EXCLUSIVE LIVE: Senate Democrats' Shadow Hearing on Todd Blanche (Not on C-SPAN)

[0:00] to Trump, his family, and his businesses for criminal activity under the tax code [0:07] is just unprecedented. [0:09] No one has ever seen anything like that. [0:11] And I refer you to the judge in Florida who said it more accurately and convincingly that I can. [0:18] There are so many cases that were raised by that hearing that were not addressed. [0:21] Clearly, this man is conflicted out of any serious consideration for Attorney General. [0:26] Mr. Carbone, would you please proceed with your opening statement? [0:35] Absolutely. [0:36] Ranking Member Durbin. [0:38] If you could pull the microphone closer to yourself. [0:40] Senator Booker, I want to thank you for inviting me to appear today. [0:46] My name is Perry Carbone, and I appear before you solely in my individual capacity. [0:52] I am not affiliated with any political party. [0:55] I've spent my professional life enforcing the law and not engaging in politics. [1:02] I prosecuted numerous public corruption cases without regard to the political beliefs of the subjects involved. [1:11] And I want to be clear at the outset about why I'm here. [1:15] I'm not here to testify against Todd Blanche as a person. [1:21] I worked with him, respected him, and considered him a friend. [1:24] Those who know me, and I think my colleagues would confirm this, know that I'm an easygoing person, and I'm not inclined to personal grievance. [1:42] I'm here because I believe the institution that I spent 30 years serving is more important than any individual relationship, including one that I once valued. [1:54] And I now see that institution at great risk. [1:58] That is the reason I'm here today. [1:59] For 30 years, I served as a federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice. [2:07] And thank you, Senator Booker, for giving my rhymed resume. [2:12] And I'll try not to be repetitive. [2:14] But during that time, I held a number of leadership positions, including chief of the criminal division in Southern District of New York, [2:22] chief of the White Plains Division, deputy chief of the special prosecutions division in Newark. [2:29] In those roles, I oversaw every type of case, public corruption cases, narcotics cases, murder cases, organized gang violence, sex trafficking, fraud, and more. [2:42] I also worked as a line prosecutor in both the District of New Jersey and the Southern District of New York, [2:48] where I personally handled hundreds of investigations and prosecutions, primarily in the area of tax fraud, white-collar crime, and public corruption. [2:58] I served under attorney generals and United States attorneys appointed by presidents of both parties, 16 U.S. attorneys by my count. [3:11] Today, I continue that commitment to public service as an adjunct professor at Elizabeth Howe School of Law, [3:17] where I teach white-collar crime and criminal procedure. [3:20] At every opportunity, I tell my students that a prosecutor's obligation is not simply to win cases, it's to seek justice, fairly, impartially, and without fear or favor. [3:36] Throughout my career, there was one unwavering principle. [3:41] Our loyalty was to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the fair administration of justice, not to any president, political party, or public official. [3:51] I never once asked the political affiliation of a victim, a witness, a fellow prosecutor, an agent, or a defendant. [4:01] Neither did the Department of Justice. [4:05] That is the department that I was proud to serve. [4:09] One of the first lessons every federal prosecutor learns is that justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen as being done. [4:19] The department exercises extraordinary power. [4:24] It decides who will be investigated, who will be prosecuted, and in many cases, who will lose their liberty. [4:31] The American people accept that immense authority only when they believe that those decisions are made fairly, impartially, and according to the facts and the law, and not politics. [4:47] I can't think of a time when public confidence in the government has been lower. [4:57] Public confidence is the department's greatest asset. [5:01] When the public begins to believe that decisions are being driven by political loyalty, personal relationships, or favoritism, confidence in the rule of law is eroded. [5:16] And once that confidence is lost, it's extraordinarily difficult to restore. [5:22] That is why the series of recent actions we've seen are so deeply troubling. [5:28] The extraordinary IRS settlement, the prosecution of political adversaries of the president on evidence that raises serious doubt about the bona fides of those cases, efforts to halt or interfere with the Minnesota state investigation into the shooting deaths of American citizens, [5:50] the declaration of war on our judges, the targeting of law firms, the interview and relocation of a convicted child predator for what appear to be political reasons, [6:05] the micromanagement of U.S. attorneys, and the dismissal of cases for apparently political reasons, [6:15] and, as Senator Booker pointed out, the firing of career prosecutors and FBI agents who appeared to be doing nothing more than carrying out the responsibilities that were assigned to them. [6:30] Career prosecutors and agents must be free to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead without fearing that simply working on a particular investigation could cost them their careers. [6:44] Even the appearance of retaliation for doing one's job sends a chilling message throughout the department and undermines public confidence in its independence. [6:57] An attorney general's responsibility extends beyond ensuring that justice is done. [7:04] He or she must also protect the public's confidence that justice is administered fairly, impartially, and free from political influence. [7:15] And, as I said, that confidence is fragile, and once it's diminished, the legitimacy of the department itself is placed at risk. [7:25] Attorney General Robert H. Jackson, one of the department's most revered leaders, reminded federal prosecutors that their duty is to seek justice, not merely to exercise power. [7:39] And that principle has guided generations of career prosecutors. [7:43] In the Southern District of New York, we repeat a mantra daily so that no one forgets it. [7:50] We do the right thing in the right way for the right reasons. [7:56] It's not my place to say whether the nominee has forgotten that credo. [8:00] That judgment belongs to the committee. [8:04] I can only tell you what I've observed and why it troubles someone who spent a career trying to live by that credo. [8:11] This forum is not simply about one nominee. [8:16] It's about whether we will preserve an independent Department of Justice whose allegiance is to the Constitution and to the American people, rather than to any individual or political interest. [8:30] After more than three decades of service to that department, I respectfully urge careful consideration of whether this nominee will strengthen or weaken the public's confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice. [8:48] Thank you. [8:50] Thank you very much for that candid straightforward testimony. [8:53] Ms. Stein, would you please proceed? [8:55] Members of the committee, the question before us is whether Todd Blanche has demonstrated the judgment, independence, and fidelity to the rule of law required to serve as Attorney General of the United States. [9:15] I respectfully submit that he has not. [9:19] My name is Liz Stein. [9:21] I'm an Epstein survivor. [9:23] More than 30 years ago, I was trafficked and sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators [9:30] as I was graduating college and starting out on my own. [9:35] My involvement with Epstein and his co-conspirators changed the trajectory of my entire adult life. [9:44] For years, the Epstein case has been treated like entertainment in this country. [9:49] It has been wrongfully infused with political emotion. [9:53] Republicans versus Democrats. [9:56] Conspiracy or cover-up. [9:59] That framing is wrong. [10:00] At its course, at its core, the Epstein case is about one thing, the crime of sex trafficking. [10:10] More than 1,000 vulnerable girls and young women were groomed, trafficked, and abused in a system Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators built around power, coercion, exploitation, and access to wealth and influence. [10:27] I know because I was one of them. [10:29] My opposition to Mr. Blanche's confirmation is not based on politics because this is not a political issue for us. [10:40] It is based on the Department of Justice's failure to faithfully implement the Epstein Files Transparency Act. [10:47] The handling of the Epstein case sends a dangerous message to victims of crime all across this country. [10:55] That the powerful are protected over the vulnerable and that our federal law enforcement cares about the status quo and not the American people. [11:06] On July 17, 2025, top government officials, including Todd Blanche, met in the White House Situation Room to manage the fallout from a memorandum released earlier that month by the DOJ and the FBI stating that there was no further disclosure. [11:26] Nothing was appropriate or warranted, instead of acknowledging the severity of Epstein's crimes and imposing the rule of law, Blanche treated the fallout as a reputational problem for the current administration to manage. [11:43] On November 19, 2025, Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act because the American people have lost confidence in the Department of Justice's commitment to transparency and accountability in the Epstein case. [11:59] The act imposed legal obligations on the Department. [12:05] It required the Attorney General to release responsive records, protect victims' personally identifying information, and limit redactions to those specifically authorized by law, and provide Congress with an accounting of what was withheld and why. [12:24] Yet six months past the deadline, the Department has failed to do that. [12:29] When the Epstein files were released earlier this year, my own name was left unredacted in a sentence that read, in part, [12:41] Stein was a victim of Epstein and Maxwell in the mid-90s. [12:45] It doesn't get much clearer than that. [12:48] The name of the school I attended, where I worked, and portions of my home address were also publicly disclosed. [12:56] The very institution Congress charged with protecting survivors instead exposed us. [13:04] There were many survivors, previously Jane Doe's, that were outed in the release. [13:10] Women who never expected to have to face their abuse publicly were thrust into the spotlight without their consent. [13:18] Their friends, family members, work colleagues, and members of the general public are now privy to the most intimate details of their trauma. [13:30] One Jane Doe, known as Rosa, was exposed more than 500 times as a result of the DOJ's failures. [13:38] At the same time, the DOJ redacted the names of many potential perpetrators, despite the act, [13:47] which specifically states that records cannot be withheld merely to avoid embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity. [14:00] For survivors of sexual violence and trafficking, privacy is not a procedural issue. [14:06] It's a matter of safety, dignity, and autonomy. [14:09] The decision of whether to publicly identify oneself belongs to the survivor, not to the federal government. [14:19] No victim of sexual violence or any other crime should ever have to fear being re-traumatized by the very institution charged with protecting them. [14:31] At the same time that the Department failed to protect victims, [14:35] it publicly asserted that there was no evidence supporting additional prosecutions, [14:40] and signaled that the Epstein matter was effectively complete. [14:46] Those statements are difficult to reconcile with the magnitude of a criminal enterprise [14:51] that operated for more than three decades, [14:55] victimized more than 1,000 girls and young women, [15:00] generated millions of pages of investigative records, [15:04] and continues to be the subject of Congressional oversight. [15:08] Yet Blanche appears determined to close the book on Epstein's criminal enterprise, [15:14] rather than follow the evidence wherever it leads. [15:19] For months, survivors have requested meetings with the Department of Justice, [15:24] and those requests went unanswered. [15:26] Last week, Senator Tom Tillis urged Blanche to meet a group of Epstein survivors [15:33] during Blanche's Senate Judiciary hearing [15:36] and expressed that he expected the meeting to occur [15:39] before he would be willing to vote out. [15:44] Around four hours later, Epstein survivors, myself included, [15:49] finally met face-to-face with Todd Blanche. [15:52] Rather than listening to survivors or engaging seriously [15:58] with the evidence and concerns that we presented, [16:02] Blanche dismissed many of our questions. [16:05] He provided inaccurate and misleading information [16:08] and would not give us the slightest indication [16:11] that he believes are our investigative leads in the files. [16:15] Survivors left that meeting feeling dismissed and demoralized. [16:20] We did not leave believing that the Department of Justice [16:24] was committed to restoring our trust and pursuing accountability. [16:30] When Senator Tillis urged Blanche to meet with survivors, [16:34] I believe he wanted a productive, good-faith meeting [16:37] to occur between the parties. [16:40] I doubt that his intent was for Todd Blanche to hold the meeting [16:44] solely as a means of checking a box in response to an ultimatum [16:49] which was conditional for his promotion to Attorney General. [16:53] Further concerning are reports that FBI personnel responsible [16:58] for reviewing the Epstein files were instructed [17:01] to redact references to the current president [17:04] wherever his name appeared [17:05] and to redact the names of other prominent public figures [17:09] during the review process. [17:12] This raises serious questions about whether the review of the files [17:16] complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. [17:19] If Congress believes there are investigative leads worth pursuing, [17:26] why doesn't the Department of Justice? [17:29] If the Department cannot faithfully carry out a law [17:32] specifically enacted to protect victims [17:34] in one of the most significant sex trafficking cases [17:38] in American history, [17:39] why should any victim trust Todd Blanche to protect them? [17:45] The Attorney General is not the President's Attorney. [17:49] The Attorney General's client is the Constitution, [17:54] the laws enacted by Congress, [17:56] and the American people. [17:59] Confirming Todd Blanche to the highest law enforcement office [18:02] in the nation should concern every American. [18:06] His responsibility should be to pursue unresolved investigative leads, [18:11] faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress, [18:15] protect victims, [18:16] and uphold the rule of law [18:18] not