I Acting AG Todd Blanche faces Senate confirmation hearing

[0:00] These aren't my words. This is the conclusion of the National Review, the leading conservative publication founded by William Buckley. [0:08] This isn't about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about rule of law versus lawlessness. [0:14] The attorney general is supposed to be the people's lawyer. Department of Justice should work on behalf of all the American people. [0:22] Mr. Blanche continues to operate as the president's personal lawyer, treating the Justice Department like a law firm serving one client, the president. [0:33] The president has made it clear he plans to keep Mr. Blanche in place as acting attorney general, a damning comment on his capacity to honorably serve in this role. [0:44] This committee does not need to legitimate Mr. Blanche's appointment by providing our consent. I yield. [0:50] Before I call on Democrats to speak, I'd like to have Cornyn and Tillis have a few minutes and then we'll go to the other side of the aisle. [1:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The office of attorney general is one of the most challenging jobs in the cabinet. [1:14] You are at the same time the people's lawyer, as Senator Durbin has said, while you are a member of the president's cabinet, subject to being dismissed at the pleasure of the president. [1:25] It is a very challenging balance to strike, to be sure. [1:30] The tax lawsuit that was filed by President Trump and his son and the Trump Organization in January of 2026 was what prosecutors called unparalleled in the IRS's history. [1:48] A contractor with Bose Hamilton got the job at the IRS for the express purpose of leaking tax returns, private tax returns that of people he thought the public needed to know about. [2:05] That is a violation of the criminal law. And the contractor is currently serving a five year term in the federal penitentiary for that. [2:14] Initially, when the president filed suit, he sought $10 billion in damages. That is nowhere to be found in the final settlement. [2:26] The settlement documents also created a roughly $1.8 billion weaponization fund. That is no longer part of the settlement. [2:36] I have been very clear, as others have, that in order to support Mr. Blanche's nomination, I needed specific assurances in writing about a release signed by the acting attorney general last May. [2:55] I asked for written assurances that clarifies the scope of the parties to the IRS audit agreement and permanently ends the weaponization fund. [3:06] While this may sound like nitpicking to some, it's critically important not only to me, but to other members of the Senate. [3:14] What Mr. Blanche said under oath in his nomination hearing on these topics was important. [3:21] He said under oath subject to the penalties of perjury that he signed the release, the release he signed only applies to the IRS and the Treasury and only the parties who were defendants and the plaintiffs. [3:35] And he also said once more that the weaponization fund was dead. [3:40] This past Sunday, Senator Tillis and I came to an agreement after numerous meetings with the Department of Justice and Mr. Blanche on an agency interpretative guidance document that reaffirms what Mr. Blanche said in his sworn testimony in front of the committee. [3:59] This document will help limit the substance and scope of the audit protection to the defendants in the lawsuit, the IRS and the Treasury. [4:10] And it limits it to the parties to the audit settlement. [4:14] It limits the parties to the audit settlement to the plaintiffs, the people who brought the lawsuit and no one else. [4:21] And importantly, it was retroactive, stated to be retroactive, not prospective, doesn't apply to future audits, [4:29] but does settle all claims that were subject to the lawsuit and those that could have been brought in that lawsuit. [4:36] And again, importantly, it ends the lawsuit. [4:41] Weaponization fund. [4:42] The DOJ has repeatedly said that this is their legal position and interpretation, including filings in the Floyd v. [4:51] Department of Justice in the Eastern District of Virginia and Dunn v. [4:56] Trump and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. [5:00] Trump in the District of Columbia. [5:01] They've been consistent about their assertion on behalf of the United States of America that the weaponization fund is dead. [5:12] And of course, I expect them to live up to that in any future litigation. [5:17] Given this agreement with Mr. Blanche, I expect the Department to live up to this in future litigation. [5:28] And I will vote to advance him out of the committee today. [5:31] But my vote to advance Mr. Blanche's nomination goes beyond this document. [5:37] We need a stabilizing force at the Department of Justice. [5:41] And Mr. Blanche deserves the opportunity to provide that as opposed to continuing to serve in an acting capacity and as the deputy attorney general. [5:50] The Department of Justice does not need a temporary unconfirmed nominee as our nation's top law enforcement officer. [5:59] President Trump needs someone in this role as well with a strong legal mind, but who also is close enough to him to give him confidential legal advice to tell him hard truths. [6:12] I thought what Mr. Blanche said during his hearing was very important. [6:16] He said, I can give the president confidential legal advice, but of course, he doesn't have to follow it. [6:22] He was elected president of the United States and not me. [6:26] That's that's the fact. [6:29] I would advise Mr. Blanche not to be afraid to capitalize on that earned trust when necessary for the good of the country. [6:37] I want to thank him for being willing to work with us. [6:40] Senator Tillis and me, and I want to commend my staff for led by Francie Rooney and others for their hard work on these negotiations. [6:48] I'm glad we could address these issues here in committee so that this nomination can move forward. [6:54] And I'm grateful to the chairman for giving me and Senator Tillis the latitude to do so. [6:59] Senator Tillis. [7:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Cornyn. [7:04] I am by no means going to match up against Senator Cornyn, a lawyer and a former judge, except to say that I believe that we have addressed the concerns that I have. [7:15] The first one I called the payout pot for punks. [7:18] I've never liked this 1776 fund. [7:20] It made no sense to me, and I thought it was an insult to the police officers and the people that defended us on January the 6th. [7:26] It's done. [7:27] It's been rescinded, and I am satisfied. [7:31] I also feel like Senator Cornyn addressed the other piece of it that has to do with the audit to my satisfaction. [7:39] You know, the thing that interests me, and I'm kind of curious about the speeches that come after here, is how everybody has this view of they are as pure as the driven snow, and it's the other side that has a problem. [7:53] I think we both have a problem, folks. [7:56] If you want to talk about weaponization, take a look at the Biden administration. [8:01] Take a look at the Obama administration. [8:03] Take a look at Crossfire Hurricane. [8:05] Take a look at the codes that Lois Lerner used in the IRS to target businesses to try and unbank them. [8:12] Take a look at the prospective pardons on the way out the door that President Biden did for family members, for staff members in Congress. [8:21] The bottom line is, nobody is clean here. [8:24] And until we start recognizing this behavior as bad, we're just going to one-up it. [8:29] Maybe it's a little bit more intense in this administration than the last one, and that a little bit more intense than the prior administration, and so on and so forth. [8:38] But, folks, we've got to end this stuff. [8:41] We do. [8:42] I'm going to support Mr. Blanche's nomination. [8:45] But what I hope I see out of him is a bending of the curve of this absurdity. [8:50] The 86-47, some bonehead in North Carolina thinks that that's a crime. [8:57] Well, they better damn sure have information to back it up, because if all it is is a picture, that person should lose his job, his or her job. [9:05] Similarly, the people who went after Republicans in the Biden administration should probably be disbarred or disciplined. [9:12] So, at the end of the day, don't act like you're standing on some sort of moral high ground if you start attacking this administration, because I can match you almost deed for deed. [9:22] What I would like to see here is maybe people saying, instead of criticizing people on the other side of the aisle, why don't you go back and hold your own caucus and your conference to our standard? [9:35] That's what I'm doing. [9:37] That's what Senator Cornyn's doing, and that's what I think the American people want more of. [9:42] And, Mr. Chair, thank you for your patience. [9:44] I know from time to time I don't like delaying markups, but I thought that this was a very important one, [9:51] because we got to a good outcome. [9:53] And I appreciate Mr. Blanche working in good faith. [9:56] And I am prepared to vote yes today in his confirmation or in his and moving his confirmation or nomination forward. [10:06] Thank you, Chairman. [10:07] Today, I think, is a sad and embarrassing day for this committee. [10:15] As it looks like on a party line vote, we are going to advance out of this committee, [10:20] probably the most discreditable person ever to seek the office of Attorney General of the United States. [10:29] The reasons to vote against him number in the hundreds. [10:34] But let's just focus on a few where my Republican colleagues purport to have great concern. [10:41] Let's start with