Exclusive: Dan Abrams Confronts AG Todd Blanche Over Political Investigations

[0:00] Hey everyone, welcome to the show. We have a very special guest joining us today, [0:04] the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Todd Blanche. Attorney General, thank you so much [0:09] for taking the time. Really appreciate it. Yeah, of course. Good to be here, Dan. [0:13] So first, let me just say that I give you enormous credit for doing the kinds of interviews that you [0:20] have been doing, including on this show. You know, I have been critical of some of the actions that [0:26] you have taken, and yet you always seem ready and willing to discuss it, even with people who have [0:33] been critical of you. So I think that's admirable, and I think it's worth pointing out as we start [0:39] this discussion. So let me start with something that is obviously in the news, and that is with [0:46] regard to the House Oversight Committee. You have said that, quote, I would be very worried if I was [0:52] a member on that committee. You and the White House Council have threatened possible criminal [0:58] investigations for comments that they have made. But it does sound like what you're saying is when [1:04] Democratic members of Congress talk about trying to hold administration officials accountable for [1:09] what they believe is wrongdoing, it's potentially criminal, and yet it's fine for the president [1:16] to threaten to imprison people he doesn't like or he believes have engaged in wrongdoing. And he, [1:22] too, calls it accountability. Well, so first of all, I haven't threatened any members from the House [1:29] Oversight Committee or anybody. I have pointed out that the threats that came from them, [1:35] for example, the one where the incoming chairman basically threatened to take Stephen Miller's [1:42] livelihood away by telling him to lawyer up, saying something that isn't controversial at all, [1:46] which is that members of the executive enjoy the benefit of DOJ attorneys. And they have, [1:51] that has nothing to do with me. That's every Department of Justice. And I do think Congress [1:56] has a very important role for when it comes to oversight. And we've worked with Congress for the [2:02] past two years. I have every intention of working with the incoming Congress. So I, the rhetoric that's [2:08] been spun up since the election last Tuesday has been driven by, in my view, by the incoming class of [2:16] of congressmen, mostly some senators, but congressmen mostly, not by, not by me. [2:22] Well, but you have threatened criminal investigation. Will Scharf has threatened [2:27] a potential criminal investigation. You mentioned the lawyer up and, you know, you look back, right? [2:33] James Comer in 2026 told Tim Walz, he better lawyer up. Senator Eric Schmidt in 2025 told Comey, [2:41] Clapper, Brennan, anyone else involved, better lawyer up. Representative Anna Paulina Luna threatened [2:47] again, people should lawyer up. I mean, again and again, it seems that those are the kinds of threats [2:52] that have been made. And yet there's never been a discussion of that ever being potentially criminal [2:58] until now. [2:59] Well, I didn't, I'm not sure, Dan, I'm not trying to quibble with you on this, but I, I have not [3:05] threatened any member of Congress for the criminal investigation. I, I can't speak to what you're [3:09] saying. Will Scharf has said, but what I have said in response to the lawyer up comment from, [3:14] from Garcia was that, um, Stephen Miller enjoys the benefit of the department of justice lawyers. [3:20] So he doesn't need to lawyer up. He already has a lawyer. That's not controversial. That's, [3:24] that's actually a fact. And then obviously, as you know, the department of justice represents the [3:28] executive when it comes to court, when it comes to interacting with Congress and, and we're going [3:34] to continue to do that. When, when you talk about other members of Congress, Republicans or otherwise [3:39] saying to, to Democrats or other people, lawyer up, I'm, I wasn't quibbling with Garcia saying Stephen [3:46] Miller, the phrase lawyer up, I was saying he has a lawyer, which he does. It's me. [3:51] Um, and does that apply? You're right with regard to the DOJ representing members of the executive [4:00] branch in front of Congress. Um, but does that apply to anything? Meaning no matter what an executive [4:07] is accused of, uh, by Congress in terms of oversight, the DOJ is going to represent them? [4:15] Well, you're remember, again, I'm not saying that you don't know, Dan, but the oversight [4:22] responsibilities of Congress are just that they don't have inherent investigative powers from the [4:26] constitution. Their investigative powers come from their oversight function. So what I'm not sure what [4:32] type of conduct, a member of the executive would be investigated for in the oversight function that [4:39] wouldn't be part of their job in the, in the executive. So I don't want to talk hypothetically, [4:42] but, but, you know, if you take, for example, Attorney General Bondi, when she testified this [4:48] summer around, um, the, the Epstein files investigation, she was represented by a DOJ lawyer. [4:53] So, you know, this, there's, I can't speak to some hypothetical of what could happen, [4:58] but we represent the executive. But to be clear, that would not apply to, for example, [5:04] an impeachment proceeding, correct? Well, the two or three times during the course of our history [5:11] that cabinet members have been impeached, I believe they had their own lawyers, although with [5:16] support of DOJ. So I, I, I don't want, again, that's a, I'm not avoiding a question because it's [5:22] hypothetical. I'm just saying, I, I think that that's right. When president Trump was impeached, [5:27] he, he had private