AG Blanche says DOJ is "doing our own research under the law" with Alaska ballot challenge

[0:00] we turn to a series of election-related actions by the Justice Department that are drawing new [0:04] attention in the closing days of the campaign. And we begin with U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche. [0:11] Good morning to you, sir. Good morning. So we're nine days out. Your colleague, [0:17] Harmeet Dillon, whose office would oversee election integrity cases, told my colleagues [0:23] over at 60 Minutes that, quote, absent some shocking contingency that's unexpected, [0:28] there should be no interruption in the usual course of counting and certifying the results in the [0:33] states. Do you share that view? Well, yes, of course, absent some facts that require us to do [0:41] otherwise. There's President Trump, the Department of Justice, we don't want to have to get a law [0:46] involved in elections. Of course not. But that doesn't mean that at times any Justice Department [0:51] doesn't do that and shouldn't do that if the facts in the law require it. [0:55] Well, it seems you already are taking action up in Alaska. Just for our audience to understand, [1:01] there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot there. There's the incumbent senator, a Republican, [1:07] Dan S. Sullivan. And then there's a challenger there, Dan J. Sullivan. The Justice Department [1:13] is suing Alaska preemptively to block the certification of the results if Senator Sullivan [1:19] loses. Now, President Trump was asked about this lawsuit. He said, quote, [1:24] I'm the one that said, do it. Who did he tell to do this? Did he tell you to do this? [1:33] Well, first of all, let me correct you, okay? You described facts that were just simply either [1:37] at best misleading, but really a lie to your viewers. It's not two Dan Sullivans, [1:42] one an incumbent and one running. That's not true. The head of the Alaska Election Commission, [1:47] not President Trump, not me, has said that the second Dan Sullivan is running solely to confuse voters, [1:53] solely to pull votes away from the incumbent senator, okay? So that is something that we're [1:58] dealing with. It's not just two Dan Sullivans running on the ballot in Alaska. That is not true. [2:03] And second, President Trump has been talking about what a travesty this is for many, many, [2:08] many months. And the Department of Justice has been looking at it for many, many, many months, [2:11] as we should under federal law. And you saw what we did earlier this week, late last week. [2:17] And it's not to let the federal government take over the Alaska system of selecting their next [2:23] senator or certifying who's going to be senator. It's asking the court to step in where the Alaska [2:28] Supreme Court didn't, which is to look at federal law and, if necessary, to allow a process for Alaska [2:34] to decide who should be certified as a winner. [2:38] Well, the Alaska Supreme Court did uphold lower court's ruling on this matter. They found the [2:43] assertion that Mr. Sullivan seeks to confuse or misguide voters is not supported by a [2:47] preponderance of evidence. The Alaska Supreme Court did take on this matter. I also want to [2:52] show our viewers what the ballot will look like. We have a picture of it. [2:55] No, they didn't. That's the state law. That's the state law. [2:57] Just to make clear here, this is how the state, in this country, the states administer the [3:02] elections. This is how the state came up with the issue and how to handle any confusion. [3:07] Our viewers are seeing it right now. It's ranked choice voting. [3:09] I mean, you're not telling the truth. You're not being honest with your voters. [3:13] You're not being honest with your voters. You're not. [3:14] You're not. It's a ballot to the viewers right now. It's on the screen. It says Dan [3:16] S. Sullivan is listed as the incumbent. Why is that? It says incumbent. Why is that not sufficient? [3:25] Well, listen, I don't know if it's sufficient, but I can tell you this, [3:29] that the director of the Alaska election system has said that it will likely cause confusion. [3:33] And so, you know, you can continue to talk and continue to state facts as you want them to be, [3:39] but that's different than the way that they actually are. The Alaska Supreme Court did not rule on the [3:43] federal law that's implicated in every election. And it is true that it is not often that we have [3:48] to get involved. But just take a step back. Take a step back and understand what's happening here. [3:53] There is no dispute that the only reason the second Dan Sullivan is running is to pull votes away [3:59] in a confusing and inappropriate manner from the Dan Sullivan incumbent, okay? And the Alaska Supreme [4:04] Court, when they issued a ruling, they didn't issue a decision yet. We're waiting for that decision to be, [4:08] to the opinion to be issued. But in the meantime, all that we are trying