15 Must-See Moments from Blanche's Confirmation Hearing

[0:00] Todd Blanche testified before the Judiciary Committee yesterday. It mostly went like this. [0:04] The truth has to matter at some point. [0:06] Yeah, it does matter. We just don't hear much of it from you. [0:08] But let me run through some of the must-see moments from that long hearing. [0:12] First, there's this. Todd Blanche started as a respected prosecutor [0:16] in the Southern District of New York. Then he became Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyer. [0:21] Then he was appointed deputy attorney general, then acting attorney general, and now he's been [0:26] nominated for attorney general. If that's a little confusing, it's confusing to Blanche too. [0:32] He still thinks he's Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyer. Watch this. [0:36] Are you and President Trump friends? [0:39] I'm his lawyer. Was his lawyer. [0:42] In fact, last year when he was testifying before the Congress, [0:45] I asked him whether he was still Trump's lawyer, and this was his response. [0:49] Are you still Donald Trump's lawyer? [0:51] I mean, yes, my attorney-client relationship with President Trump remains. [0:57] Now, because he doesn't seem to know who he represents as acting attorney general, [1:01] I focused a lot of my questions on the ethics guidance he got when he joined the department. [1:08] He sat down with a senior ethics lawyer, Joseph Terrell, and admitted [1:12] that he was advised to recuse himself from anything to do with the January 6 case, the Mar-a-Lago case, [1:18] and the Hush Money Payments to Pornstars case, all of which he represented Donald Trump. [1:24] Here's that testimony. [1:25] Mr. Blanche, you represented the president in at least three criminal cases, the Hush Money [1:31] Payment case in New York, the January 6 case, and the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. [1:36] You said when you appeared last before this committee you would consult with ethics lawyers [1:40] about that apparent conflict of interest in handling any case involving the president, [1:44] having been his personal counsel. Did you consult with Joseph Terrell, [1:48] a senior ethics lawyer at the department? [1:50] I believe I met with Mr. Terrell, yes. [1:54] Did Mr. Terrell tell you that ethics laws and policies required that you not be involved in [2:01] cases involving your prior representation of the president? [2:07] Yes. [2:07] So in those three matters, the Hush Money Payment case, January 6 case, [2:12] Mar-a-Lago case, you were to recuse yourself? [2:14] I'm recused, correct. [2:16] So if he recused himself from work on any of these cases, why was he bragging at a conservative convention, [2:23] CPAC, about firing all the prosecutors and all the FBI agents who had investigated [2:29] his former client, Donald Trump? [2:31] How many have been canned? [2:33] Over 200. Over 200. Over 200 either left before we came in because they knew it was coming or were [2:39] fired or took early retirement. They are no longer employed by this department. And when it comes to [2:51] the FBI, which takes a lot of criticism, especially because of what happened over the past several [2:57] years, Director Patel has cleaned house there too. There isn't a single man or woman with a gun, [3:05] federal agent, still in that organization that had anything to do with the prosecution [3:11] of President Trump. [3:12] When I asked him about it, he tried to deflect saying, well, he didn't do that. [3:18] That was done by other people. [3:20] So you're saying that it's not a conflict of interest for you to be involved in the firing [3:26] of prosecutors who prosecuted your client, your former client? There's no conflict there? [3:31] No, there is. I wasn't involved. [3:33] So at CPAC, you're taking credit for the firing of these Department of Justice lawyers, [3:40] but you're not willing to take responsibility before this committee, is that? [3:43] That's right. He is happy to take credit for the firing of all the people investigated [3:48] his client, but he's not willing to take any responsibility. And we would see this kind of [3:52] duplicitous deflection throughout the hearing where he would say he's recused and not involved and yet [3:58] take credit for things the department did under his watch that affected his former client that he [4:05] was supposed to be recused from. I also delved into this IRS settlement, this bogus settlement. [4:12] And bear in mind, Donald Trump didn't sue the IRS when he was a private citizen. He could have. [4:17] He waited until he was president again so he could essentially dictate the outcome, [4:22] be on both sides of this bogus litigation. So I asked him about that. [4:27] In particular, I asked him about why he put his name on this agreement. [4:32] But let me ask you about another matter you have your name on. [4:35] I don't think you can deny responsibility here. And that is the IRS settlement agreement. [4:40] So you put your name on this. That absolves the president of tax liabilities in the past. [4:48] The president was convicted in the case you represented him in [4:52] of falsifying business records in part for tax purposes. Does this settlement not absolve the [5:00] president of any liability for tax crimes associated with what he's already been convicted of? [5:05] That's not what he was convicted of. Not having to do with tax purposes. [5:09] I'm happy to read the statement of facts. The participants took steps that mischaracterized for tax [5:14] purposes the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme. [5:18] And we would see this throughout the course of the hearing. His deflection of responsibility, [5:24] his violation of his ethics obligations. And in particular, I questioned him about this [5:30] sham IRS settlement that lets the president and his sons and all his businesses off the hook [5:36] for any tax crimes or tax underpayments. Basically going from the date of the signing of the document [5:42] all the way in the past and including everything. A giveaway potentially worth up to a hundred million [5:49] dollars to Trump and his family. So I asked him about that. I asked him, who wrote this thing? [5:54] So who wrote this? [5:56] I don't know the person that actually typed it. I don't know who it is. [6:00] Was it one of the president's lawyers or was it someone from the Justice Department or IRS? [6:05] This document would have been somebody within the Department of Justice. [6:08] But you have no idea who that is? [6:09] I don't know the name of the person that typed it up. [6:12] So he didn't even know who wrote this thing. He surmised [6:15] it was written by the Justice Department, which he was running, or the IRS. But he claimed not to [6:21] know. And in fact, the terms are so favorable to the president, it's not a surprise he doesn't know, [6:27] because it looks like it was written by Trump's lawyer, not by the Justice Department, not by the IRS. [6:33] I asked him, who raised defenses like the fact that this was barred by the statute of limitations? [6:38] If you or I brought that case after the statute had run, we'd be thrown out of court. [6:43] So I asked him about that. [6:44] Did you debate with them the statute of limitations, which clearly would preclude [6:50] the president's claim, this $10 billion lawsuit? [6:53] We had extensive discussions internally about the underlying litigation. [6:57] And did you reject the statute of limitations defense? [7:01] I'm not a judge. I don't reject things. [7:04] But you signed an agreement for the US. [7:05] There was discussion around the litigation. [7:07] You signed an agreement for the US, basically indicating that the Justice Department's position, [7:14] that the statute of limitations applies, doesn't matter. [7:17] And then I asked him about all the billions, the hundreds of millions of dollars that Trump made [7:22] last year in all these crypto schemes with his sons, with World Liberty Financial or his meme coin [7:29] dinners. Basically, didn't this tax agreement absolve him of any tax problems with that? [7:35] If he didn't pay taxes or underpaid taxes, it was just another giveaway to him? [7:40] Blanche denied it. [7:41] Does this tax agreement, this addendum you signed, also hold him harmless from any audit [7:49] or tax liability with respect to the billions in crypto money he made in his first year as president? [7:55] It's not forward-looking. So to the extent there are taxes filed by the president or his sons or [8:02] the Trump Organization after the date of that agreement, there's no protection. [8:05] Well, but before that agreement, so any taxes- [8:08] He hasn't filed taxes yet for money he made last year, right? [8:10] So yes. So if he filed tax returns this year for money he earned last year that his sons earned, [8:20] that his World Liberty Financial, all those people earned and defrauded taxpayers on it, [8:25] he faces no liability under this agreement signed. So for a tax return filed this year for last year, [8:31] for the billions he made, there's no tax liability even if he cheats on his taxes or his kids do or his [8:37] business do. He has absolved of that further potential liability. [8:41] No. [8:42] Well, it's in the plain language of your agreement. [8:45] But here's what's perplexing, much as he seemed to wrestle with the dates, [8:49] the dates of this agreement were May 18th and May 19th. If Donald Trump filed his taxes, [8:54] if his kids did, if World Liberty did on April 15th, like most Americans, for all that money he made [9:01] last year, he's off the hook for any tax fraud. He won't be audited. He won't be forced to pay anymore. [9:08] Thanks to Todd Blanche, who signed an agreement he clearly didn't pay much attention to. [9:13] I don't know the person that actually typed it. I don't know who it is. [9:16] I asked Blanche about why the Justice Department wouldn't release volume two [9:20] of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on the Mar-a-Lago case, and how could he be involved with that? [9:26] Well, he denied his involvement, but it was just days after Todd Blanche became Attorney General [9:33] that the Justice Department changed its position, which had been in favor [9:38] of releasing volume two and suddenly no longer supported the report's release. [9:43] You've also refused to release volume two of the Special Counsel's report. [9:47] That was an investigation into the Mar-a-Lago documents case. How is that not an abundant [9:54] conflict of interest, refusing to release to the public an investigative report [9:59] of an investigation into your client? I am not a judge. A federal judge has said it cannot be released. [10:04] No, no, no, no, no. The department's position under you, Mr. Blanche, [10:08] the department's position under you, Mr. Blanche, was do not release the report. [10:13] So that position- If you went into court asking them to release it, it would be released by now. [10:18] So how is that not a patent conflict of interest? Senator Booker