lawyers. He had, he worked with the white house counsel's office. The DOJ [5:32] certainly supported that effort. So whether I would, if somebody is impeached, whether they [5:37] choose to have DOJ or whether DOJ is able to represent them, we'll have to see. Um, but the [5:46] president and you have both been critical of a comment made by, uh, Senator Elise Slotkin from, [5:52] uh, Michigan, the president claimed that she's saying she's going to go after all young people [5:58] that believe in Republican values. Um, and she says, he says the imprisonment should be against [6:03] these extortionists. He's referring to her and others. You too have been critical of her and [6:10] suggested, uh, that there could be potential criminality. I want to play the sound of exactly [6:15] what she said, and then I want you to respond to it. Let's listen. [6:17] I want to look at these signature cases and not just focus on the president, but on the [6:23] people who enabled him. I want young people coming out of school to say, should I go work [6:28] for the Trump administration? Like that sounds fun. I might get an opportunity. I want them [6:32] to be like, Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don't want. And so [6:38] let me avoid participating in that. Whether that's a smart thing to say or not a smart thing [6:43] to say, how is that even potentially criminal? Well, the statement itself isn't, but it could [6:50] be. I mean, Dan, the interesting thing about this colloquy is you're not being critical of [6:57] what she said. I think you would agree with me that, um, any leader, right. I mean, you shake [7:02] your, you say, why not? I'm shaking my head only because look, I view it as typical political [7:07] nonsense, right? I view it as falling into the category of stuff we hear all the time. Right. And [7:13] no, I'm not going to support it. I'm not going to say that was, and in fact, I'll go a step [7:17] further. I don't think she should have said it that way. Let's, let's start there. Okay. [7:21] So now I don't think she should have said it that way. Now, are you willing to concede [7:25] that there is nothing even potentially criminal about that comment? [7:30] So, and I haven't said that comment is criminal. What I've said is if there are, I haven't said [7:35] it. I just, absolutely. I haven't. I have what I have said, which I will stand by. And [7:39] is true is there can come a time when individuals, whether it's a Senator or someone else, when [7:45] it does cross a line to being criminal, when you're actually intimidating, look at what they [7:49] look at what, for example, the indictments that came during the last administration against, [7:54] against president Trump, those were not just words, according to the grand jury and Jack [7:59] Smith, but at one point they were just words. And so what I mean by that is of course, what [8:03] the Senator said in and of itself is absolutely not a crime. However, if leadership in the [8:09] Senate is, is, are working together to try to stop young people from going to work in [8:15] the administration by basically threatening them saying, you should be worried that you're [8:19] going to be open to investigations. That, that is totally wrong. And again, maybe not criminal, [8:24] but we should be worried that that's happening. [8:27] Right. But, but, but no one, there's no evidence that people are threatening young people, [8:31] right? She's talking about trying to have accountability and it's serving as a deterrent, [8:36] right? I don't even see the president is referring to her as an extortionist and you've cited it as [8:42] well. It just doesn't seem to me to be even in the ballpark for crime. So, so I guess I'll flip that [8:48] and say, so that, so it's okay to basically say to incoming Democrat staffers to try to deter them [8:56] from coming in, they should think long and hard because you have somebody like Garcia saying that [9:00] pettiness is a thing. So I would think guys, you better not think about going there or you could [9:05] open yourself up to a DOJ investigation. If I said that you would be going ballistic on me. [9:10] It's not, it's not true because the difference between something being okay and being criminal [9:15] is huge, right? We could agree that something shouldn't be said or it's not okay. And that [9:22] doesn't mean someone with the power that you have, that the DOJ has should be even talking about the [9:29] possibility of a criminal investigation in connection with that comment. I didn't. So I didn't say in [9:35] connection with that comment. So that, so words matter, Dan. And so what I've said matters. I didn't [9:40] say you said that, so you're going to be open to a criminal investigation. What I have said repeatedly, [9:45] and I'll say it again here is I think that, that words, words are not crimes. I agree, but there can [9:51] come a time when the threats and the intimidation become a criminal investigation and the law supports [9:57] that. So the fact that I, that I, I am very protective of young people, especially young people [10:03] that are in the minority in many institutions. I'm not, there's no grand jury investigation against [10:09] this Senator. I mean that just to be frank and clear about that. And I don't think anybody thinks that [10:13] there is, but I do think that words matter and, and, and trying to deter people that want to work [10:19] in the Trump administration, trying to deter them when you have the power, investigative power, like [10:23] she does is dangerous. But we agree that that is not the crime of extortion. It's not her comments [10:31] alone are not even a potential crime. Her comments alone are absolutely not a crime. There is no [10:37] criminal investigation here. And I've never said that there is. Okay. Fair enough. Look, I'm glad we [10:42] sorted that out. Dan, I don't, I appreciate the question. I think it's an interesting conversation. [10:46] So I'm not, I'm not quibbling with the question, but I do think that my job is to, is it's a, [10:52] it's a broad job. And when there's things that matter, whether it's threats against administration [10:57] officials, threats against judges, threats against anybody in this country, not every one of those [11:02] threats is a crime. As a matter of fact, most of them are not, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't stand [11:06] up and say, let's stop, let's stop. These threats are bad. These threats are dangerous. And I think what the [11:10] senator said is dangerous. And it should, a young person shouldn't have to worry about, [11:16] about a senator coming after him or her because they choose to work on the Trump administration. [11:20] She didn't talk about going after anyone. She talked about it being a deterrent. [11:25] What is it in that statement? An investigation. [11:28] But the investigation of the enablers is what she was saying. And she hopes that that would therefore [11:35] serve as a deterrent. Look, I'm not going to sit here and defend her. I'm just saying as a legal [11:38] matter, this is just a nothing burger. Oh, OK. I mean, OK. I mean, by the way, more people have [11:47] spent time talking about this than I have. But I don't view a senator saying something like that [11:53] as a nothing burger. I agree it's not a crime, but I don't think it's a nothing burger. [11:56] All right. You mentioned federal judges. Are you concerned about the increased threats to federal [12:01] judges? Yes, of course. I think the threat landscape in this country is worse than it's ever been. [12:08] I think it's largely because of social media. I don't think there's any dispute around that. [12:12] I think that the problem that law enforcement has is that there's a lot of empty threats, [12:17] but you only can you can never be wrong if you're law enforcement. And so I'm very concerned about [12:23] about threats against judges. I'm concerned about threats against the Supreme Court, against, [12:28] you know, members of the administration, members of Congress, state leaders. Yes, definitely. [12:32] And so do you think that the president's comments where he says, you know, he refers to judges as [12:40] radical left lunatics or crooked judges and even even you said, you know, they have a robe on, [12:48] but they're more political or as political as the most liberal governor or D.A. Do you think that [12:52] adds to the threat environment for judges? I mean, no, of course not. Especially if I'm [12:58] just speaking the truth when I talk about that. I mean, Dan, I there are some judges and I say the [13:06] same thing every time I say that I follow up with the following statement. Virtually every judge in [13:10] this country is calling balls and strikes and trying to do the right thing. There are a handful of judges [13:15] who are absolutely activists against this administration. Maybe they'll change later. [13:21] And so you see the same judges, for example, routinely ruling in ways that are inconsistent with the law. [13:27] And those aren't my words. It's the words of the circuit courts and the Supreme Court that are [13:31] immediately reversing them. I think that I have a job to defend the trial attorneys and AUSAs across [13:37] the country calling that out. And I don't think that that affects the threat landscape against [13:43] judges. There were more judges against Trump administration, sorry, more threats against [13:48] Trump administration officials last year by far than against judges. So I think it's a problem, [13:53] Dan, I agree with you, but it's not just it's not President Trump's words. I think that it's [13:57] it's just the threat landscape has gotten worse. I want to talk about the the independence [14:04] question. You've said I work for President Trump and that it's a misperception that the DOJ is [14:09] independent of the president. So if it's a sort of typical relationship with a boss, right? I presume [14:18] that means whenever he calls for someone to be investigated or prosecuted, ultimately, you've got [14:24] to do it, right? No, I don't think that's the case at all with the boss, with any boss, right? Just [14:30] because my job is as as if I'm functioning as his counselor, which I do function as his counselor, [14:37] there's a statute that directs me to do that. But also, when I'm functioning as the Attorney General of [14:41] the United States, it's my job to provide counsel to him. And so absolutely not just like if he says to [14:47] the Secretary of Labor, I really think that we should go forward with x policy. It's the Secretary's job [14:54] to counsel him if it's a bad idea and why we can't do it or why we shouldn't do it, why it's not something [14:59] that the law allows us to do. And so there's just because I'm not independent in the words that folks [15:05] use, because, again, the Constitution doesn't there's no word in the Constitution that says there's a [15:11] fourth branch. And so that's what he insists on it. What if he insists on you moving forward? You have to do it, [15:18] right? Well, I don't know what. So, Dan, you're talking about a hypothetical moving forward in the case that we [15:23] should investigate, I would agree with him and say, absolutely, sir. Just like if any citizen called [15:28] me and said, this needs to be investigated, I would investigate it. If it's something that would [15:32] violate the Constitution, which he would never do. That's not true. You get people calling in all the [15:37] time who say, please investigate this, and you guys don't investigate it. Or we do investigate it. [15:42] That's my point. Right. I'm just saying if he insists, it sounds like your position