the Epstein files, where Todd Blanche participated in the cover-up, continues to participate in the cover-up, [10:59] and is responsible for a massive screw-up of the release of the documents. [11:08] Cover-up and screw-up on the Epstein files. [11:13] What do I mean by cover-up? [11:17] Well, first, they looked at four FBI 302s that were the testimony of a woman who told the FBI in a formal statement [11:32] that she had been sexually assaulted and physically assaulted by Donald Trump around 13 or 14 years of age. [11:44] Of those four 302s, they released one, the one that did not mention Donald Trump. [11:55] Well, fortunately for transparency, these documents had been released in other areas and bait-stamped. [12:04] So people figured out that some were missing. [12:10] And with that, the other 302s that mentioned Donald Trump had to be produced. [12:18] Only because they got caught were those 302s produced. [12:23] And right now, as we sit here, Todd Blanche is still sitting on 37 pages [12:29] that are almost certainly the agent's notes off of which the 302s were taken. [12:38] That should be disclosed under the Epstein files law. [12:46] But instead, those 37 pages remain covered up. [12:52] Where else did the cover-up go? [12:54] Well, the Department of Justice received suspicious activity reports from the Treasury Department [13:00] about Epstein's accounts, many of them related to Russia. [13:07] You'd think that an investigative body like the Department of Justice could look at a document called [13:15] suspicious activity report and deduce that there might be suspicious activity. [13:23] But did they even have a look? [13:27] Billions of dollars in Epstein fund transfers and the Todd Blanche Department never even had a look. [13:42] And then you get to Ghislaine Maxwell, where a deputy attorney general flew to Tallahassee to have a private meeting [13:55] with a woman convicted of participating in Epstein's depravity. [14:06] And what was the upshot of that meeting? [14:08] Was it to get more information about who else was culpable? [14:12] About whose secrets were still being kept? [14:15] No. [14:16] It was to get exculpatory information about Donald Trump and then reward her with a move to a club-fed prison. [14:31] Now, the nominal excuse for that is, oh, she was in danger in her earlier prison. [14:40] So we had to move her. [14:42] How often does a prisoner allegedly facing threats or danger get moved to a less secure facility? [14:58] I mean, think about it. [14:59] It doesn't pass the test of common sense. [15:05] So between the botched disclosure, which revealed victims of Epstein's depravity, [15:19] whose names had not been previously known, in some cases with photographic images, [15:25] with their addresses, in some cases photographs without being fully clothed. [15:33] Where does the buck stop for that if not with Mr. Blanche? [15:39] That was an epic botch that did real harm to Epstein's victims. [15:53] Voting for this guy today gives their blessing to the screw-up, [16:01] to the botched release that even Pam Bondi pointed at Blanche as responsible for, [16:08] and it gives the blessing to his continuing role in the cover-up of Epstein files. [16:20] So there's Epstein for you. [16:23] And let me ask the letter from the Epstein victims to Senators Tillis and Cornyn to be put into the record. [16:33] So next we get to this crooked slush fund Trump family tax amnesty scam. [16:39] Let's take a look at that. [16:42] We've got these two new pieces of paper, one signed only by Todd Blanche, one not signed by anybody, [16:50] neither of which has any legal effect whatsoever. [16:54] They are decorative. [16:57] So what problems do they leave behind? [17:01] Well, one is, can you trust Todd Blanche going forward? [17:09] I will tell you, I do not. [17:12] I think it would be unreasonable to trust him going forward. [17:17] There is enough weasel room in these documents to drive a truck through. [17:23] And what might that truck look like? [17:25] Well, you could get rid of the Anti-Weaponization Fund for $1.776 billion, [17:34] and in a month put out the Trump Justice Fund for $1.9 billion. [17:42] Nothing in this document prevents anything like that from happening. [17:48] You could open a drive up window at the Department of Justice for cop beaters from January 6th [17:57] to come through and get friendly Federal Tort Claims Act settlements from the Department of Justice. [18:06] They're already handing out settlements to Trump's allies. [18:12] What's to prevent the drive up window? [18:16] Come on in. [18:18] Here we are. [18:19] We got the friendly form for you to file, and here's a check. [18:23] Nothing prevents the cop beaters from being funded by the Trump Department of Justice. [18:34] But let's assume that we really have made a big improvement here. [18:40] Let's assume that the burglar has been forced to give back some of the jewelry he stole. [18:54] Being forced to give back some ill-gotten gains doesn't mean you're not still a burglar. [19:08] There's a question of the man's character that he was willing to get into these schemes in the first place, [19:19] into what George Will called the sludge of self-dealing of this administration. [19:30] Even if there isn't slush fund 2.0, and even if there isn't the drive up window for cop beaters, [19:46] there's a real problem with an individual who would agree to that in the first place. [19:54] To me, that should be disqualifying. [19:58] And the last bit on that is how he got there. [20:02] Let's not forget that there is an ongoing proceeding in Florida in federal court with an open question [20:12] whether Todd Blanche committed a fraud upon the court. [20:18] We don't hear that term, fraud upon the court, very often. [20:23] It's probably the worst thing you can accuse someone of in a court proceeding. [20:30] It means you're an officer of the court, it means you abused the process of the court, [20:37] and you did so in order to accomplish an unjust and wrongful result. [20:43] It's actually worse than contempt of court. [20:47] It is so bad that in the history of the Department of Justice, [20:52] no senior official has ever been even accused of a fraud upon the court. [20:58] And we're advancing this guy before that question is settled in Florida. [21:07] While there's still a bar issue, a disciplinary issue with the New York bar related to that misconduct, [21:15] fraud on the court is a big deal, and it's not going away. [21:24] Then last of all, you've just got the general dishonesty and incompetence of the operation that Todd Blanche is running. [21:34] And I'm not going to go through the list, it would take the whole day, [21:40] but let me go through a couple of summaries of it. [21:43] The Economist magazine, not exactly a left-wing publication, [21:51] had its lead article, its cover article on the U.S. Department of Justice, [22:00] titled, Degradation in Process. [22:05] Degradation in Process. [22:09] I ask unanimous consent to add that article to my remarks. [22:14] Then, here's a story from ProPublica. [22:21] Federal judges chastise Trump's Justice Department for unlawful, unethical, and unseemly conduct. [22:26] I'll just read the first sentence. [22:28] Across the country, federal judges are calling out Department of Justice lawyers, [22:34] questioning in unprecedented ways whether they can be trusted to tell the truth [22:41] or uphold centuries-old legal norms. [22:45] I ask unanimous consent that that article be added to the record. [22:49] And then there's a group called Just Security, [22:54] which reads through decisions from federal judges around the country [23:01] and gathers the incidences in which the federal judge has challenged the integrity [23:11] or the competence of the Department of Justice. [23:15] It's about this thick. [23:18] I'll just ask to have its introduction put into the record. [23:28] If my colleagues want to go and look and see what the avalanche of misconduct [23:36] that Blanche's leadership has precipitated looks like, [23:40] you know where to find the report. [23:42] Here's the introduction. [23:44] It talks about the presumption of regularity, [23:50] a judicially created doctrine with a long and contested history. [23:54] The doctrine affords the executive branch a distinct advantage [23:59] by instructing courts to presume that executive officials [24:03] have properly discharged their official duties. [24:06] And what the report characterized is the destruction of that presumption [24:10] of regularity in this Department of Justice. [24:18] So I ask unanimous consent that that be added as well. [24:21] And then since I've mentioned it, I'll also ask George Will's article [24:29] where I described his description of the settlement between the president [24:35] and the executive branch he heads exemplifying the administration's sludge of self-dealing. [24:41] That also be added to the record. [24:48] The last question that I'm left with here is what's left of this committee? [24:53] What's left of this committee when we don't demand straight answers from witnesses? [24:59] How many times has this Department of Justice been asked what became of the $50,000 [25:10] that the FBI reported that it handed to Mr. Homan in a bribery sting? [25:17] That's administrative stuff. [25:21] That gets reported. [25:23] There's an account. [25:24] You've got to check the money out. [25:25] If you get the money back, you've got to check the money back. [25:28] There's an administrative trail. [25:30] We can't get any information about that. [25:35] Our Republican colleagues see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil. [25:42] Kash Patel virtually certainly lied to this committee sitting in