HEATED MOMENTS: Todd Blanche grilled on Trump ties, Epstein files, taxpayer money

[0:00] senator poker good afternoon mr blanche good afternoon our president has a very well documented [0:13] history of attempting to corruptly influence government officials to advance his own personal [0:18] interest he called the republican secretary of georgia asking him to find enough votes to [0:23] overturn the election he withheld military aid to pressure zielinski to investigate joe biden's son [0:31] for these things he has been impeached he's been criminally convicted in georgia [0:36] ignited in georgia because he uses his power to unjustly influence people when a president routinely [0:44] pressures public officials for his own personal benefit the department of justice has to remain [0:49] independent this brings me really to you and i think what has you at the center of so much concern [0:56] is that you seek to lead the department of justice after being the president's personal lawyer lawyer [1:02] the american people are really entitled to know whether your allegiance to the rule of law [1:07] is your focus or your allegiance to one man who clearly has an insatiable appetite [1:13] for revenge self-enrichment and the abuse of power so i want to talk about your record under you the [1:20] department has prosecuted people that have caught folks on both sides of the political aisle by [1:25] surprise jim comey letitia james my colleague adam schiff federal reserve governor lisa cook this [1:35] casts a shadow over your ideas any ideas of independence you directed the arrest of mayor [1:43] raz baraka of my city of newark you weren't at delaney hall on may 9 2025 when he was arrested but yes or [1:51] no did you have a conversation with special agent in charge ricky patel ordering him to arrest mayor [1:58] baraka um i had a conversation i didn't order him to arrest i authorized the arrest which is my job so you [2:07] were not there and and we have body camera footage of him then moving and saying we are arresting the [2:13] mayor right now per this is his quote the deputy attorney general of the united states i want to [2:18] put that into the record your comments there and the district court assessing all of your conduct [2:26] admonished the department of justice this is their this is the quote of the judge the federal judge [2:31] your role is not to advance political agendas your allegiance is to the impartial application of the law [2:39] and to uphold due process for all but this is just one example cited by over 1200 current and former [2:47] department of justice officials appointed under presidents of both parties who warned that you [2:52] should not be in this position because of your inability to be independent from your personal [2:58] allegiance to donald trump over the rule of law i met yesterday with epstein survivors some of them [3:05] are here in the room today congress in a bipartisan fashion passed the epstein files transparency act [3:12] because the american people were demanding justice yet you failed to abide by that law and release [3:20] the files by the deadline established by the law and when the files were finally released you failed [3:26] to protect the survivors that that law was intended to protect survivors personal information including [3:34] names phone numbers home addresses and images were released powerful people were redacted survivors were [3:45] subjected to re-traumatization more than 1200 victims yet only two people have ever been prosecuted [3:52] jeffrey epstein and galane maxwell now i was stunned earlier by your conversation with one of my [3:58] colleagues that you wouldn't even commit to meeting with the survivors but you did meet with galane maxwell [4:05] your claim that you can't meet with these victims because they're represented by counsel [4:10] is utter nonsense counsel can be present or a client can waive their right to have counsel [4:16] but you're a lawyer you know this that was not truthful what you said to my colleague you said that [4:24] they should meet with the fbi all of these women have reported their crimes decades ago but yet you [4:31] won't meet with them what you will do is meet with galane maxwell over a year ago you sat with her and [4:38] you publicly said you were seeking the truth so let's talk about what that two-day meeting produced [4:44] did your interview with miss maxwell lead to a single additional person being charged yes or no [4:52] no did it lead to a single new investigation yes or no i can't talk about what there's any [5:01] investigation i'm not asking you about an ongoing or closed investigation i'm just asking you [5:07] i can't answer your question yes or no did you did you or anyone else from the doj or associated with the [5:12] president discuss a presidential pardon with galane maxwell or her attorneys no did you discuss [5:20] clemency yes or no no did you discuss she was convicted what do you mean did you discuss her [5:27] transfer to another institution yes or no no well just one week after your meeting miss maxwell was [5:34] transferred from a low security federal institution to a minimum security prison camp were you involved [5:41] with that transfer when as i've talked about before um in the time leading up to me going down to meet [5:48] with her um we learned that she was receiving um threats the that turned out i'm going to interrupt [5:54] you for a matter of time because okay well it's not a question i can answer apparently in the sir [5:59] you're giving me i'm going to tell you this because i deal with the issues of criminal justice when people [6:04] are under threats in a bureau prison facility they're put into solitary confinement or protective [6:11] they're not moved to a camp that's not always true it is what is what is true is someone that is accused [6:17] of child sex trafficking under the bureau of prison's own policies is not put in a facility like this [6:25] that seems clearly like a reward the department of justice is also responsible that powerful corporations [6:34] play by the same rules let's take a proposed merger between paramount warner brothers and discovery [6:40] this is no ordinary transaction it was a proposed 111 billion dollar merger involving two of the last [6:46] remaining legacy hollywood studios as deputy attorney general and later acting attorney general you [6:52] owe exercise oversight of the antitrust division you approved the decision to close the department's [6:59] investigation into that merger yes or no i was part of the decision yes you were involved in that [7:06] you don't even let me answer man did you that's incredible career attorneys who investigated that [7:11] deal recommend closing that investigation i didn't have a conversation with the career but as i was [7:17] saying i didn't ask you that i asked you did the career attorneys who investigate the deal recommend [7:22] closing the investigation i have no idea what they were in charge of that department yet you have no [7:26] idea well this is i had no idea it's no idea about the question you asked but what the what the career [7:31] attorney's view was you do not know what the career attorney's view was i'm not sure what the view [7:36] was with respect to closing it or not closing it. Well, let me tell you why ethics laws that bind [7:41] you about the appearance of impropriety are so, so damning in this case. On the same day that [7:48] Paramount shareholders voted to approve