to protect perpetrators [18:21] of the largest sex trafficking operation [18:23] in our nation's history. [18:26] A vote for Todd Blanche [18:27] is a vote against victims of crime [18:30] all across our country. [18:32] And despite any political differences [18:34] we may have as individuals, [18:37] as citizens of the United States of America, [18:40] that should concern us all. [18:43] For these reasons, [18:44] I respectfully urge the committee [18:46] to reject the nomination of Todd Blanche [18:49] as Attorney General of the United States. [18:51] Thank you. [18:52] Thank you very much, Ms. Stein, [18:54] for your courageous testimony. [18:56] Mr. Peter Carr, you may proceed. [19:04] Thank you, Senator Booker, [19:06] Ranking Member Durbin, [19:07] and the members of the Judiciary Committee [19:08] for the opportunity to speak with you today. [19:11] I'm one of hundreds of career [19:13] Justice Department employees [19:14] unlawfully terminated [19:16] under the leadership of Todd Blanche. [19:19] In fact, he is the one [19:20] who signed my termination notice. [19:23] I just want to give a little background. [19:24] As Senator Booker mentioned, [19:28] I started my government career [19:30] here in the Senate [19:31] working for Senator Orrin Hatch [19:33] as his press secretary, [19:34] former chairman of this very committee. [19:37] I joined the Justice Department [19:38] as a political appointee [19:39] for President George W. Bush, [19:42] where I oversaw the public affairs [19:44] of the entire department. [19:45] And at the end of the Bush administration, [19:47] I converted to a career [19:48] Justice Department employee. [19:51] And I held a wide range of positions [19:53] and a number of roles, [19:56] including being assigned [19:57] to serve as a spokesman [19:59] for two special counsels, [20:01] Robert Mueller and Jack Smith. [20:03] As part of my responsibilities [20:05] with the Jack Smith cases, [20:06] I attended the public court hearings [20:08] in D.C. and Florida, [20:09] and I was observed regularly [20:11] by President Trump's legal team, [20:13] including Todd Blanche. [20:15] I also became acquainted [20:16] with the current associate attorney general, [20:18] Stanley Woodward, [20:19] who served as counsel to Walt Nada, [20:21] a co-defendant in the Florida case. [20:23] After the election, [20:25] I attended a hearing in January 2025 [20:27] in Florida to determine [20:29] whether the report [20:30] covering the classified documents case [20:31] would become public. [20:33] At that hearing, [20:34] Stanley Woodward approached me, [20:36] shook my hand, [20:37] and expressed his appreciation [20:38] that I would continue to serve [20:39] at the Justice Department. [20:47] That was surprising to me [20:48] because within the first weeks, [20:49] the new administration [20:50] terminated the prosecutors [20:52] who worked in the special counsel's office [20:53] and also those who handled [20:56] January 6th prosecutions. [20:59] These terminations were traumatic [21:00] for employees throughout the department [21:01] because never before [21:04] had career employees been fired [21:06] simply because of their case assignments. [21:11] Nevertheless, I was determined to stay, [21:14] and at no point over the next few months [21:16] did I receive any indication [21:18] that my work was unfavorable, [21:20] insufficient, [21:21] or not in the interest of the department. [21:25] But my career changed [21:26] on August 11th, 2025. [21:29] Walking down the hall to my office, [21:31] I saw Todd Blanche, [21:32] who at the time was Deputy Attorney General, [21:35] and he turned and looked my way. [21:37] I believe this was the first time [21:39] he would have seen my face [21:40] in the halls of the Justice Department. [21:44] Two hours later, [21:45] a security officer came to my office, [21:48] gave me an envelope, [21:49] and inside was a memo from Todd Blanche [21:51] informing me that I had been terminated [21:54] immediately from my position. [21:56] The officer informed me [21:57] that I had to gather my belongings, [21:59] and then he escorted me [22:00] out of the building. [22:01] My firing violated [22:05] civil service protection laws, [22:08] and I'm not alone. [22:09] Blanche has fired or overseen [22:10] the firings of hundreds [22:12] of DOJ employees, [22:14] usually without notice [22:15] and for improper and lawful reasons. [22:19] But these firings [22:20] aren't just unlawful. [22:22] They're also incredibly damaging [22:23] to the department [22:24] and its law enforcement mission. [22:28] The men and women [22:28] of the Justice Department [22:29] handle some of the most complicated [22:30] and important cases [22:32] in the government. [22:33] They're expected to do this [22:35] and not think about the consequences. [22:38] They can't do that anymore. [22:42] This administration has fired [22:43] or pushed out hundreds [22:44] of the department's best people [22:46] for simply doing their jobs. [22:50] People who did everything by the book. [22:52] They just happened to work on cases [22:54] that people now in power don't like, [22:59] or they refused to move forward [23:00] with cases where the facts [23:02] and the law didn't support [23:03] criminal charges. [23:05] These firings send [23:07] an unmistakable message [23:08] to those in the department. [23:09] Agents, analysts, lawyers, [23:13] and even spokespeople like myself [23:15] can be fired [23:17] simply because [23:19] of their assigned cases. [23:22] This jeopardizes [23:23] the department's ability [23:23] to pursue tough cases [23:25] and hold the powerful to account. [23:27] If an agent or a prosecutor [23:28] thinks they'll be fired [23:30] for their cases, [23:31] they're less likely [23:32] to accept difficult assignments [23:34] if they get a choice. [23:37] And if they are assigned, [23:38] they might start looking more [23:39] at the long-term consequences [23:41] of an investigation [23:42] for their careers [23:43] rather than at the facts [23:45] and the law. [23:48] That is not the form of justice [23:49] that we should want [23:50] for our country. [23:53] That's why I now work [23:54] for an organization [23:55] called Justice Connection, [23:57] a nonpartisan network [23:58] of Justice Department alumni [23:59] who are providing [24:00] much-needed support [24:01] for DOJ employees [24:02] who have been harmed [24:04] by this administration. [24:05] We come from all political viewpoints. [24:09] Some, like me, [24:10] are Republican. [24:11] Others are Democrats. [24:13] But we all share [24:14] an overriding commitment [24:15] to live up to the oath [24:17] we took as civil servants [24:18] to uphold and defend [24:20] the Constitution, [24:23] nothing else. [24:25] More than 1,200 of us [24:27] signed a letter [24:27] opposing Todd Blanche's nomination [24:29] because the culture of fear [24:30] that he has instilled [24:32] within DOJ's workforce [24:33] must end. [24:36] Respect for career professionals [24:37] must return. [24:39] And for the rule of law [24:41] to survive, [24:41] we need a course correction [24:42] at the Justice Department. [24:45] And Todd Blanche, [24:46] since his confirmation [24:47] as Deputy Attorney General, [24:48] has shown that [24:49] that won't happen [24:50] on his watch. [24:51] For the sake of the institution [24:53] where I once proudly served, [24:55] I urge you to reject [24:56] his nomination. [25:00] Thank you, Mr. Carr. [25:01] Before we go to Ms. Finkelstein, [25:03] I just want to note [25:04] that a number of my colleagues [25:05] have shown up. [25:06] As soon as Ms. Finkelstein [25:08] has finished with her testimony, [25:10] we'll go in the order [25:11] of folks starting [25:12] and their appearance here. [25:14] So starting with Mr. Durbin, [25:16] I'm so grateful [25:16] to my colleagues [25:17] for coming. [25:19] Obviously, if there's [25:20] somehow you want to move [25:22] that order based upon people, [25:23] I hope our staffs [25:24] can work that out. [25:25] But we'll be going [25:25] to Mr. Durbin [25:26] as soon as you're finished. [25:27] But very much looking forward [25:28] to your testimony, [25:29] Professor Finkelstein. [25:31] Thank you, Senator Booker. [25:33] My name is Claire Finkelstein, [25:35] and I am a law professor [25:36] at the University of Pennsylvania, [25:38] Cary Law School, [25:39] specializing in national security law [25:42] and democratic governance. [25:44] I am also the faculty director [25:45] of Penn Center for Ethics [25:47] and the Rule of Law. [25:50] I appear here today [25:51] because I have grave concerns [25:53] about the future [25:54] of the Department of Justice [25:55] under Todd Blanche, [25:57] should he be confirmed. [25:59] DOJ is the agency best placed [26:02] to safeguard the rule of law, [26:04] but it is equally the agency [26:07] best placed to undermine democracy [26:10] in the event its senior leaders [26:12] are not ethically motivated [26:13] and legally constrained. [26:16] The suitability for office [26:18] of Mr. Blanche [26:19] is therefore of the utmost importance. [26:24] Let me just say [26:24] that the statements I'll make today [26:26] are mine alone [26:27] and do not reflect the views [26:29] of any organization [26:30] of which I am a member. [26:34] Mr. Blanche's track record [26:36] suggests that he will not insist [26:38] on rule of law values [26:39] within the Department of Justice. [26:41] He appears to apply a litmus test [26:44] to current and potential DOJ lawyers. [26:47] If they are not willing [26:48] to distort the law [26:50] in favor of Blanche's [26:52] former client, Donald Trump, [26:54] they will likely be removed. [26:57] Mr. Blanche has fired [26:58] or confirmed the firings [26:59] of more than 50 U.S. attorneys [27:01] as well as the department's [27:03] senior pardon attorney. [27:05] He has also initiated [27:07] vengeful prosecution of individuals [27:09] such as former FBI director [27:11] Jim Comey, [27:12] who served the country honorably [27:14] and sought to apply [27:15] the rule of law evenhandedly. [27:19] Mr. Blanche's undermining [27:20] of the rule of law [27:21] also extends to a failure [27:23] to investigate [27:24] certain classes of crimes. [27:27] For example, [27:28] one month into his job [27:29] as deputy attorney general, [27:32] Mr. Blanche ended [27:33] ongoing investigations [27:35] into crypto activities. [27:37] Because crypto has provided [27:38] a vehicle for terrorist financing, [27:41] the decision to cut [27:42] crypto investigation poses [27:44] a serious threat [27:45] to U.S. national security. [27:48] This may not have been [27:50] a disinterested policy decision. [27:52] According to a public [27:53] financial disclosure report [27:55] signed by Mr. Blanche, [27:58] Blanche himself held roughly [28:00] $155,000 in cryptocurrency [28:03] at the very time [28:05] that he eliminated [28:06] the crypto investigations unit. [28:09] He only divested himself [28:11] from his crypto holdings [28:12] several days prior [28:14] to his confirmation hearings [28:15] last week, [28:16] despite having promised [28:18] to divest no later [28:19] than 90 days [28:21] after his Senate confirmation [28:22] in March. [28:24] An even more serious worry [28:26] is that Mr. Blanche [28:27] is motivated [28:28] by the interests [28:29] of his former client, [28:31] President Trump, [28:31] who has earned billions [28:33] of dollars in cryptocurrency [28:35] during his second term [28:37] in office. [28:39] Weaponized investigations [28:40] and lawsuits [28:41] seeking voter roll data [28:43] on Mr. Blanche's watch [28:45] raise the further concern [28:46] that a Blanche-led department [28:48] may pose a threat [28:49] to election integrity. [28:51] Despite the fact [28:52] that the department's [28:53] recent attempts [28:54] to co-op state election authority [28:56] have been uniformly rejected [28:59] by district court judges, [29:01] the DOJ has persisted [29:02] in this fishing expedition [29:04] under Mr. Blanche's watch. [29:07] Combined with Blanche's [29:08] fealty to Donald Trump [29:09] and the latter's veiled threats [29:11] to interfere [29:12] with the midterm elections, [29:14] a Blanche DOJ may pose [29:16] a national security threat [29:18] to the independence [29:19] of U.S. elections [29:20] and to the principles [29:22] of federalism [29:23] that support it. [29:26] Were Mr. Blanche [29:27] to insist upon truly [29:29] impartial criteria [29:31] for recusal [29:33] and the advice [29:35] from his career lawyers [29:36] he has said he would follow, [29:39] those career lawyers [29:40] would likely advise him [29:42] to recuse [29:43] in a very large proportion [29:45] of the cases [29:46] that might come before [29:47] Mr. Blanche's authority. [29:50] For example, [29:51] career attorneys [29:52] would likely have told [29:54] Mr. Blanche [29:55] that he should have nothing [29:56] to do with the settlement [29:57] between Donald Trump [29:58] and the Internal Revenue Service. [30:01] Blanche's letter authorizing [30:03] this settlement [30:03] on behalf of the department [30:05] reflects a crude [30:06] and highly problematic [30:08] conception [30:09] of the department's [30:10] enforcement authority. [30:12] Further evidence [30:13] of Mr. Blanche's willingness [30:14] to violate standards [30:16] in the legal profession [30:17] lies in his spearheading [30:19] of the so-called [30:20] weaponization fund [30:22] of which the collusive [30:24] IRS settlement agreement [30:25] was to have been a part. [30:28] As his testimony [30:29] last week revealed, [30:31] the weaponization fund [30:32] could be revived [30:33] at any moment [30:34] and Mr. Blanche's [30:35] categorically refused [30:37] to put the cancellation [30:39] of this weaponization fund [30:41] in writing in any form. [30:44] A less attended to example [30:46] of ways that Mr. Blanche's [30:48] willingness to undermine [30:49] standards of the legal profession [30:51] has to do with his attack [30:53] on the D.C. Bar Association, [30:55] pressuring it [30:56] to drop an investigation [30:57] into Jeffrey Clark, [30:59] the acting attorney general [31:01] at the end [31:01] of President Trump's [31:02] first term in office. [31:04] Clark was willing [31:05] to do what even [31:07] Trump loyalist [31:08] William Barr was not, [31:10] namely to support [31:11] the president's lie [31:12] that there was widespread [31:13] fraud in the 2020 election. [31:16] Mr. Blanche's defense [31:18] of Jeffrey Clark [31:19] is highly revealing. [31:21] Todd Blanche's legacy [31:22] to date suggests [31:23] he is unfit [31:24] to serve the country [31:25] as attorney general. [31:27] His undivided loyalty [31:29] to a self-serving president [31:30] whose interests [31:31] he defends above all else [31:33] have created [31:34] professional conflicts [31:35] that can only be addressed [31:37] through a debilitating commitment [31:39] to extensive recusal. [31:42] As attorney general, [31:44] Mr. Blanche [31:45] would have to choose [31:46] between abandoning [31:47] his professional integrity [31:48] and rendering himself [31:50] ineffectual [31:51] by his own extensive [31:53] need to recuse. [31:56] Dishonest or ineffectual, [31:58] either