Acting AG Blanche says it's ‘completely wrong’ to say Trump violating war powers law: Full interview

[0:00] And joining me now is Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche, welcome back to Meet [0:05] the Press. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for being here in person. We really appreciate [0:09] it. Let's start right there with the war. As you know, the War Powers Act requires Congress to [0:15] authorize military action beyond 60 days, which the U.S. passed on Friday. The president did send [0:21] a letter to Congress just to recap, saying that hostilities have been terminated given the cease [0:27] fire that was put in place on April 7th. And yet the U.S. is actively engaged in a naval blockade [0:33] of Iranian ports as part of this conflict. Is the United States at war with Iran? No. What President [0:40] Trump said this weekend is absolutely true. My job as the acting attorney general is to make sure that [0:46] the president, that we all are doing the right thing legally, and we absolutely are. As we said [0:52] to Congress last week, there has been nothing going on, no hostilities, no exchange of fire [0:58] since in almost a month, in almost a month. And how do you end a conflict? How do you end this? [1:03] You have a cease fire. And that's exactly what we have. And Congress knows that, and the leadership [1:07] knows that. And there's a lot of drama. I'm sure that Senator Schiff will come on here and say [1:12] something different. This has been done repeatedly for many, many years with many, many presidents. [1:17] And there's nothing inconsistent about what we're doing and what's been done in the past. [1:22] Well, you say that you're not actively at war. Here is what President Trump had to say on Friday. [1:27] I want to play it for you. Get your reaction on the other side. [1:30] They don't like the word war, and they call it a military operation, [1:35] because that way you don't have a war, you don't have legal problems. [1:39] Is the president effectively arguing that he can avoid congressional approval by avoiding using [1:45] the word war? He's not effectively arguing anything except that he is trying to keep this [1:49] country safe. We have kept Congress updated at every step of the way, consistent with what other [1:55] presidents have done. President Trump is doing something that the past five presidents did not [2:00] do. They promised to do it. They promised, oh, we'll stop Iran. Oh, Iran can never have a nuclear, [2:05] a nuclear weapon. President Trump is doing what others have promised but failed to do. [2:10] And as far as what we're doing with Congress, keeping them updated, we are doing so. [2:15] As you know, Democrats and even some Republicans say that the ceasefire is not enough to override [2:20] this 60-day benchmark. Republican Senator Susan Collins posted, quote, [2:25] the president's authority as commander-in-chief is not without limits. That deadline is not a [2:30] suggestion. It is a requirement. Are there any legal limits on the president's powers to carry out [2:36] the war with Iran? Suggesting that President Trump or this administration or [2:40] the Department of War is violating the law is just completely wrong. It's not appropriate to say [2:46] that. We are not. We are complying with the law. I can tell you that as the acting attorney general, [2:51] we are doing exactly what we're supposed to do legally, and President Trump will continue to do [2:57] that. But are there any, to this point, do you see any limits on how he has to carry out this war? [3:05] Yes, of course there's limits to what President Trump can do, and he's never said there aren't limits. [3:09] He's acting within his duty to the American people to keep us safe. He's not engaged in a popularity [3:16] contest when it comes to what we're doing in Iran. He is doing something that will save us for [3:21] generations. And so he's doing something, again, that every president since Reagan has said that we [3:26] should do, and he's the only one willing to do it. [3:28] The President Trump said that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Do you agree with that? [3:33] I'm not talking about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act doesn't do anything. I will tell [3:38] you the Department of Justice advises the President, advises the Department of War, [3:43] and we are acting completely within the law with what we're doing. [3:46] All right, let's move on to former FBI Director James Comey. A grand jury has indicted the former [3:52] FBI Director. For this Instagram post, I want to put it up. I think a lot of folks have seen it at [3:57] this point, 86-47 in seashells, which the indictment says, quote, a reasonable recipient who is familiar [4:05] with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President [4:11] of the United States. How does that image of seashells