is if he insists, [15:48] then at the very least, you're going to begin an investigation. I didn't say that. Well, [15:53] how does it sound like that's my position? I didn't say that. Absolutely not. I said that I [15:57] would counsel that there's I guess you're you're talking about something completely hypothetical. [16:00] But if you're talking about an investigation that should not happen, of course, I would not [16:04] investigate it. But he also wouldn't expect me to. Like, you know, there's a there's this idea about [16:09] President Trump that happens not to be true, which is that he orders something be done and that [16:13] folks just run off and do it. He is a phenomenal businessman and leader and president. So when he [16:20] when he seeks counsel and not just from me, from any member of the cabinet or anybody that works for [16:25] him, he's genuinely seeking counsel. So I reject, I guess, the premise of the question is that if he [16:31] orders me to do something, I have to do it. I just don't think that that's the way that he runs his [16:35] government. It's certainly not the way he has treated me. Well, you know, I look at I look at, [16:40] for example, some of the cases that have been rejected by the D.C. grand juries, which is, [16:46] you know, in the past, almost unheard of. It happens occasionally. But it's very rare [16:49] that cases get rejected. And, you know, Leticia James and Cassidy Hutchinson. But maybe most [16:55] interestingly, as of late, you know, the the potential charge against Senator Slotkin and Mark [17:00] Kelly and others for the video that they put out, the grand jury refused to indict them. And the [17:08] president again today is calling for them to be prosecuted. He's saying, will the seditious six [17:14] ever be prosecuted? What they did was a great violation to our country and its constitution. [17:19] Hasn't this already been addressed? Yes. I mean, you're right about the seditious six that was [17:26] presented to a grand jury and they didn't return an indictment. And you're right that the D.C. [17:30] grand juries have not returned indictments. I mean, Tish James was indicted. It was thrown out for [17:35] different for different reasons. But yes. And again, you said it happens on occasion. [17:40] It happens in any administration regularly. It's just usually not broadcast. Not like this. [17:46] Not like this. I mean, come on. We've never seen this many rejections by a grand jury in a [17:52] particular place. I mean, 99 percent of cases. And that's actually not just figurative. Literally [17:57] 99 percent of cases in federal courts move forward with federal grand juries. [18:03] That's the case during this administration as well. 99 percent of cases have moved forward. [18:07] That's not in the D.C. Well, not of the highly political ones. [18:12] OK, but you're OK. What? [18:15] It's important because I'm not talking about your everyday crimes, right, where the where the [18:19] prosecutor is going to be able to present a case and the good people, the fantastic prosecutors [18:24] across this country who do the hard work every day present very powerful cases. That's still the [18:29] case. That's still happening. What's different now is that particularly in D.C., a lot of these [18:36] cases, the D.C. grand jury, but there's no even defense attorney, is saying, no, you guys don't [18:43] have it. And and the reason, obviously, I'm asking this question is because all of those cases feel like [18:49] cases which were personal to President Trump, ones where he was angry at the people involved. [18:55] OK, I mean, you're stating your view. I just don't disagree. I just don't agree with it. [19:01] I think that there have been no true bills throughout generations in highly political [19:06] cases. And yes, and not just here, whether it comes to civil rights cases in states courts, [19:11] there's a lot of cases that were grand juries ultimately don't return a true bill in federal [19:16] and state court. And so you are I'm not quibbling with you that that there have been a number of [19:21] high profile ones in this district over the past year and a half. But creating this image, [19:26] which a lot of people have tried to do, that this is the first of its kind, the first of its [19:31] generation type thing is is not true. There have been you can go back and identify no true bills [19:35] in highly political cases in virtually not every district in the country, but in many districts [19:40] in this country. It has happened. It happens regularly. And as a matter of fact, I think most [19:45] AUSAs, well, not most, but many AUSAs have had no true bills in important cases and cases that were [19:52] simple. That's a part of our justice system. Attorney General Blanche, two more questions here. [19:58] You said in May of 2026 that there is a ton of evidence that the 2020 election was rigged. [20:07] If there is so much evidence for something that happened six years ago, [20:11] why can't anyone seem to provide any of it? [20:17] Have to wrap. [20:18] Well, sorry. So there? [20:21] Yes. [20:22] Can you? Okay. Sorry. So I didn't say that it was rigged so that you're not quoting me accurately. [20:27] That's the quote. You said there was a ton of evidence that the election was rigged. That was [20:31] the quote. [20:32] What I said in my entire statement there is that at the time there had been probable cause found by a [20:38] by a judge in Fulton County that there was a crime committed. Okay. That is evidence of a crime [20:44] being committed found by a, by a, by a federal magistrate judge in, in Fulton County in Atlanta. [20:50] And that there is a ton amount of investigation that raises a lot of questions about that election. [20:55] And look, that was during, during a time. [20:58] There are still a lot of questions and