asked Blanche about that [10:23] strange interview he did with convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell and why she was transferred [10:29] to a cushy prison prison camp after that interview, that self-serving interview. Here's that exchange. [10:36] Well, just one week after your meeting, Ms. Maxwell was transferred from a low security [10:42] federal institution to a minimum security prison camp. Were you involved with that transfer? [10:48] When, as I've talked about before, in the time leading up to me going down to meet with her, [10:55] we learned that she was receiving threats. It turned out- I'm going to interrupt you for a matter [11:01] of time because- Okay, well, it's not a question I can answer apparently in the time you're giving me. [11:05] I'm going to tell you this because I deal with issues of criminal justice. When people are under [11:10] threats in a bureau prison facility, they're put into solitary confinement or protected. They're not moved to [11:18] a camp. That's not always true. You're just wrong. What is true is someone that is accused of child [11:23] sex trafficking under the bureau of prison's own policies is not put in a facility like this that [11:31] seems clearly like a reward. When Senator Klobuchar asked him whether he would ever authorize ICE agents [11:38] or CBP to patrol voting locations on election day, he wouldn't really answer the question. Will you commit to [11:47] following clear federal law and not deploying federal agents to polling locations? I will commit [11:53] to following the Law Center, of course. Everyone says they will follow the law. It is meaningless [11:59] unless you give expression to what the law actually means, which Blanche wasn't willing to do. But let's [12:05] look at the law and what it says. U.S. Code 18, Section 592. Any troops or armed men at any place [12:12] where a general or special election is held unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of [12:19] the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both. So [12:26] putting these armed people around polling stations is patently illegal, but Blanche, ever dutiful to his [12:32] real client, the person of the President of the United States, not the American people, is unwilling to [12:38] speak the truth about the law. How much confidence can we have that he will actually apply the law? [12:44] In fact, if you look at what Blanche has said in other venues, it's quite clear he sees no big deal [12:50] violating the law against having armed agents at polling locations. Here's what Blanche had to say. [12:56] So I also am not sure of the uproar of the risk of having a border patrol or an ICE agent at a polling [13:02] location. But to Trump and his cronies, the real risk, the risk here is that Democrats win the election. [13:09] And that is a risk they're willing to employ illegal means to try to prevent. Let's look at how Speaker [13:15] Johnson talks about the risk of the midterm elections. It is a nightmare. It is a trail to [13:21] certain death. If we were to lose the midterms, heaven forbid, these Democrats, y'all impeachment's not [13:27] even the big concern. They will turn every committee of Congress into an investigative body and they'll go after [13:31] the president's family, the cabinet, his donors and friends, half of you in this room will be [13:35] targeted. I run the protection program. I'll take care of you. Okay, we're gonna win. We're gonna win [13:39] the midterm. So Johnson tells his cronies, I am your protection. That's right. He's worried about [13:46] Democrats taking a majority and actually doing the job of Congress, doing oversight, doing investigations [13:54] into the rampant corruption of this administration and not just the administration, but also these [14:00] questionable mergers, these questionable deals, the payment for pardons, all of that stuff needs to [14:07] be investigated. Some of the president's closest advisors also talking about having armed agents [14:13] at polling locations. Here's Steve Bannon. You're damn right. We're gonna have ice surround the polls [14:20] come November. We're not gonna sit here and allow you to steal the country again. And you can, you can [14:25] whine and cry and throw your toys out of the pram all you want, but we will never again allow an [14:31] election to be stolen. On another basic question of law, Senator Klobuchar asked Blanche whether he [14:37] believed it was okay for agents to go into people's homes without a search warrant as is required by [14:43] the Constitution. Here was Blanche's pathetic response. You agree that it is unacceptable for [14:48] federal agents to forcibly enter someone's home without a warrant and drag them onto the street without [14:54] even checking that they have the right person. Well, it depends on the circumstances as you just, [15:00] as you know. No, it really doesn't depend on the circumstances unless there's some emergency or [15:04] exigent circumstances. Agents are forbidden under the Constitution from going into people's homes [15:10] without a warrant. Senator Macy Rono asked Blanche whether he stands by his statement that it is the [15:17] right and duty of the president to use the Justice Department to go after his political enemies. This was [15:24] his evasive response. Do you believe it is the president's right and duty to order the investigation [15:31] or prosecution of his perceived enemies? Yes or no? I can't answer that yes or no. That wasn't the [15:39] question. And my answer