the merger, David Ellison, the head of the acquiring [7:53] company, hosted a dinner that you attended honoring the president of the United States. [7:58] While you were at that dinner, the DOJ was still investigating a merger. Did you speak with Mr. [8:05] Ellison on that evening? No. Did you discuss with anyone involved in that organization [8:12] that evening, the department's ongoing investigations? No. Well, six weeks later, [8:19] after that dinner, that investigation was closed that you're stating you have no idea if the [8:24] attorneys in charge even finished their investigation. That's not what I said. What did [8:29] you say? You asked me a question about whether the attorneys recommended that the investigation be [8:34] closed and I said I wasn't sure. That's different than what you just threw back at me. Do you believe [8:40] that that creates an appearance of impropriety that you were at a dinner? No. Okay. The Justice [8:44] Department ethics rules are very clear about a proof about about avoiding the appearance of [8:52] impropriety. In a case like this, I don't think that's appearance of impropriety. I think that's [8:58] improper. Every elected that the connected and the powerful are getting a chance to rub shoulders. [9:06] It would seem appropriate that you avoid those kind of appearances and dinners like that. [9:11] Every appearance or dinner or speech that I give are cleared by ethics officials. So your attendance at [9:17] that dinner was cleared by ethics officials? Everything that I do. I didn't ask you everything [9:22] you do. Was your appearance at that dinner cleared? You can ask the questions, but you cannot control [9:26] my answers. I'm under oath and I can answer the questions. I choose to answer them. [9:30] Were you approved to approve yes or no? Were you approved by ethics? When I do things outside of [9:35] the department, whether it's a speech, whether it's a dinner, whether it's an event, they are [9:41] approved by ethics officials. You did not answer whether that attendance was approved. Every time I [9:48] go out, it's approved. Yes. You know, Lincoln, it was said about him that if you want to see the true [9:54] character of a man, don't view him in adversity. Give him power. I believe you've had a lot of power. [10:02] And so we don't have to speculate about what has been revealed with your time in that office. [10:08] We don't need to worry about what kind of attorney general. You've already had that power. [10:13] This isn't a job interview like usually. You've sat before this committee before. You've made [10:18] promises time and time again before. You got the job actually to be the number two and the acting [10:24] director. So this isn't a confirmation hearing. This is more of a performance review. And clearly, [10:31] when it comes to the treatment of Epstein victims, when it comes to politically motivated [10:35] prosecutions, when it comes from avoiding appearance of impropriety with corporations, [10:40] you failed. You're asking this body for a promotion. And you've spent today making a lot [10:47] of promises. Promises to follow the law. Promises to be independent. Promises to serve the American [10:53] people and not the president. But we don't need your promises. We have your record. We have watched [11:00] you exercise one of the greatest powers entrusted to any public servant. And what have you shown [11:05] us? 1,200 victims waiting for justice. What have you shown us? There's two prosecutions. [11:11] While the party or the people involved, the victims, are waiting for action, one of the people [11:19] prosecuted gets the most cushy arrangement possible after you visit with her. Again and again, you seem [11:27] to be favoring the interest of a president and the powerful. You've chosen Trump over truth. [11:32] You've chosen corporations over the Constitution. And you've failed to meet the test. I'll say this [11:40] in closing. This is why your nomination should fail. The attorney general's client is not the [11:47] president. It's the American people. You've been protecting one man for most of your career, [11:55] for years and years and years. He has demonstrated himself to put undue pressure. This is why he was [12:00] impeached. This is why he was criminally indicted. If your record and your testimony today [12:07] should show us anything, it should show you, in my opinion, that you should not be confirmed to this [12:11] job. Senator Whitehouse. Morning, Mr. Blanche. Morning. Why won't you tell us what became of the [12:21] $50,000 in confidential money that the FBI reported that it gave to Tom Homan? I'm not aware of what [12:32] you're speaking about. To the extent that there have been public reporting about an investigation, [12:37] I know nothing about it. Well, the public reporting is that [12:41] the FBI reported giving $50,000 in the nature of a bribe to Tom Homan, and there's been no report of [12:47] what became of that $50,000. Will you answer that question? Not now, but will you answer that [12:54] question? Because we've been asking for a long time now. Your department certainly knows what's [12:57] happening. I'm not aware that that's true. Well, take a look at it, and it's publicly reported, [13:05] and the FBI reported it, and you should answer the question. That's not the only one. Here's a list [13:14] of unanswered questions that I have just asked. I don't know how it is that the chairman thinks that [13:23] you've cooperated with the committee or that you've been transparent with the committee. That is not [13:29] my experience. You said earlier that you welcome our questions. Great. Answer our questions. That's the [13:36] real point. Where we've failed to get answers to our oversight questions, we've actually had to [13:43] revert to the Freedom of Information Act, the general law of government transparency, to try to get [13:50] answers from the Department of Justice. Here's how we did. Not well. We have this stack of questions [14:03] that you haven't answered in the nature of oversight. We have this stack of FOIA requests that you [14:12] haven't answered, and I think it's important for us to believe that you actually take seriously [14:20] your constitutional oversight responsibilities in order to confirm you. That you actually take [14:27] seriously your obligations to this committee, irrespective of party majority or minority, [14:32] in order to confirm you. So I will ask before we get to a vote on this, that you take a look at these [14:39] and get us answers. Where we have had answers, Mr. Blanche, they have not been informative. They have been blow [14:45] off. So let's move on to Trump versus IRS. Our research indicates that senior DOJ officials have [15:00] never in the history of the Department before faced a judicial inquiry into a fraud on the court [15:11] participated in by the Department of Justice. That was the inquiry opened in Florida. The question [15:18] about fraud on the court committed by the Department of Justice remains open in the judge's decision. [15:26] Here's what she did find. She found that the Department of Justice colluded with the Trump [15:35] plaintiffs. That the Department of Justice violated DOJ policies in that collusion. That department [15:42] attorneys were derelict in their responsibilities as DOJ attorneys. That the department failed to [15:51] zealously advocate on behalf of the United States of America, its true client. And as I said, the fraud [16:01] on the