amount to a serious threat against the [4:18] President's life? [4:19] Well, every case requires an investigation. And what you just showed is one part of that [4:23] investigation. What you just showed is the Instagram post. Rest assured that the career [4:28] assistant United States attorneys in North Carolina, the career FBI agents, the career [4:33] Secret Service agents that investigated this case didn't just look at the Instagram post and walk [4:38] away. That's why you saw an indictment last week, notwithstanding the fact that it was last May that [4:43] the post was made. So I am not permitted to get into the details of what the grand jury heard or found, [4:49] as you know. But rest assured that it's not just the Instagram post that leads somebody to get [4:54] indicted. [4:55] Well, part of what the government would have to prove is intent. James Comey deleted the post the same day [5:01] and he wrote, quote, I didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never [5:06] occurred to me. But I oppose violence of any kind. So I took the post down. How do you prove intent, [5:15] Mr. Blanche, when Mr. Comey himself said he didn't understand that some people would look at that [5:21] and think about violence? [5:23] You prove intent like you always prove intent. You prove intent with witnesses. You prove intent [5:28] with documents, with materials. So again, this is not just about a single Instagram post. This is [5:33] about a body of evidence that the grand jury collected over the series of about 11 months. [5:38] That evidence was presented to the grand jury. And it's not the government. It's not the Department of [5:42] Justice. It's not Todd Blanche that returned an indictment against James Comey. It's a grand jury, [5:47] part of the judicial process. And that this process has to be allowed to play out in the courts. [5:52] It's not fair to Mr. Comey. It's certainly not fair to the prosecutors for us to be airing your view [5:58] or my view of this indictment. It's something that will present it in court at the time set by the [6:04] judge. [6:04] Let's dive a little deeper. Conservative legal scholar Jonathan Turley said, quote, [6:09] this indictment is facially unconstitutional, absent some unknown new facts. Are there, [6:18] are you in fact saying that there are facts beyond this Instagram post that clearly establish [6:23] an intent to threaten the president's life? [6:26] I've said repeatedly, this was an investigation that less than 11 months. If the only facts that [6:31] existed was the posting of the Instagram, obviously that wouldn't have taken 11 months. [6:36] And so when Mr. Turley talks about whether it's facially unconstitutional, absent unknown facts [6:41] or circumstances, we will necessarily have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, [6:46] every element of this crime, which we're prepared to do. [6:48] Can you, and will you let the public know what any of those other facts are? [6:54] Absolutely. It's called a trial. That's what happens in every single case. We indict thousands [6:58] of cases every year. Every one of those cases, there's an indictment. And then eventually there is a trial [7:04] or some sort of disposition at the trial, a public trial that will be open to the public. [7:09] Everybody in this country will know exactly what, what, what evidence the government has against [7:13] Mr. Coleman. I know you can't give me specifics, but can you give me any insight? Are you talking [7:17] about writings? Are you talking about conversations? What does this other evidence consist of? [7:23] We are talking about evidence of all sorts, and that means documents, that means witnesses, [7:27] and that means, that means the whole array of what we did. And again, we are not talking about some [7:34] political guy in D.C. running out and getting an indictment. We are talking about career prosecutors [7:39] in North Carolina, systematically investing a case with the FBI working with them, with the Secret [7:44] Service working with them, and now we have an indictment. [7:47] Well, the image, excuse me, is part of what led to this indictment. It is worth noting that on [7:54] amazon.com, we looked this up, there are dozens of products with the same terminology. We're showing [7:59] it right here, 8647 being sold and purchased right now. Should individuals selling or buying 8647 [8:08] merchandise be concerned that they're going to be prosecuted by the DOJ? [8:11] This isn't about a single incident, okay? This isn't, I mean, of course not. That's posted [8:17] constantly. That phrase is used constantly. There are constantly men and women who choose to make [8:22] threatening statements against President Trump. Every one of those statements do not result in [8:26] indictments, of course. There are facts, there are circumstances, there are investigations that have [8:31] to take place, and we