way, [31:58] Mr. Blanche [31:59] is not an appropriate choice [32:01] for attorney general. [32:03] Installing as attorney general [32:05] an individual [32:06] with such profoundly [32:07] divided loyalties [32:08] would be an affront [32:10] to the rule of law [32:11] and a rejection [32:12] of the fundamental principles [32:13] that have sustained [32:14] U.S. democracy [32:15] for the past 250 years. [32:18] It would also inflict damage [32:20] on the rule of law. [32:22] For both of these reasons, [32:23] I recommend that the Senate [32:25] reject this nomination. [32:27] Thank you. [32:32] Thank you. [32:34] Senator Durbin told me [32:35] to start, [32:36] just to tell my colleagues. [32:38] But first of all, [32:39] I just want to say [32:40] we need you guys. [32:43] This has been [32:44] wonderful testimony. [32:45] And it's what [32:46] the Justice Department [32:47] that I read about [32:48] as a young man [32:49] when it was leading [32:51] on civil rights [32:52] was all about. [32:54] And to hear the dedication, [32:55] Republican, Democrat, [32:56] it really didn't matter [32:57] because the through line [32:58] was the rule of law. [33:00] Ethics were taken [33:01] as something [33:02] that you'd never violate. [33:05] And then to have you, [33:06] Elizabeth, [33:07] a victim [33:08] of the Epstein conspiracy [33:11] and to be here bravely [33:13] and standing up [33:15] alongside people [33:17] from the Justice Department [33:18] who think it's their job [33:19] to provide justice [33:21] to people [33:22] who have been violated [33:25] like you [33:25] and your brave fellow victims. [33:28] So I just want to say [33:29] thank you [33:30] to every single one of you. [33:32] I sat through [33:33] the five-hour lie session [33:36] by Todd Blanche [33:39] and it was astonishing. [33:41] He doesn't agree [33:41] with anything [33:42] any one of you said. [33:44] All right? [33:44] Just on the conflicts. [33:48] He, as you know, [33:50] was on both sides [33:51] of that case [33:51] where the president [33:52] was suing. [33:53] And just think about this. [33:54] The president [33:55] of the United States [33:55] who represents taxpayers [33:57] of the United States [33:58] was suing the taxpayers [33:59] of the United States [34:00] for $10 billion [34:01] because the IRS [34:03] had a question [34:05] about the $100 million [34:06] that he owed [34:07] that he didn't want to pay. [34:11] You had, [34:12] Mr. Car, [34:13] actually I'll start [34:14] with you, Mr. Carbone. [34:14] You had to get ethics training, right? [34:17] Does that measure up? [34:18] No, no, it doesn't. [34:22] There are many things wrong [34:24] with his involvement [34:26] in the IRS settlement, [34:28] not the least of which [34:29] some of the conflicts [34:30] that my colleague identified, [34:33] but for the reasons [34:35] that Judge Williams [34:37] identified in her opinion. [34:39] This was a collusive lawsuit. [34:42] Right. [34:42] And that he should not [34:45] have been involved [34:46] in the case at all. [34:48] I mean, [34:49] in your wildest dreams [34:51] of all your years [34:52] in various U.S. attorney offices, [34:55] is this anything [34:56] you could have imagined [34:58] happening under [34:58] any other administration, [35:00] Republican or Democrat? [35:01] Never. [35:03] He should have recused himself [35:05] from any matter [35:07] involving or touching [35:09] on his relationship [35:10] with the president. [35:12] Thanks. [35:13] And Mr. Car, [35:14] I'm sorry, [35:15] thank you very much. [35:16] You know, [35:16] one of the, I think, [35:18] obligations of an institution [35:19] is to treat the people [35:21] who work in it [35:21] with decency. [35:23] And that's not to say [35:24] to look the other way [35:25] if there has been [35:26] misconduct, certainly, [35:28] or a lack of diligence [35:30] on the job. [35:33] And by all accounts, [35:34] you did a good job [35:35] under Republican [35:36] and Democratic administrations. [35:38] And I was shocked, [35:40] even though I was aware [35:41] of the circumstances [35:43] of your firing. [35:44] But I just want [35:44] to go over that. [35:46] He saw you in the hall [35:47] for the first time [35:49] and two hours later, [35:50] unannounced, [35:51] a security guard showed up [35:53] with a letter [35:53] in the notice [35:54] that you were [35:55] to leave immediately. [35:56] And that's after [35:57] how many years of service? [35:58] I had spent over 15 years [36:01] at the Justice Department. [36:03] You know, [36:03] just the basic decency [36:05] of talking with a person [36:09] before you're going [36:10] to take some action, [36:11] you had no notice whatsoever. [36:13] Nothing. [36:14] And how many others [36:15] were on the receiving end [36:17] of that conduct? [36:18] Like I said, [36:20] there's been hundreds [36:20] of Justice Department employees [36:22] that have been fired. [36:24] Many of them [36:25] are fired without notice, [36:27] meaning, you know, [36:28] they get notified by email. [36:30] Some of them are on vacation. [36:31] They don't even know. [36:32] So this institution [36:33] that has been dedicated [36:35] to the rule of law [36:35] that stands up [36:36] for people [36:37] who have been abused [36:38] and violated illegally, [36:40] that has stood up [36:41] for the civil rights [36:42] of citizens of this country, [36:43] is being ripped apart. [36:45] Ms. Finkelstein, [36:46] Professor Finkelstein, [36:47] do you think [36:47] that's a fair characterization [36:48] that there's a wrecking ball [36:50] in the Justice Department [36:52] and it's called Todd Blanche? [36:54] Senator, [36:55] I absolutely agree [36:56] with that statement [36:57] and I would say [36:58] that Todd Blanche [36:58] was nominated [36:59] not in spite [37:02] of his conflicts [37:03] of interest [37:03] but because of them. [37:05] You know, [37:05] that is exactly right. [37:07] Blunt as it is, [37:09] is accurate. [37:10] So I thank you [37:10] and again, [37:11] I want to thank you, [37:12] Elizabeth, [37:13] for your testimony [37:15] and I think, [37:17] Senator Hirono, [37:18] I think you're next. [37:20] Thank you. [37:20] Thank you. [37:21] Thank you very much [37:22] to all of you [37:23] for coming in [37:24] and sharing your views. [37:27] For Ms. Stein, [37:29] were you one [37:30] of the people [37:31] who met with Todd Blanche [37:33] after his confirmation hearing [37:34] and he was exhorted [37:35] to meet with the victims? [37:37] Yes, I was. [37:39] Yes? [37:40] Yes. [37:41] So how did you feel? [37:42] I mean, how would you describe [37:44] how he, [37:45] what his attitude was [37:46] toward all of you [37:47] in the meeting? [37:50] Well, I want to preface this [37:51] by saying that we have been [37:54] requesting meetings [37:55] with the DOJ for months. [37:56] and they have not indulged us [37:59] or given us any indication [38:01] that they would indulge us. [38:03] And so it wasn't lost on us [38:05] that this meeting happened [38:08] only after Senator Tillis [38:10] made it a requirement [38:11] of Todd Blanche's promotion. [38:16] During his confirmation hearing, [38:18] I asked whether his, [38:21] Todd Blanche's attitude [38:22] to our victims was one [38:24] of dismissiveness. [38:26] Would you say that that is a good way [38:27] to describe his behavior toward you [38:30] during the meeting? [38:30] We had approximately four hours [38:34] to prepare for this meeting [38:35] and we did so. [38:36] We went into that meeting [38:38] in good faith with the hopes [38:41] of working with Mr. Blanche [38:44] in the Department of Justice. [38:45] And we were met with gaslighting. [38:50] We were met with Mr. Blanche talking [38:53] around our questions instead [38:55] of answering them. [38:56] And we walked away with a feeling [38:58] of the best word that I can use is demoralization [39:03] because he did not come into that meeting looking [39:07] to work with us in good faith. [39:09] Thank you. [39:14] Now, I know that I don't know if you or I know [39:18] that a number of you have been meeting [39:20] with several of my colleagues, [39:22] the Republican colleagues on this committee. [39:24] What is your message [39:26] to our Republican colleagues? [39:29] Because we only need one, basically one Republican [39:33] to vote no on his confirmation. [39:35] And what has been your message [39:37] to our Republican colleagues [39:40] that you've been meeting with? [39:41] I think that when we get face-to-face meetings [39:45] with Republican colleagues and we're able [39:48] to explain to them our stories and boil it down [39:53] to something very simple, at the end of the day, [39:56] we are victims of a crime, right? [39:59] We're over a thousand girls and young women [40:01] who are sexually exploited. [40:03] And I think that, as I said earlier, [40:05] there's been so much political emotion infused [40:08] into this case when it really doesn't belong. [40:11] So when you bring it down to a human level and say, [40:14] I'm someone's sister, I'm someone's aunt, [40:17] I'm someone's daughter. [40:20] And if this was happening in your community, [40:23] if there was a pedophile ring in your community, [40:27] would you be able to sit by and just watch it happen? [40:31] Because that's what we're doing as the American public. [40:34] We're sitting by and we're effectively condoning these kinds [40:41] of crimes happening to vulnerable girls and young women. [40:44] So really, for us, this is not political. [40:49] We're just victims of a crime. [40:50] And I would just ask people to take the political emotion [40:55] out of this because it doesn't belong there and to look [40:58] at us for what we are. [40:59] And if victims of crime can't count on the Department [41:03] of Justice, what do we have as citizens? [41:08] What do we have? [41:10] Thank you for your very strong message. [41:12] I hope my colleagues do the right thing. [41:15] Regarding the IRS so-called settlement, you were, I'm sure, [41:21] Mr. Carbone? [41:24] Yes. [41:25] I'm pronounced correctly. [41:26] Were you surprised when Mr. Blanche testified [41:31] that he thought that that settlement was enforceable? [41:36] Well, I was very surprised. [41:37] I was also surprised when he said [41:39] that the language was standard language [41:43] and that this was a routine settlement. [41:47] And it's the normal time. [41:49] I mean, how can a settlement that arose [41:52] from a bogus lawsuit be enforceable? [41:58] And I'd like to ask Professor Finkelstein [42:01] to also comment if she'd like. [42:04] Well, how can a settlement that arose [42:06] from a bogus lawsuit be enforceable? [42:09] In my view, there's no, this agreement is not enforceable. [42:14] It's void public policy. [42:16] It was a collusive for the reasons [42:20] that the judge said it's not enforceable. [42:24] But I want to point out that in her opinion, [42:28] the judge pointed out that I can only deal [42:32] with what's before me in this case. [42:35] So the litigants in that case made very clear [42:41] that they didn't need the court. [42:43] And so what the judge said is, all I can do is prevent you [42:48] from giving the impromptu of the court on this agreement. [42:53] But they are free, or at least the judge expressed serious concerns, [42:59] that they could go ahead and do accomplish the same thing [43:04] without the settlement agreement. [43:07] So I do think that this is very much a live issue. [43:13] It's something that Senator Cornyn and Senator Tillis should be very concerned about. [43:20] because if Mr. Blanche would have signed this agreement in the first place [43:28] and given this unprecedented immunity, well, then what's to prevent him from doing it again? [43:35] He is not committed in writing that this whole concept [43:42] of the weaponization fund will never be revived. [43:46] And as the judge said, it's right in her opinion at page 37. [43:51] I just looked it up before walking in here. [43:53] Professor Finkelstein, do you agree with Todd Blanche that this settlement can be enforced? [44:00] Is it enforceable? [44:01] It is. [44:02] This settlement is extremely problematic, which is why it is under investigation by a federal judge. [44:09] It has all the hallmarks of a collusive lawsuit. [44:14] And it is a form of immunity, audit immunity, for the president and members of his family. [44:21] And let's not forget that Todd Blanche was representing Donald Trump in the January 6th matter, [44:29] which eventually gave rise to the immunity theory that was blessed by the Supreme Court, [44:37] which with regard to official capacity action. [44:41] However, this is personal capacity, and there should be no immunity in this case. [44:47] Frankly, I was shocked when he said that he thought that the settlement was enforceable. [44:55] Todd Blanche has shown in so many ways that the conflict of interest [45:00] and the fact that he continues to be the president's lawyer. [45:03] And to me, this so-called settlement is another clear example of the fact that he is the president's lawyer. [45:10] Now, he has fired over 1,200 people from the Justice Department. [45:15] How many years of experience do you think that those firings represented? [45:21] And I think that that might be something for Mr. Carr. [45:26] Would you like to respond to that? [45:27] I can't calculate how many years. [45:34] The department has lost 19,000 employees. [45:40] Over 30% of its attorneys have left since January 2025. [45:45] That includes those who were fired, but also those who have been pushed out or chose to leave. [45:51] We've lost 1,400 FBI special agents. [45:55] That's 10% of the special agents. [45:58] And all of these firings occur because they were involved in January 6 cases [46:03] or they did not provide sufficient loyalty to the president. [46:07] And just to know the enormity of the loss of the kind of critical experience [46:13] and fighting crime in this country, it is amazing. [46:18] Thank you very much. [46:19] And I'd like to turn to- [46:21] I'm going to turn to Adam Schiff. [46:23] Yes, I am. [46:23] But I just want to- [46:24] Thank you. [46:24] My legal staff, the lawyers behind me, were saying very importantly [46:29] that you should explain before we go to Senator Schiff. [46:32] What was the standard language? [46:35] If this is not standard language, can you make that point for us? [46:38] I think it's really important we draw that out. [46:40] Well, the standard language for a release or a waiver is, you know, [46:45] we hereby release the parties to the litigation for liability relating to the subject matter of the litigation. [46:55] That's the standard waiver. [46:57] That's not what this is. [47:00] Some of this language is mind-boggling, and I have it here in front of me. [47:05] The United States releases, waves, acquits, forever barred, prosecuting, pursuing any and all claims, counterclaims. [47:15] And in terms of the substance, one of the subcategories is relating to lawfare and or weaponization. [47:28] What does that mean? [47:29] And the people that it's- it's not limited to the parties, as Mr. Blanche testified. [47:35] It's the plaintiff's related or affiliated individuals. [47:40] That could be anyone. [47:43] That