was that as the, um, as the president of the United States under Article 2, [15:44] he's in charge of the Department of Justice. And so my answer reflects that idea, not that he has a right [15:50] to go after his political enemy. But here is Todd Blanche asked about the president's going after his [15:55] enemies and here is his response. Now that you're in this position, how are you going to balance that [16:01] relentless pressure with this administration's promise to end the weaponization of this department? [16:06] Well, look, first of all, um, we have thousands of ongoing investigations and prosecutions going on in [16:14] this country right now. And it is true that some of them involve men, women and entities that the [16:21] president in the past has had issues with and that believe should be investigated. That is his right. [16:27] And indeed, it is his duty to do that. When I met with Todd Blanche before his last confirmation [16:32] hearing, I asked him what he would do the first time he was asked to do something amoral, unethical, [16:38] unlawful. Would he have the courage to the character, the backbone to stand up to the president? [16:44] And what he said was, I don't think I'll ever be put in that position. [16:48] Well, Chris Coons asked him something similar during the hearing, and he gave a very similar answer. [16:55] If you're confirmed and you're asked to take an action you believe to be illegal or unethical, [17:00] would you resign? That will never happen. But yes, [17:04] if it were to happen, I'm not going to violate my oath to the Constitution. [17:07] And yet Todd Blanche, sadly, has been willing to do so much that is unethical, and I would say unlawful, [17:14] as our acting Attorney General. So at the conclusion of the hearing, I had to ask him, [17:19] what happened to Todd Blanche? What happened to the once respected prosecutor in the Southern [17:25] District of New York, whose colleagues spoke highly of him at the time? What happened to that guy? [17:31] And how did he transform into this sycophant and enabler of the most corrupt president in our history? [17:38] Here was that statement at the end of the hearing. [17:39] What happened to the Todd Blanche who was a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York? [17:44] What happened to the prosecutor people had respect for? What happened to the prosecutor who once [17:48] respected the rule of law? What happened to the prosecutor who said that there wouldn't be a whiff [17:52] of political partisanship and then prosecutes the president's enemies over seashells, cases over [17:59] making a video stating the plain law and constitution? What happened to the Todd Blanche of the Southern [18:04] District of New York that could convert him into you? Someone willing to say the president has both the [18:10] the right and the duty to prosecute his political enemies? I can't imagine that Todd Blanche of the [18:18] old days would have ever done that. What happened to you, Todd Blanche? I'll tell you this. I think Robert [18:25] Caro had it right when he said that power doesn't corrupt as much as it reveals. I suspect it has just [18:31] revealed who you are and who you are as someone willing to sacrifice everything you once believed [18:36] in for that title, for that position of Attorney General. And it is a sad story that we have seen [18:45] from Trump appointee after appointee after appointee. We have seen people compromise themselves little by [18:51] little and then a lot by a lot until they're sitting before this committee and trying to justify the [18:58] unjustifiable. I yield back. So will Blanche be confirmed? It may come down to John Cornyn of Texas [19:05] who asked him questions about that IRS settlement and seemed very concerned. Here's part of that [19:11] testimony. Is the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties? Well, yes, it's an [19:19] enforceable document. So I suppose if President Trump's counsel sought to enforce it, they potentially [19:26] could. Including the weaponization fund. Well, they could try to enforce it. So the story of Todd Blanche [19:33] is one tragic I've seen over and over during the first Trump administration and now the second. [19:38] And that is people who make a small moral compromise followed by a bigger one and followed by a bigger [19:43] one to the point where finally they decide they can't be half in and half out. They've got to be all in. [19:50] It's a bit like this. You're going down a very dangerous road. You know that. And we ain't been [19:56] down dangerous roads before. All of a sudden we can't go down dangerous roads. This is a road that [20:00] I'm not going down because you're going to take us all down. This is not the way. You know, it's just [20:04] a matter of time you're going to get pinched. But don't forget, you're a racketeer. You're a gangster. [20:09] Come on. All of a sudden you want to be half in, half out, half a racketeer. You can't have it both ways. [20:15] You're either in or you're out. And whether you're half in or half out, that don't mean you ain't going [20:19] to get caught the same way I could get caught or I could go down. It's the same thing. [20:23] Hey, everybody. We do these nightly videos to keep you informed of some of the important things [20:28] happening in the nation's capital. If you have comments, please submit them below. And we're [20:32] going to do some special videos just to answer your questions. And while you're at it, hit subscribe. [20:38] Thanks again for watching.