front of us. [25:49] Is there any interest in that? [25:55] At a time when Republicans in Congress seem agitated about Biden officials lying to Congress? [26:04] We got lies right here, folks. [26:08] I don't know where this committee goes after it stops being taken seriously. [26:19] Because all you have to be is on the right partisan side to get this committee to roll over and play dead. [26:29] Thank you, Chairman. [26:32] Thank you very much, Chairman. [26:51] Appreciate that we are hearing from our colleagues at this important moment for this important vote. [26:57] So I start with this. [27:00] As you know, this year, thousands of ICE and Border Patrol agents descended on Minnesota. [27:08] Two of my constituents, Renee Good and Alex Preddy, were killed. [27:12] They should be alive today. [27:14] After they were killed, the federal government refused to cooperate with state and local law enforcement, blocking Minnesota investigators from accessing the scene of Alex's death, [27:26] even though they had a judicial warrant. [27:29] Federal investigators mishandled evidence, and they failed to process Renee Good's car for evidence. [27:37] Everyone in this room have seen those videos. [27:40] Everyone in this room knows that, at the very least, those cases should have been and should be investigated, and they are now. [27:49] Instead of cooperating with local law enforcement, which I press the department to do from the beginning, and as the Justice Department had done in past cases, [28:00] including following the assassination of Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, [28:07] the marching orders from the Justice Department to federal prosecutors in Minnesota were to investigate Renee Good and her wife. [28:15] Joe Thompson, who is the lead fraud prosecutor in my state and who I recommended to serve as acting U.S. Attorney under this administration and was appointed as acting. [28:29] He resigned after that. [28:32] He resigned along with 14 other prosecutors because they did not believe what they were being asked to do was ethical. [28:40] These are career prosecutors. No politics. Not interested in politics. [28:45] And then, more than six months after Renee and Alex's death, when I asked Acting Attorney General Blanche if the department would finally fully cooperate with state law enforcement in these investigations, [28:59] he said it depends on what full cooperation means. [29:02] The floodgates were open to some extent. Some information was finally passed along to the state, but it is unclear if they have all the information that they need. [29:15] Minnesotans deserve transparency and accountability, and not just for the killings. [29:21] We also saw repeated violations of Minnesotans constitutional rights. [29:25] I asked Todd Blanche about one such case. I asked if it is unacceptable for federal agents to forcibly enter someone's home without a warrant and drag them into the street without even checking if they have the right person. [29:42] This happened with a Hmong elder, a U.S. citizen, saying he was a U.S. citizen, dragged out in his underwear and Crocs, thrown into a car and driven around for an hour before they realized they had the wrong guy. [29:58] Mr. Chairman, when I asked Todd Blanche about this and if this was a violation, he said it depends and it was not a black or white answer. [30:09] Mr. Chairman, what is black and white is that a nominee to be the chief law enforcement in our country should be able to condemn the actions taken in that case. [30:19] Upholding the independence of the Justice Department is vital to its legitimacy. [30:27] I know this firsthand. Before I was elected to the Senate, I served for eight years as a chief prosecutor for the largest prosecutor's office in Minnesota. [30:38] I led teams of hundreds of line attorneys and professional staff and like acting attorney general Blanche. [30:46] I would sometimes receive calls from powerful people about cases trying to influence the outcome, trying to get a plea, trying to get us to dismiss a case. [30:59] But no matter who it was, I made clear to the people who work for me that we weren't playing that game. [31:08] I made clear that investigations and charging decisions were based on the facts and the law. [31:15] Not once did I cross that line, because as I told Todd Blanche, once you cross that line, it's hard to go back because you minute you cross the line and allow anyone else to influence a prosecutor's decision, whether that call is a friend or a lobbyist or the president of the United States, you can never go back. [31:36] And I think Todd Blanche knows this before his confirmation as deputy attorney general, he told me he understood that his clients are the people of the United States, not the president to quote Senator Adam Schiff. [31:51] What happened to that Todd Blanche since then, however, acting attorney general Blanche has said of the Justice Department's investigations into people the president has had issues with in the past. [32:07] Blanche said that is his right. And indeed, it is his duty to do that. In fact, the president has repeatedly directed the Justice Department to engage in political prosecutions related to his personal grievances. [32:20] FBI director Comey former cyber office director, Chris Krebs, Jerome Powell, the former chair of the Federal Reserve, the New York attorney general civil rights organizations, journalists and yes, even sitting U.S. senators. [32:37] And while acting attorney general Blanche told me that he believes all decisions have been made in his words solely based on the facts and law. [32:47] It's not credible. We've seen the president's social media posts. We've heard from career prosecutors. We've seen the judges appointed by presidents of both parties throwing out meritless cases and subpoenas. [33:01] Mr. Chairman, if the president can direct prosecutors to go after people like Jim Comey and Jerome Powell, he can go after any American that is not equal justice under the law. [33:15] We've all seen the department can be used also to reward the president's friends under acting attorney general branch branch branch. [33:26] The department moved to vacate convictions of leaders of the Oath Keepers and proud boys who participated in January six and a matter of less public note. [33:36] But incredibly important to our economy is antitrust. It is devastating to our economy if the Justice Department stands back and lets the big get bigger and the small get crushed. [33:51] And that is exactly what's happening right now. As a former top Trump administration antitrust official said antitrust cases in this last year, quote, were being resolved based on political connections, not the legal merit. [34:08] And quote, as just one example, after ousting Gail Slater, the former and well-respected head of the antitrust division, who 20 of the 22 senators on this committee voted for the department abandoned the case against Live Nation after the president met with the company CEO and discussed the litigation. [34:32] And we know how that story ended with the state's attorney general Democrat and Republican continuing that cases and winning in a big way. [34:42] And now we await the remedies not from the Justice Department sellout settlement, but from the attorney generals of this country. [34:50] Finally, I have great concerns about acting attorney general Blanche's willingness to uphold the department's independence as the president tries to use the department to undermine our democracy ahead of the midterms. [35:05] We know that under Todd Blanche's leadership, the Justice Department has already tried to coerce states, including Minnesota on the very day Alex Preddie was killed to turn over voters sensitive information. [35:20] In fact, they tried to tie that to the ICE presence. [35:27] Give us that will change that 19 federal courts in opinions issued by the judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats. [35:38] Have now found this effort to be unlawful. [35:42] The president has also floated the unconstitutional idea of ending mail in voting and the Justice Department is defending his direction to the Postal Service to not deliver certain ballots. [35:55] And according to state election officials, including Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, the Justice Department has stopped providing the briefings and trainings that have long been standard to ensure that state [36:08] states are prepared to prevent and respond to emerging election threats. [36:14] And when I pressed him, Todd Blanche would not even definitively say that he will not deploy armed agents to polling locations, whether it is not answering these questions, not providing transparency and accountability or repeatedly failing to enforce our nation's civil and voting rights laws, reproductive rights or consumer laws. [36:35] I have grave concerns with Todd Blanche's leadership at the Department. [36:40] What we need at the Department of Justice is the courage to stand up for the rule of law, like we saw from Tom Calhoun Lopez, an Army veteran and prosecutor at the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office during Operation Metro Surge. [36:56] He said that what the Justice Department told his office to do was, quote, antithetical to the principles of law enforcement. [37:06] Hagan Scott Scott and decorated Iraq War veteran who clerked for Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh and the lead prosecutor in the Mayor Adams case, who resigned instead of carrying out politicized orders, wrote this. [37:22] I expect you eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to file your motion. [37:31] But it was never going to be me when I think about the countless