could be anyone involved in January 6 matters, any family members who are not parties to the lawsuit. [47:52] This is an extraordinarily broad, broadly written waiver. [48:00] So this settlement was not standard. [48:03] It was extraordinary. [48:04] It was, you're, quote, mind-boggling. [48:06] Yeah, mind-boggling. [48:08] And let me just say that typically a settlement agreement in a tax case has a- there's a closing agreement that takes place where the IRS calculates the tax liability, and then the taxpayer pays something. [48:28] This settlement agreement is completely divorced from the nature and substance of the allegations in the lawsuit. [48:35] The lawsuit was essentially said, a contract employee disclosed my tax returns, and I have been harmed. [48:45] That's the substance of the lawsuit. [48:48] This waiver, this immunity provision, covers all sorts of things, including, and I point to category two in the subject matter of the immunity provision, lawfare and or weaponization. [49:05] That means anything. [49:07] Thank you, thank you. [49:08] That means anything. [49:08] Thank you. [49:09] Mr. Schiff. [49:09] Thank you, Senator Booker, for holding this hearing. [49:13] Thank you all for testifying, and Mr. Carbone, I couldn't agree more. [49:18] It's a staggering conflict of interest, self-dealing. [49:22] I wrote down the three words that Blanche used to describe that IRS sham of a settlement. [49:30] I think he said regular, typical, and I can't remember the third, but they were anything but accurate descriptors of that unique agreement, [49:44] which, as the judge in Florida pointed out, has relief for people who are not even parties to the litigation, to the degree there was any litigation, [49:53] with remedies that have nothing to do with the alleged offense and uses such broad terms as to be really totally in the eye of the beholder. [50:05] And I think Senator Cornyn was right. [50:07] It was also quite striking that Blanche attributed to himself the power to speak for people on both sides of that agreement by saying that it was dead. [50:19] How could he speak for the other side of that agreement? [50:22] Well, because he was on both sides of the deal. [50:24] But I want to start by asking Mr. Carr a question. [50:30] I asked Mr. Blanche about his recusal, his supposed recusal. [50:37] I asked him if he talked to Mr. Terrell. [50:39] He acknowledged that he did. [50:40] I asked him if he was advised by Mr. Terrell. [50:42] Did Mr. Terrell tell you that ethics laws and policies required that you not be involved in cases involving your prior representation of the president? [50:51] His answer was yes. [50:52] Yes. [50:54] So in those matters, those three matters, the hush money payment case, January 6 case, Mar-a-Lago case, you were to recuse yourself. [51:00] His answer was I'm recused, correct. [51:04] Well, by the way, he said the cases are not ongoing, Senator. [51:08] But to the extent there's any work around those cases, yes, I'm recused. [51:11] So then I brought up, and you must have watched the hearing. [51:15] So you said to CPAC a couple months ago, the other things that are happening, there was not a single man or woman at the Department of Justice [51:22] who had anything to do with those prosecutions, meaning the prosecution of the president. [51:28] Now you had something to do with those prosecutions, right? [51:32] I was a spokesman for the office. [51:35] For the office of the special counsel. [51:37] Correct. [51:38] That was leading both of those investigations into Mar-a-Lago, the classified documents, the obstruction case, as well as the January 6 case. [51:45] Correct. [51:46] So by what he described to CPAC, you were included among those not left standing as a result of those firings. [51:59] So I asked him, so you're saying that it's not a conflict of interest for you to be involved in the firing of prosecutors who prosecuted your client, your former client. [52:07] There's no conflict there. [52:09] Is that your? [52:10] And his answer was no, there is. [52:11] He said there is a conflict of interest. [52:14] I wasn't involved. [52:15] That would be a conflict of interest. [52:17] But he fired you, right? [52:22] He signed my termination notice, yes. [52:25] He signed your termination notice. [52:27] So he signed the termination of someone who worked on the prosecution of his former client and arguably his current client, Donald Trump. [52:39] Correct. [52:40] I mean, it seems to me that was a pretty direct lie he told to our committee. [52:46] Now, maybe he would quarrel with describing him as a prosecutor, but he wasn't quibbling over that when he was speaking to CPAC. [52:57] He said no one involved in those cases is still remaining at the department. [53:03] And when I asked him about taking credit for that, he said no, no, no. [53:07] That was just a statement I made. [53:09] But wouldn't it also be a conflict of interest if that supposed tax agreement impacted Trump's potential liability for what had been mischaracterized as business payments? [53:27] The Hush Money payments, according to the statement of facts in that indictment, were designed to conceal their true nature and, in so doing, mislead tax authorities. [53:42] Wouldn't the signing of that settlement also impact his client potentially in that kind of a case? [53:48] I defer to the lawyers on the panel. [53:51] I am not a lawyer. [53:52] Yeah. [53:53] Senator Schiff, I expect that the lack of transparency around Donald Trump's finances would, if reversed, reveal a lot of conflicts of interest. [54:12] And I think you're absolutely right that the firing of US attorneys or spokesman, individuals who were involved in any way in those cases, [54:27] was, as you seem to be suggesting, largely motivated by not wanting those individuals to be involved moving forward. [54:40] I think a Department of Justice headed by Todd Blanche would have conflicts of interest and problems with regard to lawyers' ethics shot through it at every level. [54:55] Which is why my concern is that if recusal were done right in his case, he would be recusing from the vast majority of what the Department of Justice is currently doing. [55:06] I completely agree. [55:07] Mr. Carr, if I could just return to you for a moment. [55:11] He signed your termination. [55:12] Are you aware of whether he signed any terminations involving any of the other members of Jack Smith's team? [55:18] I don't know. [55:19] I did reach out to a few of them. [55:22] Some of them were fired before he became a Deputy Attorney General. [55:25] Others were fired after. [55:27] So I don't know. [55:28] I will say— [55:29] Well, I would be very interested if any of your colleagues share with you. [55:33] I think we would all be interested to know whether you're not the only one that he fired on the Mueller—excuse me, on the Smith team, or in any of the investigations that he has supposedly recused from. [55:51] Mr. Carbone, I asked Mr. Blanche a question at the end of the hearing. [55:57] It was kind of interesting because most of the fact-based questions I asked him, he dodged. [56:04] The one more or less rhetorical question he really seemed determined to answer, which is what happened to you? [56:10] What happened to the Todd Blanche of the Southern District of New York, who was a respected prosecutor? [56:16] You knew him. [56:17] You worked with him. [56:20] I understand from others in your old office that he was held in white in high regard. [56:27] What do you think happened to him? [56:30] Well, Senator, you were in the room when I gave my opening remarks. [56:34] But as I said, I worked closely with him. [56:40] I personally liked him. [56:41] I respected him. [56:43] And I valued our relationship. [56:48] He was a very affable prosecutor. [56:51] He was fair, fair-minded. [56:54] He had a lot of good qualities. [56:56] I don't know what happened to him. [56:58] I do know what I see. [57:01] And I can only judge his conduct. [57:04] I have not had any extensive contact with him in the past year, two years. [57:13] It's been very fleeting. [57:15] And I don't know what happened, but he certainly is not the person that I once worked with. [57:23] Yeah, you know, it's interesting. [57:26] And I mentioned this at the hearing. [57:29] I don't think people change that much. [57:34] I suspect it's more that we don't really know who they are until they show themselves, [57:39] until they are forced to make a difficult decision between their ambition and their principles. [57:46] And we've seen this. [57:49] He's not alone in this. [57:50] We've seen this from so many people who work in this building or the administration who come to Congress [57:57] or come to the administration as one person and seemingly transmogrified to something completely different. [58:05] And I suspect that that character flaw was there all along. [58:10] They just never were forced to make the choices that reveal who they really are. [58:14] The last question, Ms. Dinah, thank you so much for being here. [58:19] I was struck by the completely anomalous behavior of Mr. Blanche going to interview one of the co-conspirators, [58:31] the primary co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell. [58:34] The fact that he seemed to take no one who really knew the facts of the case, which no self-respecting prosecutor would do. [58:43] That he didn't challenge any of her many misrepresentations. [58:48] And that magically she ended up in this prison camp afterwards, unsuited for a sex predator like her. [58:55] How did victims feel watching that spectacle, that charade? [59:03] What was that like? [59:04] Very difficult for us, as it would be very difficult for any victim of crime. [59:11] Gillian Maxwell has shown herself to perjure herself in civil litigation. [59:20] And it really wasn't lost on us that Mr. Blanche spent nine hours, two days, interviewing her. [59:28] But for months and months and months, we couldn't get in front of the Department of Justice. [59:33] And when we did, we had about an hour with Mr. Blanche, which was nothing in comparison. [59:43] Maxwell's move to a low security facility is unprecedented for anyone with a conviction that she holds. [59:53] I mean, it's just unheard of. [59:56] We are further concerned because this administration has not ruled out a pardon. [1:00:01] This woman was convicted of sex trafficking. [1:00:04] And she's been given preferential treatment over and over and over again. [1:00:09] And that just begs us to ask why. [1:00:12] Thank you. [1:00:15] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, for your indulgence in allowing me to go ahead. [1:00:21] No, your question was extraordinary. [1:00:25] I just would love to if Ms. Stein made a statement there that putting Ms. Gillian Maxwell in a lowest possible security camp is unprecedented. [1:00:40] I made that point during the testimonies that other members of my colleagues. [1:00:43] But I was wondering if some of either Mr. Carbone or Ms. Finkelstein, would you confirm that at all to your knowledge? [1:00:51] That someone who is a five-time convicted sex offender would have a personal meeting with the acting Attorney General or then Deputy Attorney General. [1:01:02] And it seems to be no prosecutions stemmed from her, that interview, but then suddenly be getting a position. [1:01:14] It just seems so extraordinary, as Ms. Stein says. [1:01:17] But I was wondering if you wanted to add any commentary to that. [1:01:20] It's extraordinary. [1:01:24] And it's also extraordinary that a Deputy Attorney General would interview a witness without consulting with the people who prosecuted the case, the investigative team. [1:01:37] This case was prosecuted by some of the best and brightest prosecutors Southern District has to offer. [1:01:44] And there was no consultation. [1:01:49] It's unheard of. [1:01:50] I've never seen it in 30 years. [1:01:52] I've also never seen someone at that level interview a witness. [1:01:57] Maybe he's competent to do that, but he certainly didn't take the steps necessary that any self-respecting Federal prosecutor would take before interviewing the witness. [1:02:09] How could you be prepared to cross-examine and challenge the witness if you haven't studied the file and spoken with the people who investigated and prosecuted the case? [1:02:20] Can I just ask? [1:02:22] Yeah, please. [1:02:24] Watching that spectacle, reading the transcript of the spectacle, who was Blanche representing there? [1:02:31] Was he representing the American people as the Attorney General, or was he there still as Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyer? [1:02:38] Exactly. [1:02:39] Well, and it also gets back to the public trust. [1:02:43] Now, when the public sees that the Deputy Attorney General is doing something so extraordinary like that and asking questions that are calculated, apparently calculated, to get favorable information about the President, what is the public supposed to think? [1:03:02] What does the public think about the way the Justice Department operates? [1:03:07] What do the victims think? [1:03:08] Mr. Feiglstein, did you want to add that? [1:03:12] I would emphasize here that attorneys have ongoing duties of loyalty to their former clients. [1:03:19] So the question that Senator Schiff just asked is a very important one. [1:03:24] Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.9, they cannot just turn their backs on a former client. [1:03:35] But that deepens the analysis of the conflict of interest all the more. [1:03:41] Because here, President Trump has an interest in doing damage control around the appearance of his own name in those reports, as well as those with whom he may have close relationships. [1:03:55] And so fundamentally, in that interview setting, Todd Blanche was in a conflicted situation. [1:04:05] And he had to know that, given his legal acumen, his training, and his experience. [1:04:11] It was a highly improper meeting for him to take. [1:04:16] Senator Durbin. [1:04:18] So let me pursue further the question of conflict. [1:04:21] A recurring theme in the corruption of the second administration of this President virtually always includes the cryptocurrency industry. [1:04:33] They seem to be the ones who have made the path straight for the President to have the biggest year in income in the history of the American Presidency. [1:04:41] Nothing even gets close to the $1.42 billion, whatever the total number may turn out to be. [1:04:48] So should Mr. Blanche have recused himself from the decision to issue the April 2025 memo regarding cryptocurrency enforcement, [1:04:58] when in fact he was a holder of cryptocurrency at the time? [1:05:03] Absolutely. [1:05:04] And let's remember, Chairman Durbin, that Todd Blanche had promised, in fact, to divest himself of his crypto holdings [1:05:16] within 90 days of joining the Department of Justice, something he did not follow through on. [1:05:23] The time that he finally divested from his crypto holdings was immediately prior to the hearings last week, [1:05:31] at least according to recent reporting. [1:05:34] This is the only administration in recent memory that does not have a formal ethics plan. [1:05:41] There was a Trump-Van 2025 transition plan, which