court question remains open, an unprecedented allegation about the department. As a result of [16:09] that, the order was transmitted to the New York State Bar for potential disciplinary proceedings. I would [16:19] like to ask in addition, since this is new news, the decision was what two days ago, I would like to ask [16:26] that you say to us that you will be willing to provide all of the documents and communications [16:32] between the Department of Justice and the Trump plaintiffs in that matter. I'm not aware of any [16:41] communications. I didn't have any. So if you put a request in, we'll look at it. I mean, obviously, that's [16:46] active continued litigation in the Southern District of Florida. So it depends. Explain how it is active [16:56] continued litigation in the District of Florida. Well, there's been several indications that the [17:01] parties of I never entered notice of appearance, but the parties intend to appeal the judges Monday [17:08] 56 page decision. Well, it'll be interesting. Do you intend to appeal the Department of Justice? [17:18] We weren't really even part of that decision. So to the extent there's something that we can appeal, [17:23] I very vigorously will encourage the department to do so. Well, here's the tell. In that case, [17:30] the Department of Justice filed no answer, filed no agreement with respect to the extension of time, [17:39] filed no response to the case or controversy amicky, filed nothing related to the withdrawal of the [17:48] complaint, filed no settlement, and filed no response to the fraud on the court inquiry. To me, as a [17:58] one-time litigator, that looks like really weird behavior. And when for the first time in history, [18:04] there's inquiry into fraud upon the court committed by the Department of Justice, [18:08] the silence from the department in response to that is deafening, Mr. Blanche, deafening. [18:15] And it strikes me that the stratagem here was to file no pleadings to try to keep the department [18:24] out of the authority of the court when what the department knew to be a collusive and false [18:33] enterprise was blown up in that court. Now, it didn't work because the court found collusion, [18:40] and it takes two to collude. And they also went on and made the other adverse findings about the [18:46] department's conduct. And the problem here, Mr. Blanche, is that it's not just that one occasion. [18:54] Between judges appointed by every president harshly criticizing the department's work in your tenure, [19:01] grand juries rejecting indictments, judicial findings of outright misconduct, capable lawyers fleeing the [19:09] stinking ship. This seems to be the most troubled Department of Justice in history. Here are some [19:17] of the misconduct findings against your U.S. attorneys. And if they haven't put it up yet, [19:24] here's a word cloud of the commentary by federal judges about the conduct of your DOJ. These are red [19:33] flag words that when I was a U.S. attorney would have provoked at minimum an internal conversation about [19:39] what the hell went wrong and very likely a conversation with O.P.R. and maybe O.P.R. pursuit. [19:47] Words like pretext mean a lot coming from a judge about a government argument, usually enjoying the [19:54] presumption of regularity. We need answers. I need you to be able to tell me that this kind of misconduct [20:02] is going to stop if you're confirmed as attorney general. Can you say that? [20:06] The Department of Justice works hard and the prosecutors work hard every day. And I appreciate [20:13] the the handpicked words that you have behind you right now. But that's not reflective of the [20:18] hundred thousand indictments and informations that have been filed to do the work that I talked about [20:25] earlier today. And so while cherry picking a few isolated words from district court or magistrate [20:32] judges in certain districts is something that you're entitled to do, it's absolutely false to suggest [20:38] that this Department of Justice is not executing as we should in doing the right thing every single day. [20:44] I will tell you that you are wrong. That in the history of the department, this kind of criticism [20:50] by federal judges is unprecedented and it comes from judges of every different political persuasion. [20:58] I will tell you that you are wrong. Let me ask about the FBI. How long do you intend to put up with that [21:09] Kash Patel character? Are you good with his airplane jaunts? Are you confident he's not drinking on the job? [21:14] Are you sure none of his travel is a pretext for vacation activities like snorkeling Olympics and [21:20] visiting girlfriends? Are you sure he knows what he's doing? Do you vouch for him? Are you willing to look at [21:25] whether he lied to this committee? That's an extraordinarily obnoxious question, [21:31] Senator. And I have full faith in Director Patel and the work that he's doing every day. Great. [21:39] One last thing, if I may. You have refused to exclude January 6 rioters from your anti-weaponization fund. [21:49] You have refused to put in writing that the slush fund is dead. Indeed, you signal to allies that payouts [21:55] are still on track. You have vacated seditious conspiracy convictions against members of the proud boys and [22:01] oath keepers. You hired January 6 writer Jared Wise, who had urged the mob to kill police officers. [22:09] You've scrubbed press releases about January 6 prosecutions and called the releases partisan propaganda. [22:15] You denied that Trump encouraged any violence on January 6th. You've cleaned house of every attorney [22:22] who worked on a case related to Trump. And you've bragged that bringing justice for violent rioters [22:28] meant that every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted. I hope that our [22:34] colleagues who are concerned about what happened on January 6th take that into account. Thank you. [22:40] Would you like to respond? I would. Almost everything the senator just said, [22:45] and he's protected. He's allowed to lie. But almost everything he just said was absolutely false. [22:51] OK, starting with the fact that I have never I have never said that any sort of violence against law [22:57] enforcement is appropriate. I have never said that publicly. I have never said that in a speech, [23:01] and I certainly do not believe it. I did not hire the person referenced. And that's that is, again, [23:08] something that just happens not to be true. When I talk about what happened with the January the convicted [23:14] January 6th defendants, I talk about what President Trump did. He had the absolute right to pardon [23:21] anybody for any reason he sees fit. And every one of them got pardoned or commuted. I am not [23:27] celebrating that. It is a fact. And the fact that my department had to take action in response to [23:33] those pardons by dismissing some cases is exactly what I have to do under the law. And it's what I did. [23:38] So that the narrative that that the senator just suggested and put on me as something I believe is [23:45] is is absolutely not true. Since he accused me of lying personally, Mr. Chairman, let me [23:51] ask that I put this series of concerns into a question for the record and that you under oath one [24:00] by one. Tell me where there's a lie. I'm happy to do that. Get that to you. I'm happy to do that. [24:07] Absolutely. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blanche, thank you for coming by my office [24:15] yesterday. I think we both knew going into that meeting that we had strongly held political [24:21] beliefs on both sides of the table. And yet we had, I think, a respectful exchange. And I thank [24:27] you for coming by. Thank you. I'm glad you brought your staffers with you. My staff was there as well. [24:32] If there was any misunderstanding, my representation of your remarks, you'll have a chance to correct the [24:37] record in a few moments. But I'll do my best to stick by what I said. And as my staff has backed me up, [24:45] in my memory of it, yours may be different. But thank you for meeting with me yesterday. [24:50] I want to acknowledge the obvious empty seat at the dais here, which the chairman's next to the [24:57] chairman. The committee is mourning the loss of our friend and colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, [25:02] former chairman and ranking member of this committee. I served on the committee with Senator [25:07] Graham since he joined the Senate in 2003. I cherish my memories of both our fierce partisan battles [25:15] and our landmark bipartisan agreements. He was a trusted friend. My friends and family back home [25:21] can't believe it when I say these things. You mean that Lindsey Graham? Yes, I do. He was a good person, [25:27] a valuable part of the Senate family and an extremely valuable part of this committee. I'm glad that we're [25:33] honoring him with this memorial today. Let me say at the outset that the chairman spent several [25:42] minutes talking about Jack Smith. I want to make one thing clear about Jack Smith, who was a special [25:49] counsel. Months ago, perhaps six months ago, maybe longer, he volunteered to appear before this committee [25:58] under oath and testify about what he did as special counsel and to answer the questions of the committee. [26:05] For reasons I cannot explain, the Republican majority does not want to bring [26:09] Jack Smith before this committee and have him testify under oath. They continue on regular basis to [26:17] take exception to things that he said or did or allegedly did, but will not bring him before this committee. [26:23] I don't get it. If they have something they want to raise with Jack Smith, that place is where he should be [26:29] sitting under oath and answering the questions. And he's volunteered to do it. But they turned him down. [26:35] Mr. Chairman, we are here today with the awesome responsibility of choosing the next attorney general of the [26:42] United States of America. We're here because there's a vacancy in the office. The president decided to fire the [26:49] predecessor of Mr. Blanche after just 14 months on the job after courts and grand juries blocked her from [26:59] prosecuting the president's political opponents. Seemingly, President Trump believes you, Mr. Blanche, [27:06] will be more successful when you were first nominated to be deputy attorney general. Democrats raised [27:12] concerns about the president's personal attorney serving as the top attorney in the Justice Department. [27:18] The attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America. [27:24] Since you were confirmed, the Department of Justice has literally violated dozens of court orders to [27:30] advance the president's agenda. Last year, you declared that the Justice Department was, quote, [27:36] at war with the federal judiciary. I brought that up to you yesterday. I believe all of us, both sides [27:44] of the table, need to be more careful with our rhetoric when it comes to the judiciary. Yesterday, [27:50] we had the testimony of Justices Kagan and Barrett, and they talked about the impact on them personally [27:58] and on their families with the threats that have been increasing against them physically. Most of us [28:04] on this side of the table know what they're talking about. We have a similar experience, [28:09] but it is a responsibility of all of us, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, [28:15] in or out of the government. Be careful with what we say about the judiciary. They are doing their job. [28:21] We should never, ever count this violence against anyone on either side. [28:28] One of your first official actions as acting attorney general, Mr. Blanche, was to establish [28:34] the $2 billion weaponization or slush fund to benefit January 6 cop beaters while immunizing [28:41] President Trump from IRS liability. You defended the slush fund by claiming, quote, [28:47] people who hurt police get money, who hurt police get money all the time, end quote. Despite resounding [28:55] bipartisan criticism and admitting that it was a mistake, you've refused to rescind the order creating [29:01] this fund. That order can still be found on the Department of Justice's website today. [29:08] We talked about this yesterday in my office. I didn't quite understand your explanation. I'll give you [29:15] a chance, of course, to explain it. But you said it was up to Congress to codify the elimination of [29:22] this fund. This was a creation of the executive branch. It was not a creation of Congress. [29:28] So I hope you'll clarify that statement. Earlier this week, a federal judge characterized your [29:33] explanation of the settlement that led to this fund, quote, at best misleading and at worst disingenuous. [29:40] You told me yesterday that the opinion was, quote, a hit piece on you, another troubling attack on a [29:45] judge for doing her job. Then there's the cover up of the Epstein files, which former Attorney General [29:52] Bondi herself said you were, quote, in charge of. Under your leadership, more than 1,000 FBI personnel [30:00] were pulled off of other priorities and directed to flag Epstein records for any mentions of President Trump. [30:08] When scrutiny of the cover up intensified, you participated in meetings in the White House [30:13] Situation Room to strategize about how to protect President Trump, not Epstein survivors, the President. [30:20] When Congress forced the administration to release the files, hundreds of survivors' personal [30:25] information was unredacted, victimizing them again. Meanwhile, the names of powerful Epstein allies [30:34] remained protected in clear violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. [30:40] Your explanation, quote, it isn't a crime to party with Mr. Epstein. [30:44] Mr. Blanche, these survivors deserve much better. I want to recognize many of them who are in the [30:51] audience today. I thank them for their courage in speaking out. Tomorrow we will hear one of them [30:57] during our outside witness panel. I'd like to enter into the record six letters from Epstein survivors [31:04] in opposition to the Blanche nomination. Without objection, so ordered. [31:08] I'm asking you, Mr. Blanche, today before you leave this room to agree to meet with these Epstein [31:15] survivors personally and to bring with you professionals from the Department of Justice [31:19] to hear them out. They have the courage to tell their story and they should at least hear from their [31:25] government that they take it seriously. After your interview with convicted sex trafficker [31:32] Ghislaine Maxwell, an attempt, I believe, to exonerate President Trump, Ms. Maxwell was transferred to a [31:38] minimum security camp. That is unheard of for offenders like her. You said it was for her own [31:44] personal safety. I hope you'll explain that today. You told me yesterday you want to