Justice Department officials who have stood up for the rule of law over the last 18 months. [37:42] It is clear that the president's lawyer, Todd Blanche, is not the right person to be chief law enforcement officer of the United States. [37:52] Unlike the public servants I just mentioned, he has shown that he sees his role to serve Donald Trump and not the American people and not the rule of law. [38:04] I oppose his nomination. Senator Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to speak before we take this vote. [38:13] Considering who should serve as the next attorney general is one of the most important things we will do as a committee. [38:19] And I think it's important that the American people understand the reasoning of each of us who are about to take this vote. [38:25] I've been consistent in saying there's three factors I consider for every cabinet nominee, and I have worked well with attorneys general of both parties and for presidents of both parties. [38:35] I review their qualifications, their experience, their capacity to do the job, but also their policy views and their character and independence, their ability to do to do the job with integrity. [38:46] Today, I'm going to focus on that third part character independence and integrity throughout the decade since the Watergate crisis. [38:55] Both parties have consistently recognized the importance of an attorney general who can and will stand up to the president and say no and serve as an attorney general in defense of the Constitution, not just the agenda of any one president will acting attorney general Blanche meet that standard. [39:12] We have clear evidence. He will not. You can literally take it from his words before this committee, saying the department is not independent from President Trump and shouldn't be. [39:22] And frankly, among many things that have been articulated in great detail by senators White House and Klobuchar. [39:28] I think the anti weaponization fund as a proposal and a concept, along with the sweeping liability release order that Mr. Blanche signed might well be the most brazenly corrupt and unethical thing. [39:41] This administration has attempted. It's bad enough that for weeks he resisted the simple requests of my Republican colleagues to just say in writing that this fund and order are revoked, finished dead, but that he is still refusing to make it a binding guarantee in a sworn statement submitted before a judge. [39:59] Is this because once confirmed, he will simply revoke this new order as he did once before it. Nothing would stop him from doing just that. [40:08] I have enjoyed serving with Senator Cornyn as co chair of the law enforcement caucus with Senator Tillis on important intellectual property issues, but we will vote in opposite ways today. [40:17] And so I thought it was important to lay out why. In my view, we never should have gotten to this place as acting attorney general when asked by the president to do something plainly unethical and corrupt. [40:32] Mr. Blanche should have simply said no, he did not do that. And I pressed him in his confirmation hearing whether he even tried to talk President Trump out of this widely rejected plan and he refused to answer. [40:45] So let's just talk briefly about transparency. They've called themselves the most transparent administration and Department of Justice in our history. [40:53] But in fact, there is transparent as the wall behind us, whether in Mr. Blanche's refusal to answer questions about the anti weaponization fund, refusal to advocate for victims rather than perpetrators in the Epstein matter, [41:07] or his willingness to answer my request for transparency on a FISA court ruling that both the chair and ranking of the Intelligence Committee have requested be released or the OLC opinion underlying ongoing boat strikes in the Caribbean. [41:23] I met with Mr. Blanche last week. I raised these issues with him and I await his replies. [41:29] Our citizens want and truly deserve an independent and transparent Department of Justice. [41:34] I don't think Mr. Blanche can or even wants to deliver on that goal. [41:39] So I ask my colleagues to put yourselves in our shoes. If four years ago we were considering the nomination of an AG nominated by the previous president who had said and done these exact things, what would you have done? [41:51] And I urge my colleagues to vote against this nomination. I will be voting against Mr. Blanche and it's my hope that he will surprise me and exceed my expectations. [42:00] But with a heavy heart, I am fairly certain he will not. [42:04] Senator Blumenthal. [42:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to join in thanking you for allowing us to speak before the vote. [42:18] Quote, I'm his lawyer, end quote. That's what Mr. Blanche told us he was. [42:32] I'm his lawyer, namely Donald Trump's lawyer. [42:36] Maya Angelou famously said, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. [42:44] The first time Todd Blanche is Donald Trump's lawyer. [42:52] He will say anything, do anything, conceal anything for his boss, much as in organized crime, the consigliere would do anything, say anything and conceal anything for his boss. [43:09] That is why Mr. Blanche was held by a judge in Florida to have committed a fraud on the court. [43:23] Todd Blanche is now in effect committing a fraud on Congress. [43:28] The documents that he has submitted, and I will hold them up here, that purport to change some agreement are, in effect, a nullity. [43:46] They are meaningless. They have no effect. They are non-enforceable. [43:54] In just a few weeks, thousands of young law school students will begin a contracts course. [44:03] What they will learn is that a contract can't be modified or changed by some outside party when there is a meeting of the minds. [44:14] And there was, in effect, an agreement, a meeting of the minds between Donald Trump and the United States of America to settle his case. [44:21] Now, Todd Blanche purports to change it. [44:26] This document is a sham. [44:30] It is a sham and a fraud on the Congress insofar as it seeks to change our minds by representing something that is patently false. [44:44] Commentators have talked about loopholes. [44:47] There are no loopholes here. This document itself is a sham. [44:54] In fact, one of its statements is that it incorporates all of Todd Blanche's testimony before this committee. [45:09] I want to hold up one part of that testimony. [45:12] Todd Blanche himself says that that agreement is an enforceable document. [45:24] So I suppose if President Trump's counsel sought to enforce it, potentially they could. [45:30] Of course they could. [45:32] Tomorrow, Donald Trump's counsel can go to court and seek to establish that trust fund, that thug fund. [45:41] Senator Tillis called it a payout to punks fund if he chooses to do so. [45:50] It is an enforceable agreement no matter what Todd Blanche says about it. [45:57] And if you don't believe me, you can listen to one of the most ardent advocates of that anti-weaponization fund. [46:09] who said the quiet powder part out loud on Twitter just recently. [46:14] Mike Howell, who Chairman Grassley called as a witness before this committee last year, retweeted Mr. Blanche's announcement with his own commentary. [46:24] Quote can be undone after Tuesday. [46:29] The anti-weaponization fund is great. [46:34] The president United States yesterday in the Oval Office repeated his commitment to the anti-weaponization fund. [46:42] We don't need to say the quiet part out loud. [46:47] The president is shouting it. [46:50] The position of United States Attorney General is a position of supreme trust. [47:00] Any of us who have worked in the Department of Justice. [47:04] I was the United States Attorney for Connecticut knows that the Attorney General of the United States, [47:11] like every lawyer who represents the United States, has a trust in going to court in making representation. [47:20] There is a presumption of regularity when a government lawyer appears before the court. [47:29] That's the sacred trust that a government lawyer bears. [47:34] Todd Blanche has betrayed that trust and his betrayal of that trust is disqualifying for his nomination. [47:51] Todd Blanche showed us who he was also when he, during this hearing, referred to the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6th as events. [48:10] They are not events. They were a riot, an insurrection, an attack on the Capitol. [48:16] We were there. We know what it was. [48:21] It was a violent, unlawful attack on our nation's Capitol that cost brave members of law enforcement their lives. [48:29] He purports to stand for law enforcement, and yet he is in favor of a slush fund that in effect rewards those individuals who attack Capitol Police in that insurrection and riot. [48:46] And he refuses to see it for what it was and describe it to the American people accurately and truthfully. [48:56] His prescribed rehearsed lines prepared by the White House legal team are meant to protect the president's feelings. [49:06] They demonstrate an unwavering loyalty to the president. [49:14] That is the through line. He is the president's lawyer. [49:20] He showed us who he was as well when he was talking about reproductive rights. [49:25] In a private call last week, Mr. Blanche again said the quiet part out loud. [49:32] In fact, he shouted it. He said to the participants on that call that he would work to restrict abortion in every single state. [49:42] That's not enforcing the law. That is a zealot, a warrior seeking to advocate the president's position against reproductive rights. [49:55] He wants to block states enacting their own policies and laws. [49:59] He