formalized a number of these ethics matters, though it was a fairly skeletal plan. [1:05:54] But it did not survive the transition. [1:05:58] And the head of the Office of Government Ethics was fired shortly after Donald Trump began his second term and has not been replaced. [1:06:08] And it's my understanding that his holdings in the crypto were somewhere in the range of $150,000, $160,000? [1:06:19] To my knowledge, that's correct. [1:06:21] And it's also my understanding that he believes he divested himself by transferring these crypto holdings to his children and grandchild? [1:06:31] Well, that is certainly not in the nature of what you would call anything like a blind trust. [1:06:39] You cannot transfer it to members of your family and then say you're not going to be involved, though it is a common practice. [1:06:50] But it does not necessarily completely free him of the conflicts that he may have around his own crypto holdings. [1:06:58] I believe that an even bigger conflict for him is the crypto wealth, which grows larger every day, of his former client, Donald Trump. [1:07:09] It certainly is. [1:07:11] Mr. Carbone, when you were at the U.S. Attorney's Office, what was your understanding of your professional responsibility and ethical duty as a DOJ attorney with regard to investigating industries you had a vested financial interest in? [1:07:25] Well, for most of my career, I was a financial disclosure filer and you would have to divest. [1:07:33] And even if you weren't a supervisor, if you're investigating a particular company, even if it's a publicly traded company or they're a victim in a case, you would either have to divest or get off the case. [1:07:50] There's a slight variation in this theme. In April 2025, then Deputy Attorney General Blanche disbanded the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team and shut down ongoing crypto crime investigations when at the time he was holding interest in the industry. [1:08:09] Yeah, he as as my colleague pointed out, that's not something you should have done. [1:08:18] No, certainly it shouldn't be. May I ask on the question of necessity, which is a legal term which we studied way back when and I've not had any instance to return to. [1:08:32] But in this situation when it came to signing the infamous memo about criminal tax responsibility, do you think Mr. Blanche should have recused himself from issuing an order granting tax immunity to his former client? [1:08:49] Oh, absolutely. Yes or no. That's a yes. He should have recused himself. For no other reason, he had a duty of loyalty to his former client. But I think beyond that, he certainly had involvement, very close involvement. [1:09:11] Don't forget he represented this client in at least four different matters. And I don't see how you could enter into a settlement agreement that grants immunity for a former client. [1:09:28] It would be adverse to the client. Typically, what happens in a tax case is there's a liability and the IRS tells you that you owe a hundred million dollars and you and OK, we'll settle that. [1:09:49] We'll settle it for 80 million. I don't see how he could be involved in something like that. [1:09:55] Mr. Blanche came in my office the day before he testified before this committee and talked about this doctrine of necessity, which, if I recall, applies when there is no other competent decision maker who can take an action. [1:10:12] I believe that's the argument he's making. So he believes he and he alone at the Department of Justice could sign that immunity. What is your feeling? [1:10:22] Mr. Well, I can tell you that there are many competent career people at the Justice Department, certainly in the tax division. [1:10:31] There's a deputy attorney general. There's AAGs. There are many people. And in fact, I think it's pretty extraordinary that an attorney general would sign off on any settlement agreement like this. [1:10:46] So I don't know how it could possibly be necessary when, as far as I know, Mr. Blanche doesn't have expertise in tax matters. [1:10:58] And if we're talking about settling a tax liability, that's something that should be done by the tax division. [1:11:10] You would think so. [1:11:11] If we're talking about settling a civil lawsuit, that there are many other competent people in the Justice Department who could have signed off on this. [1:11:21] I may not be around to read it, but there's going to be a history written about this administration. [1:11:26] And I think it will be extraordinary in its corruption. [1:11:29] And in these two specific instances, the cryptocurrency as well as the immunity, there is just no logical, reasonable explanation for what Blanche did. [1:11:41] And now he's seeking a promotion. [1:11:43] Ms. Stein, I think the point was made by some of your colleagues and survivors that it still defies any logic that after all of the investigation, [1:11:56] after all of the victims, after all the history that occurred, exactly two people were prosecuted. [1:12:02] One has committed suicide and the other just got upgraded to a posh setting in a federal prison camp. [1:12:10] That seems to be a recurring theme I hear from the survivors, incredulous. [1:12:17] When you met with Mr. Blanche, did anybody speak about specific individuals who they witnessed as part of this that don't seem to be facing any prosecution? [1:12:29] We didn't speak about specific individuals, but we did ask Mr. Blanche to explain the circumstances around his meeting with Gillian Maxwell and her transfer afterwards. [1:12:41] And we got no substantive answers. [1:12:44] He spoke in circles. [1:12:45] He evaded our questions. [1:12:47] And so we walked out with no more information than we walked in with. [1:12:50] In my office, his explanation was her life was being threatened and this is the only way they could protect her. [1:12:57] My experience, and I'm not an expert in this field, but I have some contact with Bureau of Prisons. [1:13:03] In those circumstances, they usually transfer the person who's being threatened to a safe setting, often by themselves, so that they are safe, [1:13:15] rather than to downgrade their incarceration to the lowest level. [1:13:20] It doesn't seem to be logical. [1:13:22] Well, I can tell you, Mr. Durbin, that there are over a thousand victims of Gillian Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's crimes [1:13:29] that are in fear of our own lives, and we haven't felt any better of that with the disclosure of our personal information by this Department of Justice. [1:13:38] This is a sex trafficking case that most prosecutors would be salivating for. [1:13:45] The number of victims, the amount of evidence, yet there seems to be no interest in pursuing this. [1:13:53] Mr. Carr, I would just close by saying that I opened one aspect of this hearing the other day [1:14:00] by noting the fact that the special counsel that you represented as a spokesman has agreed voluntarily [1:14:09] to come before this Judiciary Committee and answer questions under oath. [1:14:13] It was four months ago or longer that all the Democratic senators said, [1:14:19] if the Republican senators on Judiciary Committee are going to continue to lob these grenades at the former special counsel, [1:14:27] they owe it to him to give him a chance to tell his side of the story. [1:14:30] Under oath, and they've refused month after month after month. [1:14:34] The conclusion I draw is that they're afraid of what he has to say. [1:14:39] I've seen him describe his role in this earlier investigation, and he seems to know what he's talking about. [1:14:48] Would you comment on it? [1:14:49] He has said publicly that he is willing to come and testify publicly, and so I encourage the Senate to take him up on it. [1:15:02] I think we should. [1:15:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:15:04] Thank you, Chairman Durbin. [1:15:09] Mr. Carr, I want to stay with you. [1:15:11] It's an extraordinary testimony that you're here. [1:15:16] As you said, you've worked for Orrin Hatch and were a Bush appointee. [1:15:22] And I just want to focus on the impact on the Department of Justice professionals when people are fired in a way that seems to me not indiscriminate, but really targeted people who weren't being fired for cause, [1:15:43] but because of the political agenda or sense of retribution, if I'm not overstating the fact, of the president and the president's personal lawyer. [1:15:53] Could you first start with yourself? [1:15:55] What impact did it have on you, that sudden firing that you discussed, where one second you're passing him in the hallway and then within two hours you're having people escort you from the building? [1:16:08] Yeah, it was traumatic. [1:16:16] When you choose to devote your life to public service, you make a lot of sacrifices in your career, and your career, it's part of my identity, right? [1:16:27] I am a Justice Department person. [1:16:30] And so when that's taken away from you, number one, that it's very hard. [1:16:36] But number two, I'm the father of four children. [1:16:40] And my family relies on my income. [1:16:43] And all of a sudden, I don't have it. [1:16:45] I was not offered severance at the time. [1:16:50] My health insurance is gone. [1:16:54] My wife had just been recently diagnosed with a life-changing diagnosis. [1:16:59] She needed health care. [1:17:01] I don't have it anymore. [1:17:03] We had to scramble and figure out how we were going to do that. [1:17:09] It's a traumatic experience for people to go through. [1:17:13] And I know many people who have experienced this. [1:17:17] And it's a struggle to find a job after. [1:17:20] I know people who were fired over a year ago that, despite a lot of effort, still don't have regular employment just because they were doing their jobs and they got fired for it. [1:17:33] I know other people who have taken jobs at half the salary they had here just because they need to provide for their family. [1:17:40] And this is the only thing that they could take at the moment. [1:17:44] It has devastating consequences for people, all because they did a job that they were assigned to do. [1:17:54] Mr. Kar, I'm going to continue with this line of questioning. [1:17:57] Senator Whitehouse has been extraordinarily patient and I'm going to allow him to ask some questions. [1:18:01] But if you don't mind, I'd like to get back to some follow-up questions after he's finished. [1:18:05] And I'm grateful he's here as one of the senior members of our committee. [1:18:09] I'm going to defer now to Senator Whitehouse. [1:18:12] Thank you. [1:18:14] My questions are going to be for Mr. Carbone. [1:18:19] I spent four years as the United States Attorney in Rhode Island and four years as our Attorney General. [1:18:27] As you may know, Rhode Island is one of the three states in the country where the Attorney General has full criminal authority. [1:18:33] We don't have DAs. [1:18:34] It's us, Delaware, and Alaska. [1:18:36] And so we worked very closely with my successor as a U.S. Attorney once I was elected. [1:18:44] So I've got some experience and understanding of the traditions and protocols and standards of the department. [1:18:55] So I say that by way of opening. [1:18:58] I have a word cloud here of things that sitting federal judges have said about the department. [1:19:15] of Justice's presentations in this Trump 2 administration. [1:19:22] To be clear, these are not allegations that are made about the Department of Justice by angry or frustrated opponents. [1:19:31] These are findings made by federal judges. [1:19:34] And I think every one of those words, if it had been spoken about my office when I was U.S. Attorney, would have occasioned an office response. [1:19:54] We would, at minimum, have had a meeting with the attorney and asked for an explanation. [1:20:03] It could very well have resulted in a referral to OPR, Office of Professional Responsibility, within the Department of Justice. [1:20:10] Which, by the way, I'd need to see a proof of life from right now. [1:20:14] And it could easily have meant like going over to the court to try to make amends and set things right. [1:20:23] Because the department's reputation with courts is its most important asset. [1:20:30] What was the case in all your years in the so-called sovereign district of New York with respect to that type of adverse finding about the competence and honesty of AUSAs? [1:20:45] You know, Senator, that's a really good point. [1:20:48] You know, we talk about the Justice Department losing credibility and losing the trust of the public. [1:20:54] And we don't talk enough about what happens when you lose the trust of the bench. [1:21:01] We have an acting attorney general who has referred to the bench as declaring war on the activist judges. [1:21:14] I can tell you this, in my years as running White Plains in particular, as well as downtown in Manhattan, if a judge had a problem with an assistant United States Attorney, [1:21:29] and it could be what now I would see as a very minor problem, I would immediately deal with it. [1:21:37] And speak to the assistant, figure out what happened, listen to the judge's complaints carefully. [1:21:45] But if a judge made a finding that someone was less than candid or failed to comply with an order, that's really a big deal. [1:21:58] And when a judge makes a finding like that, under traditional, as you know, from being a U.S. attorney, that's something that would be reported to Maine Justice. [1:22:09] And it would be something that would be carefully evaluated. [1:22:14] If there's a Brady violation, carefully evaluated. [1:22:17] What I think we see now is a broad lack of trust by the bench in the representations that are made by the government. [1:22:28] There was a time when an assistant United States Attorney walked into a courtroom and said, I represent the government, that that meant something. [1:22:41] It meant something because the judges were confident that that assistant United States Attorney was going to be candid, was going to be well prepared, and was going to be doing the right thing. [1:22:58] And I think, sadly, what that collage reflects is a sentiment from many judges that that's no longer the case. [1:23:09] For the record, that included Trump-appointed judges saying those things about lawyers. [1:23:13] Absolutely. [1:23:14] This is not just so-called activist judges. [1:23:16] The department almost makes it worse when they receive criticism, and instead of responding to it honorably, they turn on and attack the judges. [1:23:26] Well, you know, the judges tend to know each other. [1:23:28] And when a judge who every other judge knows, and knows perfectly well is no activist, gets called an activist, [1:23:37] that's just further damage to the department's credibility. [1:23:42] Credibility and ability to actually do the mission of the Justice Department, to carry out justice, [1:23:49] when you don't have credibility with the court, or you lose credibility with the court more broadly. [1:23:55] Say a word about the presumption of regularity. [1:23:58] What is that phrase? [1:23:59] What does it mean? [1:24:00] What does it matter for the department? [1:24:02] Well, the presumption of regularity is something