be Attorney General [31:50] because you love the Department of Justice and you love prosecutors. But you have removed from the [31:56] Department some of the most effective prosecutors that have ever served our government. Done that for [32:02] personal reasons, purging career law enforcement officials who won't prioritize President Trump's [32:08] interests over their oath to the Constitution. You fired the career pardon attorney because she wouldn't [32:15] sign off on restoring gun rights to a convicted domestic abuser, Mel Gibson, personal friend of President [32:22] Trump. You fired career immigration litigator Erez Riouni for refusing to follow unethical orders [32:31] from your former law partner, Emil Bove, and other senior DOJ officials to lie to a federal court. [32:37] You bragged about firing career law enforcement professionals simply because they were assigned [32:42] to investigate the president's criminal misconduct, including FBI agents who specialized in investigating [32:49] threats from foreign adversaries like Iran. More than 1200 former career DOJ employees who work for both [32:57] Republican and Democratic administrations sent this committee a letter opposing your nomination [33:03] because you have purged DOJ of thousands of experienced law enforcement officials putting our [33:08] nation's security at risk. I would like to enter this letter into the record with unanimous consent. [33:14] Without objections to order. You testified under oath last year that as deputy attorney general you would [33:20] consult with career ethics officials to avoid conflicts of interest. A significant concern since you [33:26] received nearly 10 million dollars as a president's personal attorney. But you've gutted the DOJ offices [33:32] that handle ethics and professional responsibility. After the department's top career ethics lawyer advised you [33:39] to recuse yourself from any matters relating to Trump and his personal capacity, that lawyer was fired. Every smarmy [33:47] suspect deal in this administration has cryptocurrency behind the curtain. And again it has happened when it [33:55] comes to the billion dollar windfall that went to the president in his first year in office. Shortly after [34:01] you were confirmed as deputy attorney general you issued an order dismantling DOJ's crypto enforcement team [34:08] and shutting down ongoing criminal investigations of the crypto industry. At the time you owned at least [34:14] $159,000 worth of crypto related assets. While you eventually divested those assets didn't go far. You [34:22] simply transferred them to your child, your children and grandchild. With the crypto enforcement unit out of [34:29] the way, President Trump brought in 1.4 billion dollars from his family's cryptocurrency business in 2025 alone. [34:37] Take that one take one example of the dealing in the administration. In April 2024, the founder of the [34:45] crypto company Binance was sentenced to prison in order to pay 50 million dollar fine for a money laundering [34:53] scheme. 50 million dollar fine. He then brokered a deal to channel 2 billion dollars into the Trump [35:01] family's crypto business, World Liberty Finance, after which President Trump pardoned him. Binance [35:09] accounts have funneled about 1.7 billion dollars to Iranian entities linked to terrorism. The president's [35:16] World Liberty Financial continues to partner with Binance, even with these facts that I've [35:23] spelled out in this statement. You recently claimed, quote, Mr. Blanche, that there's a ton of evidence that [35:31] the 2020 election was rigged. You should see what happens in this committee room when judicial nominees [35:38] of this administration appear before this committee. Raise their hands, take the oath, and then field the [35:45] questions asked by members of the committee. You'll see some of the people who are even judges today at [35:51] state level and have distinguished careers in law start to avert their eyes, squirm, and then give a script [35:59] which doesn't acknowledge the obvious. Donald Trump lost the 2020 election by seven million popular [36:07] votes. Seven million votes popular. And he lost by that number. That's a fact. Any eighth grader in [36:15] America knows it and can repeat it for you. And yet, when it comes down to asking Trump judicial [36:21] nominees who won the 2020 election, you ought to see him squirm. What's the reason? The president's big lie. [36:28] He believes in his heart of hearts that he somehow won that election, though he can't produce any [36:33] evidence of that fact. Well, we'll give you your chance. I hope that you produce the evidence to show [36:40] one way or the other that the big lie is the truth or not the truth. Your first indictment of former [36:46] FBI Director Comey failed in a case brought by an unqualified and unlawfully appointed U.S. Attorney [36:52] Lindsey Halligan. So now Mr. Comey is being prosecuted for taking pictures of seashells. This [36:59] prosecution personally ordered by the president, who despises Mr. Comey for overseeing the investigation [37:05] of Russian interference in the 2016 election. You have also baselessly indicted the Southern [37:11] Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization that has worked tirelessly to expose violent extremists [37:19] like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, a group which we in the Senate know well for their January 6 [37:26] escapade. The same people you gave a clean slate for their role in attacking this Capitol. A federal [37:32] judge recently singled out your, quote, remarkable statements targeting Kilmar Abrego Garcia as evidence [37:39] that his criminal prosecution was, quote, marked by a retaliatory taint for successfully fighting his [37:46] deportation. And despite my repeated request, you've yet to produce the DOJ memorandum concluding that it [37:53] was legally permissible for the president of the United States to accept a gift of a luxury airliner [38:00] from the royal family of Qatar, despite constitutional and statutory foreign gift prohibitions. Earlier this [38:07] month, that jet was launched as Air Force One, despite credible reports of security vulnerability. [38:14] Last weekend, the Department of Justice responded not by addressing these concerns, but by sending [38:19] federal agents with subpoenas to the homes of the reporters who exposed these lapses. In less than 18 [38:26] months at the Department of Justice, you've shown you're still President Trump's personal attorney. [38:31] Your tenure can be summed up in the four words you said, quote, I love you, sir, to President Trump. [38:38] This was your response when you asked what you would say to him. This nation deserves an attorney [38:43] general who loves the Constitution more than any single president, an attorney general focused on [38:48] keeping America safe and combating corruption, not satisfying the president's personal grievances [38:54] or channeling crypto cash to the administration's mega faithful. Mr. President, Mr. Chairman, I yield. [39:03] Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blanche, you represented the president [39:09] in three, at least three criminal cases, the hush money payment case in New York, [39:13] the January 6 case and the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. You said when you appeared last [39:18] before this committee, you would consult with ethics lawyers about that apparent conflict