have charged dozens and dozens of men and women this year with threatening [8:36] President Trump and others. So this isn't a new charge we're bringing. [8:39] Just to be very clear, you are suggesting the seashells themselves are not at the root of this [8:45] indictment. No, I am suggesting that every single case depends on the investigation that's done. [8:50] And of course, the seashells are part of that case. I mean, that's what the public sees. [8:55] But without a doubt, and it should be evident by the fact that it's been 11 months since the posting [9:00] and the indictment, there is an investigation that takes place. And that's the result. The result of [9:05] that investigation is the indictment that was returned last week. [9:08] Let's talk big picture. Back on September 20th, President Trump publicly posted a private message [9:14] to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, pressuring her to prosecute Senator Adam Schiff, James Comey, [9:20] and Letitia James, writing, quote, [9:21] They're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done. They impeached me twice. They indicted me five [9:27] times over nothing. Justice must be served now. Why should the public believe that any case brought [9:35] against the individuals listed there is an independent law enforcement decision and not [9:40] retribution? [9:41] Well, because you have investigations and you have indictments and you have the result. I mean, [9:46] listen, if, if, if years later, you're judged by a simple note from President Trump, by the way, [9:52] that wasn't a private message. That was a message delivered to the entire world. [9:55] Right. [9:55] So this is not being done behind closed doors. [9:57] But it was meant to be private initially, based on my conversation. [10:00] It was meant to be private. Based on my conversations, it was meant to be. [10:03] Well, I'm not aware of those conversations. [10:04] With top administration officials, it was meant to be private and posted by mistake. [10:08] President Trump is very clear with the American people, what he expects as president of the [10:14] United States. That is not something he hides from the American people. He wants justice. He wants [10:18] full investigations where appropriate. And by the way, that's a good thing. That's not a bad thing. [10:24] Everybody in this country should want that. And so, no, I don't operate based upon concern or fear. [10:29] The American people will know exactly what we're doing and why we're doing it. [10:32] And yet, Mr. Acting Attorney General, the Justice Department has already indicted former FBI [10:38] Director James Comey, as you know, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. And a federal judge [10:43] dismissed both of those cases. Why should people have confidence that this case will actually move [10:50] forward and is rooted in facts? [10:52] Well, let's, let's, let's be accurate. Okay. The, the, the judge dismissed those cases, [10:56] not based on a factual finding that president Trump did something wrong or that there was [11:01] something wrong with the underlying facts leading to that indictment. The federal judge dismissed that [11:05] case because he found that the U S attorney was not properly appointed. That's not a, that there was [11:10] no final finding on the facts or anything like that. So look, those cases are on appeal. We will see [11:16] what happens. But again, you're, you're comparing apples to oranges when you say just because that [11:21] indictment was dismissed, there's something wrong with the underlying investigation. [11:24] Well, again, he did directly push to have those people indicted. Charges were brought [11:29] and then they were dropped. Does that not undercut potentially the trust that people have [11:34] in the justice department? Absolutely not. And by the way, do you think, [11:38] or do the American people think that, that nothing was done on those cases until President Trump posted [11:42] that, uh, that truth in September? No, these are ongoing investigations. Investigations take time. [11:48] Investigations take effort. And so, no, I, I don't, I am not concerned. What we do, [11:53] what we do at the department of justice, the American people can judge us and they will. [11:57] And I'm ready to be judged because we're doing the right thing. We're restoring justice, [12:01] which nobody saw for four years. There weren't guests on your show for four years [12:05] during the last administration being overly critical of what the department of justice is [12:09] doing. And that was a problem and we fixed it. I want to turn now to the shooting at the white [12:15] house correspondence dinner. Since we last spoke, it has been deemed an assassination attempt [12:19] against President Trump. We are all so thankful he is okay. And everyone at that dinner, including [12:24] yourself, uh, is okay. His lawyers