to do as the Department [4:13] of Justice is make sure that federal law is enforced and upheld if it needs to happen after [4:19] the election. Well, the ballots are out. There's a lot of mail-in ballot voting in Alaska. The ballot's [4:25] going to look like what we just showed our viewers. They are both on there. In terms of the question I [4:30] asked you, I asked if it was President Trump who told you to take this action. When the president said, [4:35] I'm the one that said, do it. Who did he tell to do it? [4:40] So I don't, I will never, ever, ever talk about communications that I have with the president [4:45] of the United States. I never have and I never will. [4:48] No, the president actually said this on camera. [4:50] He said I told them to do it. Did he tell that to you? [4:53] No, that wasn't your question. No, he didn't say it on camera. He said he told them to do that. [4:56] I said, I will not talk ever about, no, that wasn't your question I said. I said, [5:01] what your question was to me is, did he tell me? And I said to you, I will not talk about [5:05] communications I have with the president of the United States. I haven't ever and I won't ever. [5:09] But I will tell you this, this is the Department of Justice doing our own research under the law, [5:13] the Civil Rights Unit in the Department of Justice, drafting this lawsuit and then ultimately [5:17] we filed the lawsuit. President Trump has been talking about this for months and months and months [5:22] and months. This isn't something new that just came up last week. This is something that's been [5:25] going on for a long time. Why did he file it 11 days before the election? [5:31] Well, we were hopeful that the Supreme Court would actually issue an opinion and explain their reasoning. [5:35] What we knew from their ruling is that they didn't consider federal law. I'm not judging [5:40] them for that. It's just a fact they didn't consider federal law. So we want a procedure in place [5:45] that if there is litigation, there may not be, but if there is litigation brought by others [5:49] after the election because of possible voter confusion, that the ballots are kept in a way [5:54] that the Alaska state, that the Alaska state election system can determine who the accurate winner is, [6:00] not the federal government, not President Trump, not me, but the Alaska system as the law is required, [6:06] as the law is set out for it to do. So the DOJ lawsuit says the defendants who are the state [6:11] election board and the ballot county review board, quote, not certify any election result that may be [6:16] impacted by voter confusion. The confusion is defined as Senator Sullivan not winning and had all votes [6:25] cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast as Ed for Senator Sullivan than he would have won. [6:34] That's not what it says, okay? [6:35] But I'm quoting from it. [6:37] What it says is that the way that you can determine... [6:38] You are telling them not to certify it. [6:39] No, no, but you... [6:39] What right does the federal government have telling a state not to certify or how to certify it? [6:43] We are not... We are... You know, if you talk the whole time, you're not going to get answers out of me. [6:47] But if you let me answer your question, I can address your question. Okay, so exactly what we want [6:53] is that there are ways, because of the way that Alaska ballots are set up, where voters can vote for more than one [6:58] candidate, there is a way, potentially, we don't know what's going to happen yet, where it will [7:02] be obvious from the results and from the ballots that voters were confused. And that could be obvious [7:07] from the way that they rank the Dan Sullivans or not including a Dan Sullivan on the ballot. [7:11] I don't know yet because there hasn't been an election, but all we are doing is trying to put [7:15] guardrails in place so that if that happens, there's a system allowed where the ballots are kept in a way [7:21] so that we can determine whether there was confusion. It's not saying don't certify. [7:26] It's saying if a court ultimately determines that it was decided because of confusion and not the [7:30] will of the voters, then we do not think the state should certify. And that's consistent with federal [7:34] law and consistent with even Alaskan law if that happens. You've been clear in saying you won't [7:40] talk about your conversations with the president. Who was he referring to when he said, I'm the one that [7:46] said do it? I have no idea who he was referring to. And even if I did have an idea, I would most [7:53] certainly not talk about it. He's not what the president is saying and what he clearly has said [7:57] for the past four months, five months, is that this is a travesty. And this in this country, [8:02] we should not have a system of elections where it's okay for somebody who is only running with [8:06] the same name to pull votes away. And by the way, how about we