of [39:23] interest in handling any case involving the president having been his personal counsel. [39:28] Did you consult with Joseph Terrell, a senior ethics lawyer at the department? [39:31] I believe I met with Mr. Terrell. Yes. [39:34] Did Mr. Terrell tell you that ethics laws and policies required that you not be involved in cases [39:43] involving your prior representation of the president? Yes. [39:49] So in those three matters, hush money payment case, January 6 case, Mar-a-Lago case, [39:54] you were to recuse yourself? I'm recused, correct. Well, by the way, [39:59] the cases are not ongoing, Senator, but to the extent there's any work around those cases, yes, [40:03] I'm recused. So you said to CPAC a couple of months ago, the other things that are happening, [40:10] there is not a single man or woman at the Department of Justice who had anything to do [40:14] with those prosecutions, meaning the prosecution of the president. She was saying that it's not a [40:20] conflict of interest for you to be involved in the firing of prosecutors who prosecuted your client, [40:28] your former client. There's no conflict there? No, there is. I wasn't involved. [40:32] So at CPAC, you're taking credit for the firing of these Department of Justice lawyers, [40:38] but you're not willing to take responsibility before this committee. Is that the case? [40:43] No. Okay. [40:43] I'm making, there's a statement I gave at CPAC. [40:46] You were bragging about this at CPAC, the firing of these prosecutors, [40:50] the firing of the FBI agents, the getting rid of everyone who investigated your client. [40:55] You were proud of that, speaking for the Department of Justice, but you don't think that's a conflict [41:01] of interest. You moved to vacate. I don't think you're going to deny involvement in this. You moved [41:05] to vacate the convictions of 12 Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, which erased their convictions, [41:11] restored their gun rights. These people were convicted in the January 6th investigation, [41:16] which also involved the president, who you represented. You were involved in dismissing [41:21] those cases where you're not? I was, I'm the acting attorney general. So yes, [41:26] my department moved to dismiss. Um, I, I was not involved. So you, you didn't recuse yourself [41:32] from that matter. You're willing. No, there's no reason to, from the, the Proud Boys matter? [41:38] Yes, it was, it was, it was, there are rules to say when I have to be recused, and that's not one of [41:42] them. And there are rules. And when you're told to recuse yourself from investigations, [41:46] that you handle for the president, you're supposed to recuse yourself. So you have also, [41:52] you have also said, you've also refused to release volume two of the special counsel's report. [41:58] That was an investigation into the Mar-a-Lago, Mar-a-Lago documents case. [42:03] How is that not an abundant conflict of interest, refusing to release to the public an investigative [42:09] report of an investigation into your client? I am not a judge, a federal judge. No, no, no, no, [42:16] no, no. The department's position under you, Mr. Blanche, the department's position under you, [42:22] Mr. Blanche was do not release the report. So that position, if you went into court asking them [42:27] to release it, it would be released by now. So how is that not a patent conflict of interest? [42:32] What you're saying happens to not be true. I did not do that. What you're talking about happened [42:37] before I became the deputy attorney general. So you support the release of volume two? No, I don't, [42:40] but I'm recused and had nothing to do with that case. Like you can't accuse me of violating my [42:44] ethical rules and then lie about what I did. So you had nothing to do with the decision [42:50] uh, to prohibit the release of the report. You had nothing to do with the department's position. [42:54] I wasn't in court. No, I'm not asking whether you were in court. I was... [42:56] I'm asking you whether anyone sought your opinion or used your guidance in refusing to release volume [43:02] two. When that litigation was ongoing, I was a private citizen still representing the president [43:09] of the United States. It was before March, um, since March, to the extent there's been anything [43:14] in front of that judge, I haven't been part of. Mr. Blanchard, I asked you in your last confirmation [43:18] hearing whether you would release the report and your answer was no. Your answer was not, [43:22] I will recuse my answer myself. Your answer was no, I will not release the report. That was your testimony [43:28] last before this committee. You subsequently were advised by ethics lawyers not to be involved in these [43:33] matters, but it appears you were involved in these matters. Let me ask you about another matter. [43:37] I wasn't involved. You can't say it appears I was involved, but I said I wasn't. [43:41] Let me ask you about another one you have your name on. The truth has to matter at some point. [43:45] Yeah, it does matter. We just don't hear much of it from you. But let me ask you about another [43:49] matter you have your name on. I don't think you can deny responsibility here. And that is the IRS [43:54] settlement agreement. So you put your name on this. That absolves the president of tax liabilities [44:02] in the past. The president was convicted in the case you represented him in [44:07] of falsifying business records in part for tax purposes. Does this settlement not absolve [44:15] the president of any liability for tax crimes associated with what he's already been convicted [44:20] of? That's not what he was convicted of and not having to do with tax purposes. [44:24] I'm happy to read the statement of facts. The participants took steps that mischaracterized [44:29] for tax purposes the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme. [44:34] The participant there was not the president. It was somebody else. [44:38] Well, if the president is conspiring with others to falsify business records to help them cheat on [44:43] taxes, he is also exposed to liability. You know that as well as I do. [44:47] He can't be audited for that. [44:48] And of course he can be. Of course he can be. And he can be prosecuted for it. But the agreement you [44:54] signed on behalf of your former client, on behalf of your current client, in a staggering example of [45:01] self-dealing prohibits that. Let me ask you this. Does this tax agreement, this addendum you signed, [45:08] also hold him harmless from any audit or tax liability with respect to the billions in crypto [45:15] money he made in his first year as president? It's not forward-looking. So to the extent there [45:20] are taxes filed by the president or his sons or the Trump Organization after the date of that agreement, [45:27] there's no protection. Well, but before that agreement. So any taxes. He hasn't filed taxes [45:31] yet for money he made last year, right? So, yes. So, um, if he. But no protection. If he filed tax [45:38] returns this year for money he earned last year, that his sons earned as World Liberty Financial, [45:43] all those people earned and defrauded taxpayers on it, he faces no liability under this. There's no [45:50] evidence taxpayers were defrauded and he is not protected. But there is, there's evidence in this [45:54] agreement that you've absolved him of any liability over. No, I just said he's not