that the department has enjoyed, at least in my years in the department. [1:24:11] The judges assume that you're acting in good faith and that nothing improper happened or untoward. [1:24:18] You know, in the context of getting grand jury minutes or getting access to grand jury minutes, [1:24:25] we've seen unprecedented number of judges ordering access to the grand jury minutes. [1:24:32] That, as you know, that's something that the laws is very, you know, it's very good for the government on. [1:24:39] You don't get access to grand jury minutes unless you can show there's a reason to go behind, [1:24:46] because there is a presumption of regularity. [1:24:49] Well, that presumption more and more is no longer attaching. [1:24:53] If you don't mind, one last episode that I'll walk you through. [1:24:59] This was an episode not in the Southern District of New York, but here in the District for the District of Columbia, [1:25:06] by a political appointee directly supervised by Todd Blanche. [1:25:13] And it was basically a cooked up criminal investigation. [1:25:21] First of all, it was a criminal investigation that was pursued without predication that there was a crime. [1:25:30] Would that be unusual in a normal Department of Justice? [1:25:35] Well, certainly when it comes to the more complicated the case, the more sensitive the case, [1:25:41] the more predication you should have before beginning an investigation. [1:25:46] But there should, at a minimum, be some predication. [1:25:49] There should be, even in the simplest of cases, there should be some predication. [1:25:53] And when the criminal chief of the, the career criminal chief of the office loses her job for being unwilling to pursue the no predication criminal investigation, [1:26:09] that in a normal Department of Justice would be another warning sign, would it not? [1:26:14] It would be a red flashing light. [1:26:16] Yeah. [1:26:17] And if no career member of the office would be willing to sign a pleading, [1:26:27] and the U.S. Attorney went forward alone with zero willingness to co-sign the pleading by any career person. [1:26:40] Another red flag? [1:26:41] Flashing lights. [1:26:43] Yeah, flashing lights. [1:26:45] And if the U.S. Attorney went forward themselves with no career co-signer, [1:26:55] and had zero federal prosecution experience at the time, that would be more red flags, wouldn't it? [1:27:04] That would be a very, very serious problem. [1:27:08] Yeah. [1:27:09] Going into the magistrate's office, the rest of the courthouse would have heard about that by sundown. [1:27:16] And the magistrate judge then denied that acting U.S. Attorney's petition. [1:27:25] That's a pretty damned rare occurrence, because department lawyers bend over backwards [1:27:33] to make sure that they don't put judges in the position of having to deny petitions, [1:27:36] by super preparing to make sure that there is no occasion for a judge to deny the warrant application. [1:27:45] Well said. [1:27:47] And I just want to point out, in that scenario, kudos to those career public servants who refused to sign off on that. [1:27:57] And then after the magistrate denied the U.S. Attorney's solo petition, the department then tried to shop the very same case to other U.S. Attorney's offices. [1:28:18] Was that a thing in a normal Department of Justice, to get shot down in one district and try to shop the same thing to other districts? [1:28:25] No, that would be extraordinary and it would be totally improper and provide yet another reason for why the presumption of regularity is something that's in serious jeopardy. [1:28:39] And the last bit in this particular saga was that the client agency was the Environmental Protection Administration. [1:28:52] And the EPA Administrator was on talk shows and in the public arena accusing the subjects of the failed criminal inquiry of criminality. [1:29:15] What were the restraints when an investigation or prosecution was going on in a normal Department of Justice about either the department or its agency client publicly disparaging the putative defendant? [1:29:36] So the Justice Department has very clear rules about what can be said and not said about people under investigation or, and Mr. Carr is probably an expert in this, but you certainly can't go out and disparage someone who you're investigating. [1:29:58] Typically, you stick within the four corners of a charging document. [1:30:02] When it comes to investigations, absent certain exceptions, you really should not be talking about a pending investigation. [1:30:11] Because it's wrong, because it's unfair. [1:30:13] Very unfair. [1:30:14] So the way this ended, the sort of punchline here is that the acting U.S. Attorney who performed all these stunts is now our pardon attorney, Mr. Martin. [1:30:27] And the purpose of this whole set of red flag foibles and failures was to gin up a fake criminal prosecution in order to try to seize appropriated and obligated funding that was already on its way out to recipients. [1:30:51] Because they just simply didn't like that Congress had appropriated that money, and it seemed to them, having failed to block it in civil proceedings, that setting up a fake criminal investigation to try to block it was a really smart move. [1:31:09] And that's all still in litigation right now, but at least department lawyers in the civil litigation conceded to the court, represented to the court, that there had been no fraud. [1:31:23] So they just tore the legs out from under the phony prosecution themselves. [1:31:28] That's a saga that never would have taken place in any other administration. [1:31:32] And the fact that that's not a unique thing that we're all talking about, it's just part of the new run of the mill misbehavior and dirty dealings and incompetence of this thug operation running the Department of Justice is, well, I'll let you describe the adjective. [1:31:51] Well, I agree with everything you said. [1:31:54] Misusing, there is no excuse for misusing the criminal process or the civil process for that matter. [1:32:03] There's, you know, when we talk about this, the civil settlement, we have, now we have a judicial finding. [1:32:11] And you want to talk about predication in an investigation, you have a finding of a collusive lawsuit. [1:32:19] You know, the Justice Department, and I'm not suggesting anybody's guilty of any crime here, because there has been an investigation. [1:32:29] But the Justice Department has prosecuted cases where there have been collusive lawsuits, where people get defrauded. [1:32:37] The Los Angeles Water Works, in particular, was a case that was federally prosecuted by the Middle District of California. [1:32:48] Well, here are 11 districts in which U.S. Attorneys have been sanctioned for misconduct just in a year. [1:33:00] I think you probably have to go back several decades to find 11 U.S. Attorneys having been sanctioned, maybe a century. [1:33:07] And this doesn't count the one that makes it the dirty dozen, which is the fraud upon the court allegation that remains pending in Florida, [1:33:16] specifically related and directly related to Todd Blanche's misconduct in that space. [1:33:23] So, thank you very much, Senator Booker. [1:33:26] And thank you, Mr. Carbone, for your service and for bringing a recollection of what an honest and honorable Department of Justice looks like into this grim era. [1:33:39] Thank you. [1:33:40] Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse. [1:33:44] I'd like to return, Mr. Carr, to you, because I think what you're describing here is an impact not just on your life, [1:33:53] but I appreciate you mentioning that this happened not dozens, but hundreds of other times to career professionals that had not one or two years, but 10, 20 plus years of experience. [1:34:06] And I imagine the impact on their lives was significant. [1:34:14] Being fired by the Trump administration in the way that they're exercising influence over law firms. [1:34:22] Does that add to the difficulty of people that were fired by the Department of Justice? [1:34:29] Does it impact their ability to find jobs? [1:34:31] Yes, definitely. [1:34:33] When law firms are targeted based on people that they have hired that the president didn't like or for representing Jack Smith, for example, [1:34:48] it sends a message to other law firms that there are certain people that shouldn't be touched. [1:34:54] Now, I don't need you to testify to what I've found from many nonprofits and foundations that work on areas or issues that are not in favor by this president. [1:35:03] They have found that it's hard to find pro bono counsel, harder to find pro bono counsel these days. [1:35:08] But those are nonprofits or private law firms. [1:35:12] The Department of Justice has a pretty significant public mission, which is the establishment of justice, the defense of our laws, the pursuit of dangerous criminals. [1:35:25] I want to get your understanding of what kind of chill, if any, does these kind of firings have on the actual workings of the Justice Department. [1:35:39] There's many lawyers that are there. [1:35:41] What what what impact do you think it has on the Department of Justice's very important, vital activities? [1:35:49] Until this administration, when you were assigned to a case and you're investigating a case, all you looked at was the facts, the evidence and whether you should bring a case or not. [1:36:06] Now you have to look at it and say, what are the consequences to my job based on what kind of recommendation I give? [1:36:16] So DOJ leadership has given orders to people. [1:36:22] We need you to initiate this case. [1:36:26] We need you to close this case. [1:36:28] When someone stands up and says, I can't do that. [1:36:31] There's not the facts there. [1:36:33] They have been fired for that. [1:36:37] Or someone says, I can't put that in a filing because it's not supported by the law. [1:36:42] They have been fired or pushed out for that. [1:36:46] If someone raises concerns that a certain operation in a law enforcement operation doesn't comport with a court injunction, they have been fired for that. [1:37:00] And so what does that do for the people who are still there? [1:37:03] It makes them question, what can I say about this case? [1:37:08] What should I do? [1:37:09] And it seriously constrains their ability to be vocal and really express their views. [1:37:17] Because those views might get you fired. [1:37:20] But I mean, the extreme nature of what you just said, that people are told to close a case. [1:37:28] If they refuse, they're fired. [1:37:30] People are told to open a case. [1:37:32] If they refuse, they're fired. [1:37:34] To put evidence into a case file. [1:37:37] If they refuse in good conscience, they're fired. [1:37:40] This to me seems like a severe systemic corruption of the ideals of justice. [1:37:47] Am I overstating that? [1:37:48] I think so. [1:37:50] Because the decisions aren't being made based on the look, you know, reviewing the evidence. [1:37:59] But instead, it's you have received an order. [1:38:03] And you either need to follow the order or you can get out of the way. [1:38:07] And to your knowledge, how many people, there have been people that have been fired. [1:38:13] We know those general numbers. [1:38:16] But there's also scores, thousands that have left as a result of this being the climate. [1:38:21] Is that correct? [1:38:22] Correct. [1:38:24] I don't have a way of counting those. [1:38:27] But I do know of many people who have simply been forced to resign or walk away because they can't move forward with the orders they were given. [1:38:36] And what impact does it have on the agency when that level into the thousands, and my staff tells me it's over 10,000 in all the field office people who have left or been fired. [1:38:49] There is a significant amount of institutional knowledge over the course of multiple administrations, Republican and Democrat, that is formidable when it comes to protecting the American people. [1:39:01] Knowledge of cases, knowledge of criminal networks, knowledge of national security threats. [1:39:08] To your estimation, what impact on the institution of the Department of Justice in terms of its carrying out its vital mission has this kind of mass exodus or firing had on the institution? [1:39:20] I think it's been devastating. [1:39:22] The vast majority of people who have left or been pushed out have been people very senior in the Justice Department. [1:39:30] Average of 16 to 22 years of experience in the Justice Department. [1:39:36] Those are the kind of people that younger attorneys would go to when they needed advice about how best to approach an issue. [1:39:45] These people have experienced things from cases throughout the years that are invaluable for cases that have come up. [1:39:56] People like Perry, who know and know everything, all of a sudden they're gone and these younger attorneys don't have those people to turn to. [1:40:05] Which I think is evidence to what Senator Whitehouse has raised. [1:40:11] You know, they are the kind of people that would ensure that those representations before the court are done appropriately. [1:40:20] But when you start to lose that expertise, it has a devastating effect downwind. [1:40:28] I'm going to bring other witnesses in a second to comment on this, but I think the thing that also is frightening to me is that if you have watched people who prosecuted cases against people who stormed the Capitol of the United States, beat police officers with an inch of their lives, and then get fired for no other reason, but that they were affiliated with these cases. [1:40:51] I guess I want to ask you is if somebody gets credible evidence about a powerful person connected to the president and thinks about, wow, there is evidence here of a crime that I should investigate. [1:41:04] Is it reasonable for me to suspect that if it was somebody powerful that is connected to the president or, God forbid, a national security issue involving his family members who are doing something overseas that you would have people within the Justice Department who would fear pursuing the facts or a case in this matter because it could mean they're summarily being fired. [1:41:33] Yeah, that is a fear. [1:41:37] I think that there is a growing incentive to not pursue challenging cases like that for fear of how that would affect your career. [1:41:48] And what does that do, in your opinion, to the pursuit of public corruption? [1:41:53] And no side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on public corruption, but what does that do for public corruption cases within the Trump administration? [1:42:05] I think they're largely non-existent. The public integrity section has gone from over 30 people to two. I don't know what those two people are doing in regard to cases. And so the ability to bring public corruption cases just is not an enforcement priority of this administration at the moment. [1:42:29] And at the very time, as my colleague, Senator Whitehouse has pointed out, that there is far more smoke when it comes to the potential for public corruption. [1:42:39] At the very time that these rising concerns are happening, where you see people making astronomical sums or