wants to make abortion access follow the laws of abortion ban states. [50:05] In short, he wants to strip Americans of their right to choose and strip states of their right to govern. [50:16] The part of this agreement that purports to limit the immunity under our tax laws and protect the president against audits is in fact no limitation. [50:30] It preserves all of the president's rights to be above the law. [50:35] No person is above the law, but Todd Blanche is agreeing to put the president above the law. [50:43] There are more than 400,000 other Americans who suffered the same harm as Donald Trump when their private tax information was taken and released. [50:59] We have in this country a principle of equal protection of the laws. [51:04] Presumably, if Donald Trump gets this deal, they would be eligible to assert their claims for the same rights. [51:15] If Donald Trump is protected against paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes by this deal, perhaps so should they in claims they may file. [51:29] The cost to the government is staggering if this deal is approved as Todd Blanche purports to do. [51:39] And that deal is still in effect as a result of these documents. [51:45] Mr Blanche showed us who he was when he ducked and dodged my question about deep-sixing and killing an investigation into the possible pay-to-play commutation of an individual who was pardoned, David Gentile. [52:03] David Gentile reportedly paid $2.5 million to a broker to obtain clemency. [52:09] Clemency which robbed his witnesses, his victims of nearly $16 million in restitution. [52:18] When a United States attorney tried to investigate, Mr Blanche reportedly killed the probe. [52:25] That is not the behavior of an attorney general who upholds the trust of this position. [52:33] That's the behavior of Donald Trump's personal lawyer. [52:38] Finally, the most sacred right we have in a democracy is the right to vote freely and fairly. [52:49] My fear is Todd Blanche will be Donald Trump's lawyer in suppressing the vote and distorting the count. [52:58] He will defend Donald Trump if the president sends militia or ICE agents or the National Guard to the polls to disrupt the elections. [53:10] He will defend Donald Trump if he seeks to distort the count after the election. [53:16] My fear is that Todd Blanche will represent Donald Trump. [53:22] He will be his consigliary and he will put Donald Trump ahead of the American people and the right to vote. [53:31] I cannot support him. [53:35] I regret that this committee will in effect betray its trust in the party line vote that is to follow and approve Todd Blanche as Attorney General of the United States. [53:50] And I will be introducing a resolution today rejecting this tax immunity deal as possible precedent, seeking to stop it from becoming a means of others seeking the same kind of illegal privilege that Donald Trump will have as a result of this deal. [54:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [54:12] Senator Ronald. [54:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [54:16] I think it's very important to hear from members before this vote is taken. [54:21] I asked Mr. Blanche questions in three broad areas during his hearing two weeks ago. [54:27] First, I asked him about the Epstein files. [54:30] Specifically, I asked whether he would cooperate with the New Mexico Department of Justice's investigation into Epstein's Zorro ranch. [54:40] And I asked if he would help state law enforcement get the information that it was seeking from the Epstein files. [54:50] At the hearing, he said DOJ would cooperate. [54:53] But in follow up questions for the record, he dodged. [54:57] And I understand that DOJ is actually stonewalling, stonewalling the New Mexico Department of Justice in its request for information in its investigation. [55:10] This public show of concern contrasted with private dismissiveness is how he treated the survivors who met with him, the survivors of the of Jeffrey Epstein. [55:25] I asked one of those survivors about the meeting that he finally had with the survivors. [55:31] And this survivor said, quote, we walked away with a feeling of demoralization because he did not come into that meeting looking to work with us in good faith, end quote. [55:47] I thank and commend the survivors for their courage in fighting for justice. [55:54] The second category of questions I asked Mr. Blanche two weeks ago centered on DOJ's independence. [56:01] I asked him the simple question. [56:03] Do you believe it is the president's right and duty to order the investigation or prosecution of his perceived enemies? [56:14] Pretty simple question. [56:16] Mr. Blanche responded, quote, I can't answer that yes or no, end quote. [56:23] He might as well just said yes. [56:26] In follow up questions for the record, I asked him the simple question, if confirmed, will your highest duty be to the Constitution of the United States or to the President of the United States? [56:40] He left the answer to that question blank blank blank. [56:49] When he is sworn in as attorney general, he will have to swear to uphold, support and defend the Constitution. [56:59] But we know that oath will take a backseat to his loyalty to the president. [57:06] The third category of questions I asked him was related to the slush fund. [57:11] At his hearing, I asked him whether he had rescinded the order dated May 18, 2026, setting out parameters for the so-called anti-wapenization fund. [57:24] He testified that he had rescinded it. [57:27] In questions for the record, I asked him, give me the date of when you rescinded this order and this fund. [57:35] He did not answer the question with a date. [57:39] He refused to end this fund in writing until he was forced into it in order to secure needed votes from my Republican colleagues. [57:53] And how can we trust that the so-called death will be lasting when he has shown that his words to us at the hearing do not matter? [58:04] He was under oath at the hearing, but he's hardly going to prosecute himself for lying to Congress, which he did. [58:12] Mr. Chairman, I intend to judge Mr. Blanche not by his words, but by his actions. [58:18] Even though he said he would cooperate with the New Mexico Attorney General's office in their obscene investigation, it seems he will not actually do so. [58:31] Even though he claims to follow the Constitution and the law, he acts as the president's lawyer, catering to the president's whims and protecting the president. [58:43] And even though he said repeatedly that the anti-representation fund is dead, he had to be forced, literally kicking and screaming, to memorialize that death in writing. [58:56] And that non-biting writing will mean little when the president wants the fund. [59:03] And believe me, the president is loudly saying he wants that fund. [59:08] Who do you think Mr. Blanche will side with? [59:11] Is he going to uphold this so-called non-binding statement to me to secure today's vote from some of my Republican colleagues? [59:22] Or the wishes of the president, to whom he is loyal above all? [59:27] At a time when the Department of Justice has lost thousands, thousands of career attorneys with millennia of combined experience. [59:38] And when DOJ's independence from politics is no longer in existence. [59:43] I cannot vote in favor of someone whose actions so clearly make him ineligible to serve as attorney general, even of a department as compromised as this Department of Justice, [59:58] which basically is a department of retribution and revenge. [1:00:03] I urge my colleagues to vote no as well. [1:00:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:00:09] Senator Booker. [1:00:12] Mr. Chairman, I am shocked. [1:00:14] I think I've been here 14 years. [1:00:16] I have not seen something as farcical as what I've witnessed over the last few weeks. [1:00:20] We have a nominee that it seemed like some of my colleagues in a noble way were saying is unqualified unless he gives some kind of guarantee that what we now know on both sides of the aisle, [1:00:34] Americans think is absolutely outrageous. [1:00:36] A slush fund had been created for the president to dole out to people who've done the most awful things. [1:00:42] Literally people that stormed the Capitol and beat police officers in this building would not get taxpayer dollars as some kind of reward. [1:00:53] Universal disagreement on that and the fact that a president of the United States is not above the law and shouldn't be able to cheat on their taxes. [1:01:03] And so I sat back for days now looking forward to us at least all the things that Todd Blanche has done that is disqualifying for this job. [1:01:14] I thought at least we were going to be able to get an end to that nightmare. [1:01:21] And here's the thing, Mr. Chairman. Here's the thing, Mr. Chairman. [1:01:32] You even have conservatives coming out and saying these things are not worth the paper they're drawn on. [1:01:41] I have a lot of respect for my colleagues. Love the state of Texas. [1:01:46] But I'm going to say it very clear. This is all hat and no cattle. [1:01:50] It's hard for me to say this as a plant based guy, but where's the beef? Where's the beef? [1:01:58] This is ridiculous. We got nothing, no guarantees whatsoever that this slush fund still can't go forward. [1:02:07] We got nothing that the president of the United States can't cheat on his taxes and have no accountability. [1:02:15] Dear God, folks, it's not like we're talking about a president who is a saint. [1:02:21] No president in the history of this country has been caught in tax cheating more than this one. [1:02:27] A Pulitzer Prize winning document documentation of his tax cheating came