absolved. So the [46:00] question was. So this agreement doesn't apply to, to a tax return filed last year, or filed this year. [46:05] To tax returns filed after the date of the agreement? No, it does not apply. No, before the agreement. A tax [46:09] return filed in, in, uh, this calendar year before this agreement. Before the agreement it applies, [46:15] not after. Okay. So for a tax return filed this year, for last year, for the billions he made, [46:20] there's no tax liability. Even if he cheats on his taxes or his kids do or his business do, [46:25] he is absolved of that further potential liability. No. Well, it's in the plain language of your [46:32] agreement. Did you write this language? You have to use the facts though. He hasn't filed taxes yet. [46:37] So when he files taxes, there's no protection based upon this agreement. Did, did you write this [46:42] language? Did I write the, did I type it up myself? No. Did you write this language? No. [46:47] Well, you put your name to it. I did. So who wrote this? Some, I don't know the person that [46:54] actually typed it. I don't know who it is. Was it, was it one of the president's lawyers or was it [46:59] someone from the Justice Department or IRS? This document would have been somebody within [47:03] the Department of Justice. But you have no idea who that is? I don't know the name of the person that [47:07] typed it up. And did you debate with them the statute of limitations, which clearly would [47:13] preclude the president's claim, this $10 billion lawsuit? We had extensive discussions [47:19] internally about the underlying litigation. And you, did you reject the statute of limitations [47:24] defense? I, I'm not a judge. I don't reject things. But you signed an agreement for the U.S. [47:29] There was discussion around the litigation. You signed an agreement for the U.S. [47:33] basically, uh, indicating that the Justice Department's position that the statute of [47:39] limitations applies doesn't matter. I, I didn't, that's not what I said. I didn't say that anywhere. [47:44] Who rejected the 25 defenses the IRS had to this sham lawsuit? Who rejected them? Who said that [47:51] these defenses, we're not going to accept, we're just going to go with the president's agreement and [47:56] the slush fund? There was immunity. There was a lot of discussion internally. But you made the [48:01] decision. I'm, what's the decision? What do you mean? You made the decision to not defend the IRS and [48:09] the Justice Department. You made the decision and said to sign this slush fund agreement. We made the [48:14] decision to settle the case. Correct. Yeah. And in, in doing that, you basically decided that you [48:25] were going to be the lawyer for the president and the lawyer for the IRS and the Justice Department. [48:30] As the court found in this case, there was no adversarial relationship. The court found it was a [48:36] sham. It was a collusive relationship. And what I don't understand, Todd Blanche, what happened to the [48:43] Todd Blanche who was a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York? What happened to the prosecutor [48:47] people had respect for? What happened to the prosecutor who once respected the rule of law? [48:52] What happened to the prosecutor who said that there wouldn't be a whiff of political partisanship [48:56] and then prosecutes the president's enemies over seashells, cases over making a video stating the plain [49:03] law and constitution? What happened to the Todd Blanche of the Southern District of New York [49:07] that could convert him into you? Someone willing to say the president has both the the right and the [49:14] duty to prosecute his political enemies? I can't imagine the Todd Blanche of the old days would have [49:21] ever done that. What happened to you, Todd Blanche? I'll tell you this. I think Robert Caro had it right [49:29] when he said that power doesn't corrupt as much as it reveals. I suspect it has just revealed who you are [49:35] and who you are as someone willing to sacrifice everything you once believed in for that title, [49:41] for that position of attorney general. And it is a sad story that we have seen from Trump appointee [49:48] after appointee after appointee. We have seen people compromise themselves little by little, [49:54] and then a lot by a lot until they're sitting before this committee and trying to justify the [50:00] unjustifiable. I yield back. Okay. May I just briefly respond, Chairman? Yes, very briefly. So [50:08] you asked me what happened to Todd Blanche. I am still here. I am the same exact person I was when I [50:16] was a federal prosecutor in the SDNY, which is do the right thing and do everything you can to keep [50:22] communities safe. So when I was a line prosecutor, when I was a supervisor, when I was the head of a [50:27] division, my motivation and my goal was the same thing with the people who worked with me and worked [50:33] for me, which is do the right thing, enforce the laws and put bad guys in jail. And so you spend time [50:40] talking about, I did not interrupt you. I did not interrupt you. A little courtesy would be appropriate. [50:45] So when you ask me what has changed, okay, and you talk about a single document that I signed, [50:51] okay, and somebody had to sign that document when the president sued. Okay, so I tried to do the [50:56] right thing. What I do every single day, and what the prosecutors in this country do every single day, [51:02] and the nearly 100,000 indictments and informations that have been filed since January 20th, is exactly [51:08] what everybody in this building should want the Department of Justice to do, which is to make our [51:13] community safer, enforce the laws both civilly and criminally, and always do the right thing with [51:18] integrity, which is exactly what I'm doing. So I am the same Todd Blanche I was when I was a federal [51:23] prosecutor in the SDNY. With me that it should not be the policy of the United States to do it. [51:31] But in your question, you're suggesting there is such a policy. I'm telling you, [51:34] there is no such policy. Well, if there is no such policy, then I presume you would investigate it. [51:43] When I see the lawsuit, I'm just not familiar with it. We will, of course, do what's appropriate. [51:47] But you'd agree with me that it would be wrong. [51:49] When that it would be wrong, meaning it would be wrong to send somebody home to be tortured. Yes. [51:55] Let me ask you about allegations in connection with David Gentilly. I think we talked about the [52:07] these allegations when you visited me. Thank you for coming to my office in May of 2025. David Gentilly [52:14] was sentenced to seven years in prison for his role in an almost $1.8 billion Ponzi [52:22] like scheme that defrauded over 10,000 investors, many of them middle-class retirees of their hard-earned [52:32] savings. And he was in prison. He boasted to fellow inmates and others that he was going to be released [52:42] because he paid $2.5 million for clemency. Evidence collected by the Eastern District of New York [52:51] supported those allegations and reportedly also included statements by Father Frank Mann that he [53:04] spoke to the president about David Gentilly. The Eastern District of New York was investigating [53:12] these allegations and reportedly received a call from one of your top deputies instructing them [53:19] about the concerns of the Department of Justice. The