your, your ultimate question is a good one. You know, [21:04] it's been too long. Are we going to able, ultimately going to be able to prove anything [21:08] substantive around the 2020 election? I don't, I don't know. And the answer to that maybe, [21:12] maybe not. But when I, when I answer questions, there's this idea that there's absolutely no [21:18] evidence of anything wrong from that election. Meanwhile, a federal judge has authorized a search [21:22] warrant finding probable cause. So that's the, the tension that I was trying to address in that [21:28] statement is that when we, we shouldn't be talking in absolutes when we talk about that. [21:33] Yeah. But it felt like, you know, Maria Bartiromo at the time wanted evidence and it sounded like [21:38] you were going along with it saying there's a ton of evidence. Uh, and I'm, you know, I haven't seen [21:43] it. And that's, I guess why I was, why I was asking about it. Yeah. I mean, look, there's, [21:46] that's partly because of the passage of time, which is true. It's partly because grand jury [21:51] investigations are necessarily secret. And the search warrant, um, is something that's part of a [21:56] grand jury investigation, which is necessarily secret at, at some point, I expect the public [22:01] will, will learn the results of that investigation. If not, not necessarily through an indictment, [22:06] but just through the grand jury process and, and, and a report. But, but, um, but, you know, [22:12] at the time, what I was saying, which is true is that there indeed is a, was a probable cause [22:17] finding by a judge around, around that election of Fulton County. But you don't expect that the report's [22:22] going to say that somehow president Trump actually won the 2020 election. Do you, I'm not, I'm not [22:28] forecasting anything in the report. I haven't, I'm not drafting the report. I'm not part of its [22:31] drafting and, and I'm certainly not in the grand jury and that that's looking at it. Attorney General [22:37] Todd Blanche, thank you so much for taking the time to come on the program. We really appreciate it. [22:42] I'm going to repeat what I said at the top of the show, which is your willingness to come on, [22:46] uh, and answer questions, uh, even from someone like me, who's been critical of some of the [22:51] choices you've made is, uh, is admirable. And I wish more people would do it. [22:55] Thank you very much. All right. Thanks, Dan. Hey, this is where politics meets the law [23:00] without picking a side, highly opinionated, but not biased. Please subscribe to the channel. [23:06] Now back to the show. You've listened to my interview with the attorney general, [23:10] uh, Todd Blanche, and now I'll take your calls. You can talk about what you thought of his answers. [23:19] You can talk about what you thought of my questions. You can celebrate or criticize [23:23] either one. That's the beauty of this show. Let's go to, uh, Kentucky and Megan. Megan, [23:32] how you doing? What do you got? Hey, Dan, thanks for taking my call. I'm really excited to talk to [23:37] you today. I, I was very eager for this interview and I'm impressed that he actually made it onto [23:42] the show. Um, I am your liberal fan from who watches OPL very regularly. By the way, that's, [23:53] that's a myth. It's somehow all the people who watch on patrol live or somehow, you know, right. I mean, [24:00] yeah, I would bet that overall my audience is probably more right of center than left of center, [24:05] but there's a, there's a political balance of people. I get liberals and certainly people left [24:10] of center, uh, who watch on patrol live all the time. There are, but they may not support some of the, [24:17] the police reforms that I would. Yeah. Okay. If you ever have a Blanche interview. [24:26] Yes. So with your, your Blanche interview, obviously I thought you were a great, I thought [24:30] you're an excellent interviewer, but I was a little surprised that you didn't press him [24:35] harder on what he explicitly said that he doesn't think Watkins statement is a crime in itself. So [24:46] why does he get in the department of justice involved in he's saying that they're not what [24:51] is, I don't know the legal term, like the standard of evidence, but again, why is he commenting on it? [24:57] Okay. But, but see, this is, this is the point, right? Is you have to, in an interview like that, [25:04] you got to decide. I thought a lot, people gave me a lot of potential questions, right? [25:08] Every time I knew what his answer would be, I said, you know what? I'm not going to ask that [25:14] because it's too easy and out for him here on the Slotkin question. The only out was, [25:21] of course, it's not a crime. And that's what he said. He admitted it's not a crime. And I think [25:30] that's a big concession on his part. You know, he's got to walk this line between trying to appease [25:35] Trump on stuff that doesn't make any sense. And, um, trying to basically make decisions within the [25:46] structures of the law. And so his point is, well, if this had been X, Y, or Z, it could be worse. [25:53] But that's why I said to him, wait a sec, she's not threatening anybody. She's saying it would be [25:58] a deterrent. And again, I know people want sometimes me to hit the same thing like six [26:06] times instead of two or three times. But my point in these kinds of interviews, as long as I've pushed [26:13] back in a way that the audience will say, well, wait a second, he's still not really addressing [26:20] the question. Then I've done my job in that context. And look, I'm going to say it again. [26:26] He gets credit for coming on. I meant that that's not BS. Um, so, uh, let's, uh, go to Kevin in [26:35] Pittsburgh, Kevin, what do you got? Hey, Dan, um, I kind of had the same, like that whole question [26:43] about, um, intimidation, you know, um, with, with the, the, the politician who kind of insinuated [26:50] that there would be trouble should somebody participate in a Republican, you know, uh, [26:56] administration. When you put that into context for some of the left and, and some of the far [27:01] left, that seems very problematic, um, that she would say that. Now, I don't think she should [27:05] go to jail over it, or I don't think it should be illegal, but I do think that there should [27:10] be some kind of rule, uh, inside of our, our Senate and house that says, you know, you [27:16] can't sit there and try to discourage people from participating in government because, you [27:22] know, it's almost like, you know, they're just wrong, you know, this is my point, but [27:28] this is the point I made with him. There's a difference between wrong and criminal, right? [27:33] I mean, yes, in the end, I don't think she should have said it that way. I don't think [27:38] she should be focusing on trying to deter young people. Right. And I said that with [27:43] attorney general Blanche when he said, you know, well, why won't people just come forward [27:47] and say, shouldn't have said it? Well, the answer is, yeah, that's probably true. She [27:52] shouldn't have said it. Okay. Let's agree on that. So what's the crime? And that's the [27:57] point. Um, Bob is in Chicago. Bob, what do you make of my interview with attorney general [28:03] Todd Blanche? I give you credit for the questions you asked and for, as I said to [28:10] your screener, not throwing up at his answers and for allowing him to demonstrate to, and [28:19] I will confess to being right of, I mean, left of center, but anybody who listened to [28:26] Todd Blanche for the entire length of his interview today with you has to accept the fact that he [28:32] will talk you to death, but he will never acknowledge that you're right and he's wrong. [28:37] And he will, you know, I mean the most laughable, you know, the stopping point for me would have [28:43] been when he came out and said, well, of course the president would never do anything that violates [28:47] the constitution. Are you kidding? I mean, but, and you didn't stop him and thank you for [28:53] not stopping him. And I'm going, you know, but you, right. What am I going to say? Cause that's [28:58] a perfect example, right? That's a perfect example of where some people would say, well, [29:03] wait a second. Um, you don't think he violated the constitution on January 6th. And it's like, [29:09] Oh Mike, now we're going to go down a rabbit hole. Right. And he's going to say, cause if you [29:15] were going to write, if you, if you were going to say, you know, if you wanted to stop it right [29:21] there and you would have said, wait a minute, you want to go over what he's done that violates [29:26] the constitutions. You would have run well into Julie Mason's show. And we can't do that to come [29:33] back tomorrow. We can't do that. Um, so, um, let's, uh, thank you. Appreciate it. Let's go to Lee [29:43] in North Carolina. Lee, what did you make of, uh, my interview with Todd Blanche? First of all, [29:52] I'm an independent voter. I, this, this year, my ticket was split. I voted for some, um, [30:00] Republicans and some Democrats. Todd Blanche to me is a lying, hypocritical, hypocritical brown noser. [30:09] Now, when the subject of, um, I think her name was Slotkin, she told young people to be leery about go, [30:18] uh, working for the Trump administration. I'm a small business owner right outside of Charlotte. [30:26] I will not hire anyone who comes out of the Trump administration or their way of thinking [30:33] because I feel that these people have a tendency to lie to think they're more important than they [30:43] are. I would wait. So you won't hire. Wait, what do you, what do you, what is your business? What [30:48] does your business do? I am a ceramicist. I make pottery and I know that sounds like, [30:56] well, gee, that's kind of an arrogant attitude to have for making pot. Well, [31:01] it's not that it's arrogant. It just doesn't make any sense to me, right? I mean, so someone [31:06] leaves the Trump administration and they want to start making, you know, beautiful vases, right? [31:13] And so they come to you and they've been making beautiful vases for years and they were working [31:21] in the department of energy. You're not going to hire them even though they are terrific at what they do. [31:29] Can't say I wouldn't hire them, but it would give me a lot of fodder for more questions to find out [31:38] why did they work for the Trump administration and in what capacity, because I am a small business. [31:45] So I'm very worried about how people who work for me present my business. And if they are going to [31:53] present it in the way that the Trump folks have presented. But not everyone, you know, [31:59] look, the idea that everyone who works in an administration necessarily is exactly like the [32:05] person at the top. I mean, think about that for any hire, right? So someone worked at IBM and the [32:11] CEO of what, let me not give a specific, someone works at a big tech company and the CEO is a real [32:17] jerk, right? And the CEO is known to be a problem. And then you say, well, I don't want to hire someone [32:23] who used to work at that company. Well, I don't know. I mean, that doesn't make a lot of sense to [32:27] me. But anyway, Lee, thank you. Let's go to Tim in Maryland. Tim, how you doing? What do you got? [32:31] I'm good, Dan. How are you? [32:35] Good. What do you got? Can you hear me? [32:37] Yeah. Hey, I want to congratulate you because you didn't question him like a congressman. You [32:43] actually questioned him like a lawyer. We know you're not going to get everything in in 20 minutes. [32:49] We