out in 2018. Pulitzer Prize. [1:02:36] Donald Trump said, I'm going to sue you. It's all wrong. [1:02:39] That suit was thrown out because the president is a tax cheat. But it didn't stop with that. [1:02:46] He was a tax cheat with his nonprofit as well. He created a so-called charity. [1:02:52] But what did he do with that charity? It was cited by the state of New York for self-dealing, for tax cheating and was shut down. [1:03:01] We have a known arsonist and we have just in this committee given him a whole barrel full of gasoline to light on fire our tax laws and have no accountability for the conflagration. [1:03:17] This is so ridiculous that we are sitting back here and allowing this to happen. [1:03:23] A president that we know is a tax cheat. That is a fact. That is a fact. [1:03:30] We have now just given him an immunity to his tax cheating. [1:03:34] Now, here's an admission I'm going to make to my colleagues on the other side. [1:03:38] We've had presidents that have done things that, to me, do not pass the smell test and do not pass the appearance of impropriety. [1:03:47] I think this committee should pass a law that no children of presidents should be able to grift off their parents' office. [1:03:55] To me, it is ridiculous the corruption that we have normalized in America, that president's children can go out and sit on boards and make money. [1:04:06] That is wrong and that is corrupting. But they have become so obsessed with the billions, the millions that the Bidens have made that they have ignored completely the billions of dollars that the Trump family is making. [1:04:23] That is like being obsessed and using a magnifying glass to study the stain on the living room carpet when behind you is a mountain of excrement covering the living room couch and coffee table. [1:04:39] This is so outrageous, the lack of proportionality going on of my colleagues. It is laughable. [1:04:46] This is absolutely insane that we have a president of the United States that has now made $2 billion. [1:04:53] Doing what? Wow, he's such a shrewd businessman. Let me create my own crypto coin and have foreign nations invest in it. [1:05:01] Oh, and by the way, if you are a corporation in America, put my children on the board and they'll get no bid contracts. [1:05:08] This is the Judiciary Committee. We're supposed to be checking and balancing this nation. [1:05:18] Why have people on both sides of the aisle given up on any trust in government? [1:05:23] It's because we're surrendering any shred of integrity left. [1:05:28] And now we're letting an attorney general become the highest law enforcement officer in the land and putting no holds whatsoever. [1:05:38] I had hoped for two weeks that we would get something, two weeks that we would have something substantive to stop the world's greatest presidential tax cheat from cheating. [1:05:50] And we've done nothing. And this man is going to now sail to the floor and history is going to show it. [1:05:57] I know what's going to come out in history on this president, and I know what's going to come out on Todd Blanche. [1:06:04] And in the simplest way that should outrage any shred of decency my colleagues have, because this isn't left or right. [1:06:12] This isn't presidential enrichment. This is the deepest, most sacred urgency of this committee. [1:06:21] And I know colleagues on both sides care about victims of crime should have justice. [1:06:30] And here in the United States of America, one of the greatest sex trafficking rings we've ever seen when only two people over a thousand women sexually assaulted and raped. [1:06:46] Only two people have been held accountable. There are other criminals out there that haven't been found. [1:06:54] And what did the man that we're talking about becoming the attorney general United States? What did he do? [1:07:00] Well, he joined in the Situation Room in the White House. You all know what the Situation Room is, right? [1:07:07] This is where we go to deal with the greatest national security threats in a classified room to deal with the safety of our nation. [1:07:17] And yet this administration in the Situation Room calls an emergency meeting at which Todd Blanche was there to say, what are we going to do? [1:07:27] Because the president appears in the Epstein files hundreds of times. They didn't get together to say, this is really bad. [1:07:36] This is eroding trust in the justice system. This is eroding trust in the rule of law. [1:07:41] We have to find a way to hold powerful people accountable. No, they came together with Todd Blanche in the room. [1:07:46] How do we protect the president? And what happened after that? [1:07:51] One of the most unusual things in the history of our country happened after that. [1:07:56] Todd Blanche, at the highest heights of our Justice Department, ran to the prison of Ghislaine Maxwell. [1:08:05] This is unprecedented. This is, lawyers tell me, untoward. This is corrupting. [1:08:11] He didn't study the case files. He didn't talk to the prosecutors. No, he ran to the jail cell. [1:08:17] He ran to the jail cell and met with her for two days, insulting every single Epstein victim that had been asking for a meeting for years. [1:08:27] And after two days of meetings, did we get information that led to an indictment? No. [1:08:36] Did we get information that led to new opens of investigations? No. [1:08:41] Did we get one more conviction? No. [1:08:44] What did we get? That a convicted sex offender was able to leave her confinement and go to the cushiest prison in our land. [1:08:55] That by Bureau of Prison Law, by DOJ Law is a violation of their principles. [1:09:06] So Ghislaine Maxwell is sitting in the lowest possible confinement after giving no information that helped us get one more investigation started and has been silent. [1:09:20] And the man responsible for that, we are about to make the Attorney General of the United States of America. [1:09:30] This man is not our lawyer. He is not America's lawyer. He is about to become Trump's sword against his adversaries and shield against any scrutiny. [1:09:44] The shield is going to shield him from tax cheating. The shield is going to shield him from investigation for any involvement he may have had in Epstein's deeds. [1:09:54] And the sword, I've seen it, unprecedented that the Attorney General should investigate colleagues here on this committee. [1:10:04] This is farcical. It would be literally laughably funny if it wasn't so dangerous. [1:10:14] We are about to put a person in one of the most powerful positions in the land, vital for not only enforcing the law, protecting national security, but also vital for upholding our democracy. [1:10:28] And my Republican colleagues sound like Jan Brady, Marsha, Marsha, Marsha, Biden, Biden, Biden. [1:10:36] You are worried about a pickpocket, a pickpocket when it comes to grand theft larceny. [1:10:44] When it comes to our democracy, you're worried about someone who is doing petty theft while there is the murder of our democratic traditions going on before our eyes. [1:10:57] We are in dangerous waters, folks. We are in dangerous waters. [1:11:01] We are turning the ideals of justice and this committee into a mockery by letting the least qualified person, a person proven to do Donald Trump's will over the law. [1:11:13] He is about Trump and not truth. He is about corruption and not the Constitution. [1:11:18] He's about being Donald Trump's lawyer and not the people's lawyer. [1:11:22] This is so deeply wrong. [1:11:25] We will rue the day that we let this man have this much power under such a corrupt president. [1:11:31] Thank you. Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:11:35] Colleagues and members of the public, we've been hearing a lot about this tax immunity deal. [1:11:41] We've heard about Todd Blanche's mismanagement of the Epstein case and files, the evidence of Todd Blanche carrying out Trump's political agenda of vindictiveness. [1:11:57] And I'll have my comments on that as well. [1:11:59] But I want to bring us back to what it is that's before us today. [1:12:03] 150 years ago, Congress created the Department of Justice and entrusted the attorney general with the simple but profound responsibility to serve as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. [1:12:21] Let me repeat that to serve as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, not the president's lawyer, the American people's lawyer. [1:12:32] And even today, go to the department's website, its own mission statement lists, quote, independence and impartiality as its first core value. [1:12:45] It says the department must follow, quote, the facts and the law wherever they may lead without prejudice or improper influence. [1:12:57] 150 years ago, we created the Department of Justice. [1:13:01] It exists today with these mission statements and core values. [1:13:08] That's the standard. [1:13:10] And by that standard, Todd Blanche fails. [1:13:14] During the confirmation hearing, Mr. Blanche was asked whether he and Donald Trump were friends. [1:13:20] Remember his response? [1:13:22] He said, I'm his lawyer. [1:13:26] And then he tried to correct himself by saying was his lawyer. [1:13:31] That's a remarkable slip for someone seeking to become attorney general of the United States. [1:13:40] And colleagues, we know he spent hours and hours over the course of days preparing for the hearing. [1:13:45] And yet the first words out of his mouth when asked that question was, I'm his lawyer. [1:13:51] The attorney general isn't supposed to be the president's lawyer. [1:13:59] The attorney general is supposed to be the country's lawyer. [1:14:04] And if you recall, when I asked Mr. Blanche whether the Department