having charges suddenly dropped or even oversight of mergers that suddenly are being, it seems, decisions being made at the top of the agency and not by normal processes. [1:42:56] At that very time, the very people that are investigating public corruption have left or been fired. Is that correct? [1:43:03] Correct. [1:43:05] Ms. Finkelstein, I'm very concerned, not only about the pursuit of law, but also that the Department of Justice has serious responsibilities when it comes to national security. [1:43:15] What kind of chill or real threats to our own national security could be affected by an institution that seems to be on whims, political whims firing or forcing out significant leaders over years and multiple administrations from the Justice Department? [1:43:38] Ms. Many of the people who were fired, Senator, had profound experience in bringing prosecutions according to the rule of law, had deep experience with regard to foreign terrorism. [1:43:55] Ms. I mentioned that the crypto investigations are quite necessary to identify terroristic activities using crypto transfers. [1:44:10] And this administration, and this happened also during the first Trump administration, has turned away from the historical focus on foreign threats. [1:44:24] Ms. And it's turned a lot of its attention to domestic investigations, spending the energies of the department rooting out domestic enemies or political foes of the administration or of the president, [1:44:41] rather than focusing on very real threats which are very often foreign in nature. [1:44:47] Mr. So a decline in foreign terroristic or foreign national security threats and an increase in bringing charges against political enemies of the president or perceived political enemies of the president. [1:45:02] Ms. I will give you another example of that, which is the Foreign Agent Registration Act. [1:45:06] Under previous administrations, there were robust investigations into violations of FARA, or the Foreign Agent Registration Act, [1:45:15] to protect the American people against foreign source propaganda. [1:45:20] And that, of course, is an extreme security matter. [1:45:25] It can affect our elections, which is part of our critical infrastructure. [1:45:30] This administration has largely taken away FARA investigations and FARA enforcement, [1:45:37] which was a very important part of our national security division within the Justice Department. [1:45:43] Mr. So from the Public Corruptions Unit to the investigation of these foreign agent threats, [1:45:51] are there other areas that rise to your particular concern when it comes to the safety and security of the American people? [1:45:57] Ms. Our election system and the integrity of our elections is the core part of our critical infrastructure, [1:46:06] the beating heart of our democracy, if you will, and the interference with the federalist system that we have, [1:46:19] in which states run their elections, in which state officials are in control of the integrity of our elections. [1:46:29] And, of course, historically, the federal government has supplied funds to help states shore up the safety of their elections, [1:46:41] but the states are still in charge. [1:46:43] And what we are seeing now is the Department of Justice that is weaponizing the focus on state security, [1:46:53] or at least in the name of security, and undermining that foundational federalist system in which elections are run by the states. [1:47:02] Mr. So from corruption to foreign threats to the very bedrock of democracy, which is our voting system, [1:47:08] this Justice Department seems to be pulling away from the enforcement of justice and instead focusing on political prosecutions, [1:47:18] or defending the president, as we saw in the Epstein files, taking extraordinary measures and amounts of time, [1:47:25] the deputy attorney general himself spending extra amount of time doing things that seem to directly benefit the president's interests. [1:47:32] Ms. That is certainly what it appears. [1:47:34] Mr. And can I ask you, before I switch to Mr. Carbone, to comment? [1:47:39] One of the first things I learned in law school was this idea of avoiding the appearance of impropriety. [1:47:46] And it's stunning to me because this nominee, Mr. Blanche, seems to constantly be in circumstances that create the appearance of impropriety. [1:47:57] Whether they're actually violating the law or not, there have been numerous cases. [1:48:02] And so, for example, one of the issues I keep talking about is this paramount merger, which has to get DOG clearance. [1:48:09] But on the day that the merger was being voted on by the company, there was a dinner being held by company leaders for the president of the United States. [1:48:21] The matter is before the Justice Department. [1:48:23] And the acting attorney general goes to the dinner and dines with powerful people who have matters before him. [1:48:32] He seemed to claim to me that that was cleared by ethics. [1:48:36] I'm still waiting for any documentation of that. [1:48:39] But I would imagine that a very novice ethics ethicist in the Department of Justice would say that this is an appearance of impropriety. [1:48:51] So let's remember that the concept of appearance of impropriety and avoiding such appearances is part of the duties of a lawyer. [1:49:00] It is part of the professional responsibility within that profession. [1:49:05] And people get disbarred over failing the test and appearing to engage in improper behavior. [1:49:14] Let's also remember, again, that our Office of Government Ethics is really not functioning in this administration. [1:49:23] So the idea that departments should rely on their own ethics lawyers within each department, [1:49:30] when, of course, the head of the agency controls whether or not those career attorneys remain in office or are fired. [1:49:39] It is very difficult to be able to rely on the opinions of career ethics lawyers within each department [1:49:48] when they are really not free to give their honest opinion. [1:49:52] Because of the consequences for giving their honest opinion. [1:49:57] Precisely. [1:49:58] literally being fired from their job. [1:50:01] Precisely. [1:50:02] Mr. Carbone, again, your record of independence, objectivity, and professionalism. [1:50:09] And I know the letter that you and other alumni wrote, an editorial that you wrote. [1:50:16] But could you comment on, I think Mr. Carr's testimony to me, first of all, it was very affecting to me [1:50:23] in terms of what the dozens and dozens of career people who forewent earlier in their career, private sector work, law firm work, [1:50:36] to be fired not for cause, but to be fired because of, I don't even want to say politics, because, again, [1:50:45] these are people who have been in the Department of Justice under Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, [1:50:50] but really fired almost in a vindictive way, not for cause. [1:50:55] Could you add anything to the testimony about what effect that has on the Department of Justice's ability to protect Americans from serious threats, [1:51:04] to hold people accountable who are in public office, or just the conducting of important investigations? [1:51:11] Sure. Well, a couple points. [1:51:13] One, it takes years and years to develop expertise in public corruption prosecutions, in tax prosecutions. [1:51:23] And when you force out some of the most experienced people, you create a brain drain, you create an experience drain, [1:51:34] and that limits the Department's ability to prosecute more complex cases. [1:51:42] And if I can just give you a little vignette or a story about, you know, the random firing. [1:51:50] Early on in this administration, and this straddled Mr. Blanche's time. [1:51:57] But one of the first things that became very clear, the Southern District was prosecuting the sitting mayor of New York City. [1:52:06] You know, it's a case that, you know, it's all part of the public record, how we felt about the case. [1:52:14] But we were directed to dismiss the case for political reasons. [1:52:20] And the acting U.S. Attorney, the Chief of Appeals, and the entire case team, led by the acting U.S. Attorney, declined. [1:52:40] Because there was no reason for it, and the reasons being offered were purely political. [1:52:45] So the office, in that particular instance, lost five tremendously talented lawyers, brilliant lawyers. [1:52:55] Not to mention what happened when the office declined to dismiss the case, and then Mr. Bovey went to the public integrity section, [1:53:08] and tried to get people to sign off on the nollie, which is a dismissal, and no one would. [1:53:25] And they went right down the line, and people were just fired, one after the other. [1:53:31] And, you know, that unit was decimated as a result of people standing up and doing the right thing. [1:53:40] And I just want to say that on February 19, 2025, when Bovey argued the motion to dismiss the charges before Judge Ho of the Southern District of New York, [1:53:49] who dismissed the case with prejudice, Blanche, who was not confirmed yet, but was sitting right there in the front row. [1:53:58] And then less than a month later, about two weeks later, Blanche was confirmed. [1:54:07] This timeline and the facts to me indicate that Blanche knew and was involved in the decision to dismiss the bribery cases against Eric Adams. [1:54:15] And it just seems to me so chilling when I hear about the knowledge capacity that's leaving the Justice Department, [1:54:28] but also the effect, and I'm hoping you can mention something about this, about what it means now that who's left or the people in that department, [1:54:37] about their freedom to bring about cases or follow the law and follow the evidence to bring cases. [1:54:44] It must have an impact on what they're investigating. [1:54:47] It has a tremendous impact. [1:54:50] If you see your colleagues and some of the most talented lawyers in the office getting walked out the door by the marshals, [1:54:58] like as Mr. Carr was, you're going to think twice about what cases you're opening, what cases you're being asked to work on. [1:55:10] And the follow-up to that is we live in a culture of fear. [1:55:20] When law firms are pursued by the Justice Department and because of who they hire and what clients they have taken on, [1:55:37] what law firm wants their partners to be radioactive or seen as unfriendly to the Justice Department who they have to regularly appear before and ask for things, [1:55:52] you know, for good graces. [1:55:54] So it's a, it's very, very troubling. [1:55:59] It's a steady erosion in public confidence and the people who matter most are those career prosecutors. [1:56:11] And when they're being chased out the door, that's when we really have to worry. [1:56:16] Okay, I have one more line of question for you, Mr. Carr, if you don't mind, based on some recent reporting from CNN. [1:56:24] In January, you obviously remember the horrific killings of Renee Good and Alex Preddy by federal agents in Minneapolis. [1:56:31] Neither of these cases were handled the way we've seen past shootings involving officers handled by the DOJ. [1:56:37] In fact, several senior officials in the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office resigned. [1:56:43] This is another time where you saw career professionals resigning from the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office. [1:56:50] It's reported that the prosecutors saw the video of Renee Good's killing and considered it a potential criminal act. [1:56:57] So they opened a civil rights investigation, which was standard protocol to do. [1:57:03] I'm wondering, is it accurate that this is DOJ's standard operating procedure for an incident like this, if they're following the evidence? Is that standard? [1:57:13] Absolutely, you would. That's the case. [1:57:16] And again, without coming to any conclusions about whether anybody has criminal liability there or without knowing exactly what happened, [1:57:29] I wouldn't say, I wouldn't conclude that somebody committed a crime. [1:57:34] But it is certainly standard procedure to open a case and conduct a civil rights investigation. [1:57:40] And let me just add one thing to that. [1:57:42] One thing that is certainly not standard procedure to do is if you are not going to open up a case and conduct an investigation, [1:57:51] to stand in the way of state investigators and authorities from conducting their own investigation for violations of state law to me is unprecedented. [1:58:03] And so CNN is reporting that it quickly became apparent to the prosecutors that the criminal section would not be allowed to investigate the shooting, [1:58:11] which was confirmed a few days later when Blanche announced on television that there was currently no basis for criminal civil rights investigation. [1:58:19] And that, according to what we're saying, is out of order. [1:58:24] But then some interesting things proceeded where Rene Good's significant other was interviewed and involved in the investigatory process, [1:58:40] but not, it seems, to add to a civil rights case, but investigated as being part and parcel to blame for somehow the incident itself. [1:58:54] Does that seem legitimate in any way? [1:58:57] Well, I think it has the appearance of being vindictive and heavy-handed and bullying. [1:59:05] Someone, an American citizen, was shot and killed. [1:59:10] And that, you know, I'm not suggesting that any conclusion can be drawn at this point because right now we know the state only recently got the documents, [1:59:20] according to public reporting, but to pursue a victim, you know, a spouse of a victim, a significant other, a partner like that strikes me as extraordinary. [1:59:38] Right. And you and I have different careers but similar understandings. [1:59:43] When there's a police-involved shooting, the last thing you do is jump to any conclusions about what happened. [1:59:48] You want to slow down, gather all of the evidence, and conduct an appropriate investigation. [1:59:55] But in this case, it seems like that standard procedure was just not handled. [2:00:00] And the extraordinary thing of not being in partnership with the state investigators, again, creates this appearance [2:00:07] where residents cannot trust the objectivity of any investigation, which is you and I, I don't want to put words in your mouth, [2:00:15] but that in and of itself is dangerous to public safety. [2:00:18] Oh, absolutely. It makes people fear and distrust law enforcement. [2:00:23] When, you know, these law enforcement officers are out there, you know, the vast majority risking their lives every day. [2:00:31] I've worked with law enforcement officers who were involved in shootings that were completely justified, [2:00:38] and it seemed that way right from the beginning, from minute one. [2:00:43] But the review of the shooting took place so that law enforcement can learn and evaluate it, [2:00:50] and those reviews take a significant amount of time and a careful, you know, attentive detail to the evidence. [2:00:58] And there is this understanding when you hold people accountable. [2:01:04] It's not just about that individual. It's about setting a tone where there's trust