who filed the claims. That might be one route forward. But it's very hard for an individual to just file a lawsuit and say the government is acting improperly, you know, asking the judges to stop it. And so it's going to present some challenges.
FADEL: Has the Trump administration now opened the door to Democrats doing something similar, if they come into power, for people they believe are being targeted by Trump's Justice Department?
SANDICK: It does seem that way. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And once we have a system that allows the president to use the judgment fund, which is meant to - for legitimate purposes of settling cases. It's not meant to create this kind of all-purpose fund for the president. There's no reason why people on the other side of the aisle can't do it. Of course, the best solution here would be for Congress to try to stop it, to say that this isn't what the judgment fund is for and to prevent this kind of expenditure. It violates the 14th Amendment and is inconsistent with the president's obligations.
FADEL: Was the settlement in the interest of the American people?
SANDICK: It's very hard to see how this is in the interests of the American people. The American people benefit from due process, from individualized determinations of justice, not from a sweeping fund that the president can use to pay people however he wishes.
FADEL: Harry Sandick is a former federal prosecutor and a partner with the law firm Patterson Belknap. Thank you for your time.
SANDICK: Thank you very much.
(SOUNDBITE OF HOODNA ORCHESTRA'S "SOF LAYLA (BA HOODNA)") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
