Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche faced angry lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Tuesday who demanded to know specifics about a fund that the Department of Justice created to who claim they were mistreated by the Joe Biden administration Justice Department.When it was time for Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the senator hammered Blanche on the "outrageous, unprecedented slush fund," and demanded to know whether Jan. 6 insurrectionists who beat or otherwise harmed Capitol police officers would be compensated. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) similarly asked Blanche in a later segment whether Blanche would commit not to give millions in settlements to members of militia groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. In both cases, Blanche refused, saying instead that a panel of five people would be set up to decide who would receive the settlements. There would be no oversight by the courts or any branch of the judiciary, unlike all other funds set up in the past and approved by a federal judge. Blanche said he has no power to make these decisions, but Van Hollen said he's appointing the members of the panel overseeing the fund. Van Hollen also said that since this fund has no judicial oversight, it could very easily make a rule to bar people who violently attacked a police officer from having a settlement. Similarly, he could make rules to guarantee that no members of militia groups would also be given millions in settlements. Van Hollen then hammered Blanche on his excuse that the fund was set up using the model in the Keepseagle case, where Native American farmers who filed a significant class action lawsuit against the U.S. government on the grounds that they were denied farm and ranch loans as a result of discrimination. The U.S. agreed to a settlement using a fund that would be started to pay out such settlements to victims. A federal judge then approved the case. "I think you know full well that in that case, the settlement agreement was approved by a federal judge, including the payments to people who were not originally parties to the lawsuit," Van Hollen said. "No federal judges approved this have they Mr. Attorney General?"Blanche agreed that no judge had. "That's a big difference between this and the case you compared it to," Van Hollen continued. Blanche tried to claim that they weren't different but Van Hollen stopped him. "Did a judge sign off on this case?"Blanche again was forced to agree that none did. "Of course," there is a difference," Van Hollen said. "It allows for an independent person to look at it rather than a ham-handed person. There was a judge who looked at it and signed off on it [the previous case]. So, to compare that taste of this one is incredibly deceptive."