talk about that? I mean, [8:11] do you disagree with that? Do you think that that's okay? You think that should be allowed in our [8:15] system of government? Someone that the head of the Alaskan system of voters has said that there is no [8:20] scenario under which she can certify that voters will not be confused. And she lists a number of [8:25] reasons why. That wasn't President Trump and that wasn't me. And the fact that the conversation is [8:29] about this lawsuit we filed and not the fact that there's a person running for Senate in the United [8:34] States in Alaska, that the head of the elections has said is only running to confuse voters, [8:40] that should be the conversation. And it's not. And that's unfortunate. But we're going to make it [8:44] the conversation. Well, the Supreme Court also talked about the fact that the good faith requirement [8:50] does not appear in the Constitution. So whether it was intended to be confusing or not, they sort of [8:56] put that aside. Anyway, let me ask. Correct. So that's, you know, you're totally, you're totally [9:03] right about that. But that's where they did not consider federal law. You're right that what the [9:07] Alaska Supreme Court said is even if it's bad faith, our laws in Alaska for reasons that, you know, [9:12] that not up to them, don't, don't address that. But that's different than federal law, [9:16] which is why we brought a federal lawsuit. Let me ask you about other federal actions. [9:21] CBS is reporting that DOJ is looking into allegations that Corey Lewandowski, the former [9:25] advisor to then DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, used his position for financial gain. President Trump said [9:32] this. I want my people to be honest. And if they're not going to be honest, they have to be [9:39] prosecuted. I don't know about specifically, but because I view, if people are not honest, [9:45] they're stealing from me. As president, they're stealing from me. So I want my people to be [9:50] honest. And if they're not honest, I'll have my DOJ go and do whatever they have to do. [9:55] Have you briefed the president on any part of this investigation? Are you willing to go after [10:01] corruption within the administration? [10:05] Your source for that, I don't know what it is that CBS is reporting. [10:08] I don't, I will not comment on leaks and sources. I very much agree with every word the president [10:13] just said. And, but beyond that, I'm not commenting on some leak that several news outlets supposedly [10:19] got less weak about, about the former employee at DHS. And whether I would, quote, go after people [10:25] in the administration, I agree with the president. Everybody in this administration, [10:28] in any administration, should operate with integrity and honesty and do the right thing. [10:33] And if they don't, yes, of course, the Department of Justice will investigate. [10:36] Okay. Well, to that point, Democrats, if they do win in November, are talking about [10:42] when they are in control, investigating Trump officials. Vice President Vance was asked by [10:47] my colleague Tony DeCoppo the other day about this scenario and told him he will, of course, [10:53] abide by any congressional subpoenas he receives. It is the Justice Department that ultimately would [10:59] decide whether to charge someone for defying a congressional subpoena. Would you, as AG, [11:05] charge Trump officials for not adhering to that? Wait, so you just say the vice president says, [11:12] of course, we're going to comply with this subpoena and then ask me if I was, if I'm going [11:16] to prosecute somebody who doesn't. I have no idea what the facts are around that. I have no idea. [11:21] I mean, you're talking about hypothetical after hypothetical. If a crime has been committed, [11:25] yes, of course, we will investigate it. The vice president answered the question and said he [11:27] would. But, but for, for those who defy congressional subpoenas, should the Democrats go ahead [11:32] with some of these investigations? Who's defying, who's defying a subpoena? Who's defying a subpoena? [11:38] I mean, you're literally making things up to try to get an answer out of you. [11:41] I mean, you're literally making things up to try to get an answer out of you. Who? [11:41] I'm saying, would you be open to it? The vice president was very clear in his remarks. [11:43] To who? Would you like to be as clear as the vice president was? [11:46] Of course. Of course we comply with subpoenas. That we will comply with subpoenas as we always [11:51] have? Of course. Yes. Is there any subpoena you can identify in this administration that we haven't [11:56] complied with? Has there been any allegation or any contempt of Congress finding? No. No, [12:02] of course not. So I very much agree with the vice president. And we're not here to not defy [12:07] subpoenas. Of course we comply with subpoenas. Attorney General Todd Blanche, [12:12] thank you for your time today.