of Justice has an obligation to remain independent from improper political influence, including influenced by the president, he refused to say yes. [1:14:22] He tried to justify the department's part of the executive branch and he's a member of the cabinet and the president's agenda. [1:14:30] The president's fixations and obsessions is what he follows. [1:14:37] It suggests he sees no problem with the president directing federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute his perceived political enemies. [1:14:49] It's not hypothetical. [1:14:52] We've seen investigations into former FBI director James Comey, into New York attorney general Leticia James, into former CIA director John Brennan, into our colleagues, both on committee, Senator Schiff and a lot of this community, Senator Kelly and more. [1:15:14] At the same time, Mr. Blanche has shown little interest in ensuring that federal officials themselves are held accountable when they violate the law, including but not limited to the Department of Homeland Security. [1:15:30] He basically stated that his belief is that the department should investigate and police themselves. [1:15:37] Remember, I asked him about this. [1:15:41] They're clearly incapable of doing so federal agents shooting innocent civilians, killing United States citizens on the streets of our country, detainees dying in record numbers in detention centers that are violating the standards that they're supposed to maintain. [1:16:05] So it's clear that under Todd Blanche, the primary job of the Justice Department will be to do things like defend all options to reward January 6 rioters who attacked the United States Capitol and violently assaulted police officers to ensure immunity for the president, his family for tax crimes. [1:16:28] And no, even with this so-called deal that hasn't changed under the supposed deal, Mr. [1:16:40] Blanche isn't prevented from creating a new anti-weaponization fund tomorrow by some other name. [1:16:48] It does not prevent Mr. [1:16:49] Blanche from using taxpayer funds to reward January 6 rioters. [1:16:53] It does not prohibit Donald Trump and his sons from receiving immunity for their tax crimes. [1:17:03] To me, this doesn't seem like a deal at all. [1:17:08] But ultimately, it does nothing to address the real fundamental root problem. [1:17:16] The Department of Justice with no independence, a department that enables corruption, corruption that it should be prosecuting, a department that rewards people who violently stormed the Capitol and assaulted law enforcement. [1:17:39] What message does that send to supporters of the president after the next presidential election when we try to certify future results? [1:17:50] All this while the administration is ignoring the true plight of working families across the country who feel not just burdened but buried by the increased costs. [1:18:02] What does that say to crime victims across the country, survivors of sex trafficking? [1:18:14] What does that say to the families, those who have lost their lives at the hands of federal agents? [1:18:19] Agents face no accountability. [1:18:24] This is not equal justice under the law. [1:18:27] This is not the Department of Justice the way it's supposed to be. [1:18:30] This is not an attorney general that the American people deserve. [1:18:37] Our country deserves better. [1:18:40] Todd Blanche is not fit. [1:18:42] And I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination. [1:18:46] Tell our Republican members that we have two speakers left and to get over here so we can vote after Senator Schiff's done speaking. [1:18:55] Senator Welch. [1:18:59] Thank you very much. [1:19:00] Mr. Chairman, this is a story about how a young and talented and idealistic man committed to public service. [1:19:09] A prosecutor's prosecutor became a new person in service of a corrupt president. [1:19:16] It's a story of ambition and loyalty and political calculation eroding, eroding resistance and idealism. [1:19:27] Mr. Blanche has used his considerable talents to accommodate the corrupt goals of a corrupt president. [1:19:37] And by the way, Mr. Chairman, if we rejected Todd Blanche, that corrupt president would find a new Todd Blanche. [1:19:46] But Blanche is also a story about how a once great institution is relinquishing its own power in capitulating to a corrupt president. [1:20:00] Is there no line that the U.S. Senate will not allow this president to cross? [1:20:07] The Senate confirmed Bondi, Hegseth, Patel, Noam, and is about to confirm Blanche. [1:20:15] The president is abusing his authority every day in every way. [1:20:22] Shame on him. [1:20:23] But the United States Senate is failing to use its power any day in any way to protect the American people. [1:20:34] Should not the U.S. Senate use its advice and consent authority to demand competence and integrity? [1:20:43] Do we do that with Bondi, with Noam, with Hegseth, with Patel, and now Blanche? [1:20:48] Should not the U.S. Senate use its taxing authority to stop Trump's tariffs that we basically all oppose and are doing so much damage to small businesses and individuals in Vermont and in all our states? [1:21:01] Should not the U.S. Senate use its constitutional power of the purse to stop the invasion by President Trump, the executive, into the power of the purse? [1:21:12] And should not the U.S. Senate use its constitutional authority to declare war, to stop this illegal war in Iran, or at least even debate it, a war that President Trump is losing? [1:21:30] Mr. Chairman, the president is abusing his authority. [1:21:35] But we are failing, as a U.S. Senate, to use our authority. [1:21:41] And when we fail to use our authority, we fail to meet our responsibility to the people of this country. [1:21:49] We can stop capitulating today by doing our job and rejecting a completely unqualified man to be the top law enforcement official in this country. [1:22:04] I will vote no. [1:22:06] Senator Schiff. [1:22:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:22:15] I speak in opposition to the nomination of Todd Blanche to be Attorney General. [1:22:21] He should be rejected for five broad reasons. [1:22:25] The first is he has used the Department of Justice to enrich the president of the United States, and that is not the job of an attorney general. [1:22:35] Now, how has he done this? [1:22:36] Well, let's look at the IRS settlement. [1:22:40] And bear in mind, this was a lawsuit brought by Donald Trump, not as a private citizen. [1:22:47] He had every opportunity to bring this lawsuit in between his first term and his second term, but he did not do so. [1:22:54] In fact, he waited so long that the statute of limitations ran on that potential claim. [1:23:01] He waited. [1:23:02] No, he waited until he became president. [1:23:04] Now, why did he wait to bring this $10 billion lawsuit until he became president? [1:23:09] He waited so that he would have the power of the presidency to leverage the IRS and the Justice Department to make him more money. [1:23:18] So he waits till he's president. [1:23:22] He sues the IRS for $10 billion. [1:23:26] In a stunning act of self-dealing, he purports to settle with himself. [1:23:32] He's represented by his personal lawyers on the one hand and by his other lawyers at the Department of Justice on the other hand. [1:23:41] In a collusive use of the litigation process that was found by a judge in Florida to be a potential fraud on the court, to be brought for an improper purpose of extracting some kind of financial benefit to the president. [1:23:59] And boy, was it a benefit. [1:24:01] By some estimates in Forbes, $600 million of tax benefit for the president, his family, his sons, the businesses, the affiliates and all the rest of that. [1:24:12] Now, there was an effort and I appreciate my colleagues from Texas and North Carolina making an effort to try to rein in this tax settlement. [1:24:23] But what they attempted to achieve has not been achieved. [1:24:26] As my colleague from Texas rightly asked during his questioning of Todd Blanche during the confirmation hearing, [1:24:32] this is purportedly an agreement between two parties. [1:24:36] Can you representing just one of them or speaking for just one of them bind the other? [1:24:43] And the answer was no. [1:24:46] Blanche acknowledged that no, his statement alone couldn't bind the parties. [1:24:50] The president could insist for his part on honoring the terms of the settlement agreement. [1:24:56] Does this unsigned one pager somehow change any of that? [1:25:03] And the answer is no. [1:25:06] Look at this statement. [1:25:07] It says that Todd Blanche incorporates that testimony by reference, meaning the testimony before the Senate, [1:25:14] meaning that when he answered my colleague from Texas question that he could not bind both parties to the settlement, [1:25:21] he stands by that testimony. [1:25:23] He's telling us again, reaffirming in writing, he does not speak for both parties. [1:25:27] And therefore, this unsigned statement that only says that it's restating DOJ's interpretation is meaningless. [1:25:40] And that interpretation, according to this unsigned document, is that the order only has any effect, [1:25:45] including on any release of claims on the named parties in the lawsuit referenced in the order. [1:25:51] But let's look at the named parties in this. [1:25:54] The name parties in this settlement agreement, which the attorney general admitted remains in force, [1:26:03] applies to the plaintiffs, meaning Trump, his sons, and Trump organizations, [1:26:10] or affiliated individuals, including without limitation, family or others filing jointly, [1:26:17] or parties including trusts, parents, sister