just know it. I know it. But I think he did a good job. He wouldn't answer a lot of questions, [32:54] though. But you know, we know who he is. He's a frickin. [32:57] Thank you, Tim. [32:58] I appreciate it. Thank you. Let's go to Jill in Arizona. Jill, how you doing? What's going on? [33:05] I want to say I love the interview. I thought it was great. I think the questions were appropriate [33:12] and well pointed out. I just I wish you could have pushed him a little bit more when he keeps [33:18] saying that he's a lawyer for the executive branch. He's a lawyer for the president. He's [33:22] the lawyer for, you know, Stephen Miller. He's the lawyer for it. I wish I know it's a short [33:29] interview and I get that. But I feel like that part really, really bothers me. [33:34] But here's the problem. He's right that when it comes to congressional investigations, [33:39] the DOJ does almost always end up representing executive branch members in oversight proceedings. [33:50] It's true. So, OK, anyway. All right. Let's go. Let's go to Betsy in Oregon. Betsy, [34:05] how you doing? What do you got? I think you did a fantastic job and I really appreciate you doing [34:12] that. But I do wish you had asked him more something about the Glenn Maxwell deal and the Epstein files. [34:19] Yeah. Yeah. If I had time, I would have done that. You know, I already got I already got [34:31] criticized or I was getting mad text. Dan, we're going over. We're going over. You got to let him go. [34:37] So so I didn't even get to ask the last question that I wanted to ask. But but anyway, but thank you. [34:46] Appreciate it. I have not threatened any member of Congress with a criminal investigation. I [34:50] I can't speak to what you're saying. Will Scharf has said. But what I have said in response to the [34:55] lawyer up comment from from Garcia was that Stephen Miller enjoys the benefit of the Department of [35:02] Justice lawyers. So he doesn't need to lawyer up. He already has a lawyer. That's not controversial. [35:06] That's that's actually a fact. And then obviously, as you know, the Department of Justice represents [35:11] the executive when it comes to court, when it comes to interact by Congress and and we're going to [35:16] continue to do that. Attorney General Todd Blanche on this program a few moments ago in an interview with me, [35:25] I would characterize it as toning down some of the threats that he seems to have made against members [35:33] of Congress saying that the comments by Senator Elise Slotkin were certainly not criminal or even [35:40] potentially criminal, that the threats to lawyer up were not in and of themselves worthy of an [35:49] investigation, etc. So let's go back to some of your calls. Let's go to Hilton in Florida. Hilton, [36:02] how are you doing? What's going on? Hey, how are you doing? My question, how are you doing? I was [36:09] just good. I'm doing well. Why you didn't push him on? All right. Why you didn't ask him about [36:15] call me? Call me the yeah, the charges that they brought against call me. Right. And the reason I [36:21] didn't focus on Comey is because I've heard what his answer is before. And remember that when I talked [36:27] about preparing for this interview, I wanted to try to ask questions where I didn't know that he'd have an [36:33] out per se on the answer. And and the Comey question was one where he will say that he thinks that they [36:44] have evidence. They wouldn't have brought the case if they didn't have it. And that the certain judges [36:53] have dismissed it, even though a grand jury moved it forward. And, you know, it just it would have gone [37:00] nowhere. So it would have just been a debate where I say I'll give you the question and answer. Right. [37:07] So the question would have been Mr. Attorney General, you've charged James Comey for literally [37:13] putting some seashells together that says 86 47. You know, the term 86 can mean a lot of different [37:22] things. In particular, it means get rid of the person. The idea that that's potentially criminal. [37:28] His answer would be, Dan, a grand jury move forward with the case judges that we believe [37:35] incorrectly dismissed the cases. And that's why we've continued to move forward. But we would not [37:40] be presenting this case if we didn't feel we had additional evidence to prove the case. You know, it's [37:44] like, OK, you know, what else am I going to say? So that's why that's why I didn't I didn't focus on it. [37:52] Marvin is in Colorado. Marvin, how you doing fine? I really where you really did succeed. You made the [38:02] attorney general sound much more defensive than I've ever heard on before with your question. But [38:10] the one question you didn't ask, which you frequently asked your guests is, would you be willing to take [38:16] calls? And you didn't ask him that. Whoops. I didn't mean to hang up on that. That caller. He asked Marvin, I [38:24] apologize, asking if he would take calls. The answer is that I had a very limited time frame. I had a 50, you know, 15, [38:32] 20 minute time frame wouldn't have had time for calls. So I would have liked to have had him for [38:38] more. I already apparently went a little bit over where I was supposed to go. So the answer is that [38:45] was a you know, that was a non issue in terms of, you know, this particular this particular interview. [38:58] Tom is in Virginia. Tom, how you doing? What do you got? [39:00] Okay, I want to follow up on the seashells. That's the most disturbing prosecution [39:08] Lanch has directed. And you might think you know the answer that they give you. [39:13] I don't think that's an excuse not to mention at all. What evidence could he possibly have to show [39:21] that Comey intentionally wanted to harm the president based on the seashells and maybe a couple of other [39:27] things? Who knows what that is? He gave a pass on that. It was not right. It's not a pass. It's not a pass. [39:34] The question becomes, what is the benefit of asking a question where you know that the person's [39:40] going to give a particular answer? You want me to yell at him, right? You want me to be mad at him, [39:44] right? You might know the answer, but your audience doesn't know the answer and how ridiculous it could [39:50] be. What do you mean? The audience again, my goal is to try to do an interview, which isn't the same as [39:58] every other interview that's been done, right? Anyone can ask. And this is why I'm often critical [40:04] of the way that people question Todd Blanche, right? Is they'll ask the question. He'll give the answer. [40:11] He's not going to answer the question. What other evidence can you have now? The reason is he'll say [40:15] it's an ongoing case. I'll tell you what he could say. He could say, well, you know, we've talked to [40:20] people who were involved with cases with Jim Comey where it was very clear he knew what 86 meant when [40:28] he said that. Now, obviously that's nonsense, but the problem is that people who are so mad at these [40:36] people, look, you guys know I have been really critical of Todd Blanche, right? But what I'm not [40:43] going to do when I invite him on the show is I'm not going to yell at him. I'm always going to treat [40:49] my guests with respect. I'm always going to hear them out and I'm going to challenge them. And that's [40:55] what I did. Let's go to Jeff in Idaho. Jeff, how are you doing? What's going on? Thanks for taking my [41:04] call. You made a comment earlier I wanted to ask you to clarify with the question was about representing [41:16] him, representing, uh, holders of, of an office. And I just want to make sure sometimes it's hard to [41:23] distinguish the fact that he may be representing the office that that particular person is occupying, [41:31] but he is not their personal lawyer. That's correct. That is correct. But okay. But yeah, [41:39] clearly. Yep. Um, thank you, Jeff. Appreciate it. Uh, Robert is in Michigan. Robert, [41:46] how you doing? What do you got? I'm, I'm good, Dan. How are you? Good. What's going on? [41:53] Listen, uh, you've got a question for you. I've got a question for you. One of the big things [41:58] throughout the country really is Epstein files. What really kind of bugs me is not only Epstein files, [42:06] but the settlement that he did apparently to news reports that he personally gave Trump and his allies [42:16] and relatives and everything like that, uh, IRS break forever. Um, and that has never ever [42:27] been, uh, rescinded. And the same as the one point, some billion dollars that has never been done. So [42:38] well, well, well, wait, wait, but the, the, the billion dollars is gone, but you're right about the [42:44] not, um, not pursuing an audit. And here would be his answer just on the audit would be every day in [42:51] this country. We settle tax cases where someone sues the government and the, the settlement involves [42:59] ending that particular audit and any up to that point. And look, I agree with you that the problem [43:08] here is that there weren't two sides. It was Trump and Trump, but again, there's too much wiggle room [43:18] there. When in, in any of the cases where there was wiggle room, I tried to stay, stay away from it [43:26] because of the limited amount of time, uh, that I had charl. Oh, Charlie, you just hung up just as I [43:35] went to Charlie and Staten Island. Um, he hung up. No, Charlie had been waiting for like 30. Oh, [43:42] wait, is that him again? He'd been waiting for like, uh, 40 minutes on the line. And, uh, anyway, [43:49] um, I felt bad that he'd been, uh, waiting so long. Um, all right. Someone else has been waiting [43:55] a long time is, uh, Floyd in Iowa. Floyd, what do you got? Hey, Dan's good to hear from you. Hey, [44:00] I got this when he was on there. He interesting that he used the word quibble. That's all he did. [44:05] I wanted you to ask him about this Epstein files. Why did he, uh, he might not have been [44:09] attorney general then, but he was in the attorney general's office. Why did they not release the [44:14] files there in clear violation of the law and very least obstruction? I wish you would have [44:18] asked him about that. Yeah. Um, you know, again, I think that, uh, he would have said that we released [44:25] everything that we could. We were protecting, uh, some of the victims, et cetera, et cetera. Um, [44:32] so yeah, but, uh, but look, if I'd had more time, that would have been my, my next topic. [44:40] All right. That would have been it. Um, but look, I think, you know, more broadly, [44:47] and let me just, you know, give my own thoughts on this. I was surprised that he, uh, backed off as [44:55] much as he did on the threats against Democrats. I was surprised that he was willing to concede [45:05] despite the president claiming its extortion, that the comment by Senator Slotkin is clearly [45:13] not criminal. I was surprised that he was willing to concede that when he said lawyer up, [45:22] you know, he, he's not saying that that's going to lead to a criminal investigation. Now, [45:27] that is a change from what he said previously, which is why in certain cases I had to have [45:33] the exact words that he used. But even when I confronted him with the own, his own words, [45:37] he would say sometimes, well, that's, you know, not what I meant. Um, anyway, it is what it is. [45:44] Maybe tomorrow on the show, I'll play more of the interview, um, or I'll play back [45:50] the interview and then I'll be able to listen to it myself and I can critique myself and then [45:56] you guys can critique me as well. Thanks for listening. Appreciate it. See you tomorrow.