in the justice system. [2:01:10] And as you just said, as a person who worked with law enforcement, law enforcement learns and evolves in their standard practices, [2:01:19] whether there was a criminal act or not. [2:01:22] And when you don't pursue it in that way, you lose the learnings, you erode the public trust, [2:01:28] and you don't get to the truth of the matter of the actual incident. [2:01:31] Absolutely. [2:01:33] Ms. Filson, I know you have expertise to offer in relation to this Minnesota situation. [2:01:40] I would first say that matters are somewhat worse even than this conversation has described, [2:01:46] because there were instances in which, following the shooting deaths of Alex Preddy and Renee Good, [2:01:52] that the state of Minnesota tried to access the crime scene and actually got a judge's order to be able to access the crime scene, [2:02:02] and the federal government actually refused to allow them access. [2:02:07] So they had to go back to the judge and say, will you please enforce this order? [2:02:11] And once again, the federal government barred them from conducting what would be a very routine and very normal investigation, [2:02:19] one in which, as Mr. Carbone said, there would be collaboration between state and federal officials to really get at the truth. [2:02:29] And so in this instance, there has been an obfuscation around what happened in those instances. [2:02:39] One of the things that has not come to light is how the conduct of the agents who shot Alex Preddy and Renee Good were instructed about the use of force. [2:02:53] What were their rules for the use of force? [2:02:56] And the department seems to be participating in obfuscating and keeping out of public view the kind of investigation that would come from investigating these particular cases. [2:03:12] That would tell us how CBP and ICE are being instructed about when they can use force and when they can't. [2:03:23] So you all have been very generous with your time. [2:03:28] Before I give my closing remarks, I just wanted to afford anyone an opportunity that if there's something you wanted to be stated or a clarification or an addition to any of the matters we covered, [2:03:37] just wanted to give you an open opportunity before I wrap up at all. [2:03:42] I have one matter going back to the issue of necessity on signing off on the IRS agreement between President Trump and the IRS. [2:03:56] I should point out that some of the areas of settlement included matters that had not yet been investigated by the IRS. [2:04:03] So they were in effect prospective with regard to any future investigations of current matters. [2:04:12] And I think the argument with regard to necessity is particularly weak with regard to matters that the IRS hasn't even begun looking at or hasn't yet investigated. [2:04:26] I'd also like to mention that there is no exception for conflicts of interest based on necessity. [2:04:35] Understood. Thank you very much. [2:04:36] Mr. Carr, anything remaining? [2:04:38] I just wanted to highlight that there are still thousands of people in the Justice Department that are doing tremendously good work. [2:04:48] We focused here on DOJ leadership and the effect that they've had on the department. [2:04:53] But the backbone of the department's work is the career workforce. [2:04:58] And day in and day out, they are still doing amazing work. [2:05:01] And we just need to give them the support they need. [2:05:04] Mr. Carr, I'm going to jump to you before I ask Ms. Stein if she has anything to conclude. [2:05:10] Because I did note one more thing I wanted to ask you about. [2:05:14] I was surprised at the word that was said that Blanche stated that the President of the United States, Donald Trump, has a right and a duty to direct federal investigations involving cases of people who investigated him. [2:05:35] And that struck me when it was said. [2:05:38] And I just want to ask you to maybe answer that in your decades of experience. [2:05:45] Does a president have what was called a right and a duty to direct federal investigations into people who investigated them? [2:05:54] So let me answer that question this way. [2:05:56] I think particularly in this administration where they have such an extreme view, expansive view of presidential power. [2:06:05] Look, in my experience, the president, he's the chief executive, he has the authority and the right to set priorities. [2:06:16] But when it comes to telling the Justice Department which cases to pursue, that to me is the disconnect. [2:06:25] The Justice Department should be evaluating each case based on the evidence and go where the evidence leads you, [2:06:36] regardless of whether it's an ally of the president. [2:06:40] And you shouldn't, and again this gets back to the point of predication, [2:06:45] you should not be picking the person you want to investigate. [2:06:50] You need predication and you follow that predication. [2:06:53] And if you develop evidence of a crime, so be it. [2:06:57] Whatever team they play on, they play on. [2:07:00] But if the president wants to say, I want you to dedicate significant resources to immigration matters, [2:07:06] totally fine within his right to do that. [2:07:10] For the president to say, I want you to go build a case against the former FBI director because I don't like him, not okay. [2:07:19] It's, you know, that's something that the Justice Department, there has to be some level of independence. [2:07:28] And historically there has been, and that's how the Justice Department built its credibility over the past 50, 60 years since Watergate, [2:07:41] by being independent and not involving the White House in particular decisions about who to prosecute. [2:07:50] That's why I was kind of surprised when the White House announced that it was going to have this fraud task force and that it was going to be headed up or run by the vice president. [2:08:04] There should be a separation. [2:08:06] There has to be a separation. [2:08:08] I mean, I suppose Mr. Blanche is right in the sense that the president is the chief executive, but there has to be distance and there has to be independence when it comes to the Justice Department. [2:08:21] I'm going to ask you to, if you have any final words, but I'm going to preempt you by simply saying thank you to your wife. [2:08:30] I, as a New Jersey guy, you served our state so nobly. [2:08:35] I got to know you well from a professional level of professional respect. [2:08:41] And I also realized there's no way you could have been as successful as you are in your career without her playing a pretty significant role in it. [2:08:48] So I just want to say to your wife on the gratitude from the people of the state of New Jersey and the other jurisdictions in which you served, [2:08:55] I'm just grateful for your family and all that went into you being successful in your service to our country. [2:09:01] Thank you so much for saying that. [2:09:03] It means a lot. [2:09:04] And thank you for inviting me here today. [2:09:06] Thank you. [2:09:07] Before you give your closing remarks, I love how you position your remarks in the beginning by saying this is not about politics. [2:09:14] It's not about partisanship. [2:09:16] It's about holding people accountable for crimes and getting justice for survivors. [2:09:24] I've been stunned by how much effort has gone into silencing you all. [2:09:31] I had an experience I never had as a United States Senator where we had a press conference scheduled the day before the hearing to introduce legislation that helped survivors take down publicly released information and get restitution for that. [2:09:49] A very common sense bill that should be a bipartisan supported bill. [2:09:54] And we were just holding a press conference and had invited you to speak at it and some other people. [2:09:59] And I was stunned. [2:10:00] Something that never has happened to me before. [2:10:02] As a United States Senator, we were contacted by the Rules Committee that Republicans on that committee were not going to allow you to speak. [2:10:10] And we had a back and forth. [2:10:13] My staff, I was not directly involved, but when my staff told me about the controversy, I was so shocked by it and was going to say that I was going to, no matter what, I was going to allow you to speak in that form. [2:10:24] And if there was consequences, again, I would accept the consequences because never before I had seen any citizen invited by a senator be denied the right to speak in what is, frankly, our most sacred civic space, the capital of the United States of America. [2:10:40] And it was, I guess, for me, forgive me if it seems naive, but the degree to people to which people were trying to stop you from simply telling your truth. [2:10:50] And so this is a shameful chapter in America. [2:10:53] It really is. [2:10:55] I know there's been political exploitation of these issues on both sides of the aisle, performative displays. [2:11:02] This is Washington. [2:11:04] I guess that's par for the course. [2:11:06] But your voice has been steadfast, determined, nonpolitical, focused on the women and the survivors, and speaking up for many of those women who have chosen not to speak up, and that is their right not to do so. [2:11:22] But you have, in many ways, been standing in the breach between those who want to silence you all and the voices that have been needed to wake this country up and call to the conscience of Americans. [2:11:36] And I just want to thank you again, having witnessed something extraordinary in my career related to you and your ability to speak publicly about these matters, [2:11:47] which do not just affect the survivors, but as we've been talking about, and I've learned early in my life from my own parents, that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. [2:11:59] So in many ways, you are speaking up not just for survivors, but you're speaking up for justice for all Americans. [2:12:05] And so I'd like to ask you before my closing remarks, if you would like to say anything that you may feel like you would like to say. [2:12:13] I would. Thank you, Senator Booker. [2:12:15] I want to remind the American public of how resilient we are as a nation. [2:12:25] And I want to impress upon everyone who's watching and listening to this, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, that we the people have the power. [2:12:37] We have the power to persuade our elected officials to speak for us. [2:12:45] That is their job. And in the past year, we saw something really beautiful happen. [2:12:51] When Epstein survivors came together for the first time with the help of World Without Exploitation, [2:12:57] and when we introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act, I don't think anyone thought that that would get passed, including maybe some of us. [2:13:06] But we saw that we brought this issue to the American public. [2:13:14] We released a public service announcement which asked the American people to reach out to their lawmakers and express how they feel about this case, [2:13:23] how they felt about a case about sexual exploitation of girls and young women. [2:13:29] And they did so resoundingly because the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed almost unanimously both in the House and the Senate in the same day. [2:13:39] People say to us a lot how courageous we are, how brave we are. [2:13:45] We're just ordinary citizens who've been called on in an extraordinary time. [2:13:50] But I want to remember, everyone, the courage and bravery that you all hold and the power that you hold. [2:13:58] Because, as I said earlier, I don't think anyone could stand by this. [2:14:04] And I don't think anyone should have to. [2:14:07] And I really hope that that message is impressed upon everyone who has a vote for Todd Blanche to confirm him as Attorney General. [2:14:22] And really think about what the message his confirmation would send, not only to Epstein survivors, but to survivors of crime all across our country. [2:14:34] If this was a drug trafficking case, you bet your bet that this DOJ would be handling it differently. [2:14:47] Thank you. I want to thank again the witnesses for committing so much of your time and resources to be here with us today and to give your honest and straightforward testimony and answers to my colleagues' questions. [2:15:00] I want to thank you and let you know that we are going to submit your testimonies into the public record, into the congressional record. [2:15:08] And we hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will listen to the important points that you all helped to bring forward today. [2:15:16] I want to say very clearly that I do not believe Todd Blanche is fit to serve as our nation's top law enforcement officer. [2:15:24] I want to let you all know very clearly and unequivocally that if there were just some of these issues, they would be enough to be disqualifying. [2:15:34] But the totality of the evidence is staggering. [2:15:37] This man has had an impact already in his deputy role and now in his acting role. [2:15:45] The way he has conducted himself, he has turned the Justice Department unequivocally into a shield for the president and a sword against his enemies. [2:15:55] He ran a slush fund so unlawful that even my Republican colleagues are begging him to shut it down. [2:16:02] The Attorney General who has talked about misconduct, he's already shown his own misconduct, does not deserve a promotion into this position. [2:16:12] Really, he deserves to be fired. [2:16:14] There is a moment in American history that is so beyond politics, that is so beyond left or right, that it is clearly a moral moment where we should be talking about what is right and what is wrong. [2:16:26] When you have witnesses like we have before us right now, who are not political figures, who are individuals who have dedicated their lives to the fulfillment of the ideals of justice, equal justice and justice for law. [2:16:42] Who speak with such clarity, not with personal animosity towards the president or animosity towards Todd Blanche, but to the facts before them about the dangers that he creates to our national security, the dangers that he creates to the safety of Americans. [2:17:02] The danger that he poses to the very ideals of our democracy, the conducting of our elections, the running of our economy. [2:17:12] The Department of Justice is in crisis now and is imperiled by the prospect of him being our Attorney General. [2:17:20] I am so grateful for the testimony we have before us, but now is a time for moral courage. [2:17:27] Now is a time for my colleagues to choose principle over partisanship, to choose truth over Trump, to choose the Constitution over continued corruption. [2:17:38] I am praying that our testimony here today doesn't just speak to historians who will look back at this period of corruption in American politics, [2:17:47] but our testimony today can influence the conscience of my colleagues to prevent this individual from becoming the Attorney General of the United States of America. [2:17:56] Thank you very much for your time today. [2:17:58] Thank you very much for your time today. [2:17:59] Thank you very much for your time today.