say that the suspect in this case is now on a suicide watch. [12:32] Are there any new updates you can share on the investigation or new charges that the suspect [12:38] may be facing? Well, look, the investigation is, is ongoing and it's, it happened just over a week ago. [12:43] And I expect that, that the U S attorney, Piro, that she and her team are, are continuing to work [12:48] on understanding why, um, why this man allegedly did what he did. Any other information that, that, [12:55] that they can learn from the devices and from the search warrants that were executed. Um, [12:58] I don't have an update to provide you beyond the fact that we are working hard. I expect in the next [13:03] week or so, there will be more information coming out. Obviously, um, assuming the investigation [13:09] moves forward, there will be an indictment forthcoming and, and, and all that is, is, is typical of what [13:14] happens. You say more information, more charges potentially too? Potentially. I mean, look, I think [13:18] that's what happens, right? There's initial charges and there's an investigation. And, and to the extent [13:22] that the government learns more things, I assure you they will, they will become charges. All right. [13:27] Let's turn to the Supreme court's decision to remove a major pillar of the Voting Rights Act, [13:32] which protected minority voters. In his majority decision, Justice Aligo argued this quote, [13:37] the nation had made quote, great strides in ending entrenched racial discrimination. Do you believe [13:45] that minority voters are represented equally in this country? Yes. There is no doubt that the Supreme [13:51] court got this decision, right? It's the position of the department of justice. It's the position of [13:55] this administration. We argued the case. And so, yes, there is, there is also no doubt that the existing [14:01] system was not consistent with our constitution. And that's what the Supreme court found. And there's [14:06] going to be a lot of criticism. I expect even in the coming moments on this show about that decision. [14:11] But the reality is what people cannot say is that, is that the, the provision that was struck down by [14:17] the Supreme court is consistent with our constitution. And that's the Supreme court's job is to interpret [14:22] the constitution. But the voters see this country differently. According to the latest Gallup poll, [14:28] 83% of black Americans and 61% of white Americans believe that racism is widespread. Does that [14:37] challenge the idea that there is racial equality? The Supreme court doesn't make decisions based upon [14:43] a Gallup poll. The Supreme court is not allowed to make decisions because there's some poll that says [14:47] some percentage of Americans feel one way or another, they interpret the constitution and, and keeping, [14:53] keeping our elections fair, keeping our elections exactly what they're supposed to be consistent with [14:58] the constitution is what president Trump has been fighting for, for 10 years. And so this was a great [15:04] win for the American people. But the root of the voting rights act was to make sure that people were [15:08] treated equally, that they had equal rights when it came to voting and representation. Does it not [15:15] weaken that ultimate goal? The fact that we're talking about this when, when Democrats in Congress, [15:21] for example, refuse to support basic structures to guarantee free and fair elections is laughable. [15:27] I mean, the fact that we are talking about this decision from the Supreme court, which is just a [15:31] constitutional decision when what we should be talking about is that there's a lot of things that [15:36] we can be doing like voter ID. Like every time you walk into a restaurant or a club, you have to show [15:42] your ID. How about you have to show your ID to vote? That's not, that's not anything that's crazy. [15:46] And that's what, that's what we should be talking about. Certainly one of the votes on Capitol Hill [15:50] right now. Quickly, before I let you go, the position of attorney general remains open. You still have an [15:57] acting in front of your title. Are you hoping to drop that acting title and become the attorney general? [16:02] I am happy to do my job. No matter. President Trump can ask me to do whatever he chooses and I'll be [16:07] happy to do my job. We, the Department of Justice, all of our employers are working hard every day [16:12] to restore justice and we will continue to do that. I, I love my job no matter what it is. [16:18] All right. Acting attorney general Todd Blanche, thank you very much for being here to cover a range of [16:22] topics this morning. We really appreciate it. [16:24] Thank you. [16:24] We thank you for watching and remember, stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app [16:30] or watch live on our YouTube channel.