investigation was stopped by the Eastern [53:28] District of New York. I wrote to you on June 23rd and United States Attorney Joseph Nacella about these [53:37] allegations that investigation into this impropriety was shut down at the request of your office. Did you [53:47] have any involvement or knowledge about the commutation of Mr. Gentilly sentence? President Trump, as I've [53:59] said a couple times today, has full authority to pardon or commute anybody convicted of federal crime. That's [54:05] not my question. So I'm answering your question, Senator. Did you? I'm answering your question. So [54:11] my communications with President Trump, I will not talk about. He does not, nor should he, [54:16] is no obligation to discuss pardon or commutation decisions with me. And he has not. As far as the [54:24] the what you just suggested about an investigation, I believe you're referring to a news article that [54:30] was the results of apparent leaks. And I would caution that there's falsehoods in those news articles. [54:39] I'm asking you whether you had any involvement in commuting that sentence or in stopping the [54:45] investigation into the allegations of impropriety payment to possibly payment to Father Frank Mann. [54:55] And I answered the first question. But when you say stopping an investigation, there's an assumption [54:59] built into your question that I will not concede. We will not talk about whether exist investigations [55:05] exist or don't exist. And certainly some leak about something that we supposedly did doesn't warrant an [55:11] answer either. There was an investigation, correct? I am. No, I that's my whole point in saying is that [55:17] there's an assumption baked into your question that I don't think is true, meaning that we cannot comment [55:22] on even the existence of investigations. You commented this morning to Republican colleagues about several [55:28] investigations. No, I haven't. Well, you commented in response to the chairman about the FISA investigation. [55:35] About the what? Excuse me. The investigation that he asked you about. So Senator, my point is that [55:41] you're asking me questions about a news article, the source of which was apparently leaks. It would be [55:46] inappropriate for me as the acting attorney general to comment on such leaks or news articles that you're [55:53] referencing. But I accept that you're not going to answer my question. But I think there is a need for the [56:00] inspector general to look into the investigation that was apparently, according to these articles and [56:06] other information, stopped as a result of your intervention. Let me let me move on. In 2017, more [56:15] than 10,000 911 victims filed suit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. That lawsuit is heading to trial. [56:27] Information was promised by President Trump in September of 2019. That information has not been [56:35] provided. Will you commit to meet with those families and provide the information they need for their [56:41] lawsuit? Folks from my office have met with the representatives of those families. We will commit [56:49] to continuing to to have communications, of course, and provide the information they're seeking. Well, you're [56:54] saying I don't know what the information is you're talking about. So obviously, I can't just commit to [56:58] providing the information. Well, let's talk about other information information about the Epstein [57:04] abuses. Your predecessor apologized to the Epstein survivors with good reason. Because as you've said [57:14] today, mistakes were made. I'm asking you today with Epstein survivors in this room to apologize to them. [57:26] Well, so my heart breaks for every victim of any sexual crime, whether it's involving Mr. Epstein or [57:35] somebody else or somebody else. And so if you're asking me to apologize that this happened to them, [57:40] of course, absolutely. This is a horrible thing, which is why this Department of Justice, this [57:45] administration is focused very heavily on going after these predators. And so, yes, of course, [57:51] that's part of my job is being empathetic to the victims of crime. Will you apologize to them for the [57:55] mishandling and mistakes that were made by the United States Department of Justice? I will. I will absolutely say that any mistake that we made [58:05] should not have been made should not have been made. And I very much very much about I can answer the [58:11] question or you can just interrupt my center. But I am answering your question. I very much and I have [58:17] said this to anybody that asked and publicly before any mistake that was made is not appropriate. And so, [58:23] yes, I am sorry that in about one percent of the of the documents mistakes were made. But what I will say on top of [58:30] that is we put tons of resources to rectifying those mistakes immediately, including pulling down [58:36] documents within minutes of being informed that they were there were mistakes, potential mistakes made [58:41] and working 24 seven to rectify any mistakes. And and that's what I would expect the victims would want [58:47] us to do in their council and this body as well. And you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that you can [58:55] well meet with any of the survivors or victims with their council present? You said you can't meet with them, [59:02] but you could meet with them if I never said I can't meet with them. I said if they were represented, [59:07] I had to meet through through counsel. But of course, I can meet with them. I'm the acting attorney general of the United States. [59:12] So, yes, I can. I very strongly believe that if for these victims to tell their stories and the evidence that they have, [59:19] they should meet like any victim of a crime with the FBI or a law enforcement agent, [59:25] and that we will do everything we can to prosecute if we can. The judge in Florida referred your [59:35] misconduct. She concluded that there was misconduct and misrepresentation and improper purpose in that [59:42] legal action to the bar of New York for potential discipline, including losing your law license. [59:51] I know you disagree with the result of the ruling. Has that kind of referral ever happened by a federal [59:58] judge for an attorney general of the United States? I don't know, but I'll tell you something. [1:00:05] That judge never asked us to respond. She never gave us an opportunity to respond to anything. And [1:00:09] she didn't refer me. She just asked that a copy of the order be provided the New York bar, [1:00:14] because there are several activist groups that have filed complaints against me. So, [1:00:18] so listen, as I said earlier, I think anybody on this committee, especially the lawyers that have [1:00:23] practiced, can read that opinion and reach their own conclusions. But I very much disagree with the [1:00:30] judge's insinuations about me. And we're going to do what we can to make that right. [1:00:35] One last question. Would you agree with me that agents of the United States should not fire [1:00:41] into cars unless they're fire their weapons into cars, unless there is an imminent threat? Give a [1:00:47] short answer to that. There's a well established standard as to when an agent can discharge their [1:00:53] firearm. And I think that that's that's something that's that that should be followed in every case. [1:00:58] And that includes not firing weapons into cars.