related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries, [1:26:23] by reason of, respect to, and connection with, or to rise out of any matters that were raised or could have been raised. [1:26:31] This is so broad and nothing in this supposed clarification changes that. [1:26:39] So if tomorrow the president wants to insist, let's say that tomorrow the IRS were to audit the returns of a subsidiary of one of the companies, [1:26:50] not a party to the actual litigation. [1:26:52] Do you think for a moment the president wouldn't assert that settlement agreement as a defense? [1:26:59] Do you think for a moment that a court would find that an unsigned statement, [1:27:04] purporting to restate some testimony in committee, would bar the president from using that as a defense? [1:27:14] And so we have this litigation, president, sue's president, president settles with president, [1:27:21] president never asserts the statute of limitations, which would bar the claim. [1:27:25] But no, this is used to enrich the president's family. [1:27:29] That is number one. [1:27:30] We should not confirm an attorney general who views his job as enriching the president of the United States. [1:27:35] Number two, we should not confirm an attorney general who believes that he has a right and a duty, [1:27:40] the president has a right and a duty to go after his political enemies. [1:27:44] Look, I understand my colleagues upset that their toll records were subpoenaed, [1:27:54] but I didn't hear any of you complain when my toll records were subpoenaed during the first Trump administration. [1:27:58] But let's set that aside. [1:28:00] Do any of you think that's equivalent to the Justice Department under Todd Blanche seeking to indict two of our colleagues [1:28:12] for a video they made that stated the plain truth that you can ignore an illegal order that you indeed have a duty to? [1:28:21] I mean, how can any of us count in its attorney general who would do such a thing? [1:28:25] Or as my colleague from North Carolina says, brings a seashells case. [1:28:30] How absurd is that? [1:28:33] Can there be any doubt that that was brought simply because he's on the president's enemies list? [1:28:38] I know I'm on that list. The president reiterated just the other night that he hates me, [1:28:45] which I could tell you wounds me deeply. [1:28:48] He's entitled to his own views about me or anybody else. [1:28:52] He is not entitled, however, to use the Department of Justice to go after his political opponents. [1:28:58] And the day we say that's okay, and the day we confirm an attorney general who says that's okay, [1:29:04] is the day that the rule of law becomes merely an unenforceable idea, [1:29:13] a quaint acknowledgment of a past Justice Department in which the rule of law once mattered. [1:29:20] We should not confirm an attorney general who believes the president has a right and a duty to use him to go after his enemies. [1:29:27] Number three of the reasons why we should not confirm Todd Blanche is that his efforts to protect the president and others in the Epstein Files investigation is a scandalous abuse of power. [1:29:45] He withheld documents implicating the president to protect the president. [1:29:53] He has never been able to shed his role as criminal defense lawyer for Donald Trump. [1:29:58] He withheld records, only complied even partially with the requirement of the law that he disclosed them when he was found out in that effort of cover-up and concealment. [1:30:13] And what's more, his mismanagement of the release of the files has victimized the victims again by publishing their names, their likenesses, their photos, their addresses. [1:30:26] We should not confirm anyone so incompetent, someone so indifferent to the suffering of these victims, [1:30:34] someone who only met with them because he was going to be refused confirmation for his refusal to do so. [1:30:43] Someone who met with the prime co-conspirator of Epstein, Jussain Maxwell, and sought exculpatory statements from her, brought no one of any experience with the case. [1:30:58] Who would do that as an experienced prosecutor? [1:31:01] Go interview someone in custody in a high-profile case without bringing anyone who worked on that case who could tell them the questions to ask. [1:31:10] Who could press them when they dissembled and lied as this witness has a history of doing. [1:31:15] And then oversees her transfer to a minimum security prison and gives us the false explanation here in the Senate that he did so to protect her from threats. [1:31:28] Such a person should not be confirmed as attorney general. [1:31:32] Number four, he has sought to compensate cop beaters with your money, with taxpayer funds. [1:31:41] And I have to say again, nothing in this new signed document of the attorney general, nothing in this stops the president from doing it. [1:31:53] And the president has told us he fully intends to do this. [1:31:56] Indeed, they're already paying off the president's cronies. [1:31:59] Do you remember Michael Flynn, the erstwhile national security adviser of the president? [1:32:04] He's already been paid $1.25 million of your taxpayer money. [1:32:09] This is a guy who pled guilty twice, pled guilty twice to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians. [1:32:17] And he's already made $1.25 million off your money, not using this weaponization slush fund, but using the DOJ's victim fund, the judgment fund as a slush fund. [1:32:33] And these cop beaters are already signaling their attention to file claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. [1:32:40] So even if the weaponization fund doesn't move forward, they are using the same mechanism to pay off these cop beaters and cronies of the president. [1:32:53] And nothing in what Todd Blanche signed is going to stop that. [1:32:57] What will stop that is a statute passed by this committee in the Congress that prevents this, that prevents taxpayer funding from going to these cop beaters. [1:33:07] That is the only thing that will prevent it. And we haven't done it. [1:33:10] Number five, this is an attorney general who has violated the code of ethics. [1:33:18] Now, that may seem like a small thing, given all the other violations, but it ought to matter to us. [1:33:23] He violated in this IRS slush fund tax settlement cases that judge in Florida found and suspects and referred him to the Bar Association for his conduct in that collusive settlement. [1:33:39] But more than that, during his testimony to this committee, I asked him about comments he made to CPAC, that conservative convention. [1:33:49] Remember those comments he made bragging about how there wasn't a single person left standing in the Justice Department or the FBI who had anything to do with the cases against Donald Trump and how he was applauded at CPAC for that. [1:34:02] And I asked him, how is that consistent with the ethics advice that you admitted to this committee you received from the Justice Department, that you have said you followed, that told you you must recuse yourself from involvement in any case in which you defended Donald Trump? [1:34:20] How is that consistent? And his answer was, oh, I was just saying those things to CPAC. I wasn't saying I did it. I was just saying all those people got fired. [1:34:29] But here's the thing. He did fire people involved in the cases against Donald Trump. [1:34:35] In fact, we are testimony last week of one of the people he fired. And here is his termination notice. [1:34:43] This is Todd Blanche's signature on a notice of removal from federal service for Peter Carr. [1:34:58] Peter Carr was one of the primary spokespeople for Jack Smith's investigation. [1:35:03] He was the spokesperson against the president in the president's prosecution for inciting a violent attack on the Capitol. [1:35:11] Todd Blanche writes, this memorandum serves as official notice that you are removed from your position, a public affairs specialist with the Department of Justice. [1:35:20] Signed by Todd Blanche, recused from any involvement in firing anyone in the cases in which he defended the president, firing someone involved in the cases in which he defended the president. [1:35:40] So this is someone who has violated his code of ethics, blatantly misled this committee in testimony, supported the establishment of a fund for cop beaters, concealed and covered up documents implicating the president in the Epstein files, gone after the president's enemies and used the DOJ to enrich the president in a collusive settlement. [1:36:13] Is this who we're prepared to confirm as attorney general? It appears so. [1:36:23] The fundamental problem with Todd Blanche is not that he's inexperienced, not that he's not capable, not that he's not intelligent. [1:36:31] The problem with confirming Todd Blanche is that he has never been able to shed his role as criminal defense lawyer for Donald Trump. [1:36:41] He just can't do it. He does not represent the American people now. He will never represent the American people. [1:36:49] He will never do what's best for the American people. He will only do what's best for Donald Trump. [1:36:55] And you cannot leave someone like that as the nation's number one law enforcement official, not when you have a corrupt president engaged in the most unprecedented self enriching schemes we have ever seen. [1:37:11] You just can't do it and hope to have anything left of the rule of law. [1:37:17] I urge a no vote on this confirmation and I yield back. [1:37:20] We now turn to the nomination of Todd Blanche to be attorney general. The clerk will call the roll. [1:37:26] Aye. [1:37:27] Aye. [1:37:28] No. [1:37:45] No. [1:37:47] No by proxy. [1:37:49] No. [1:37:52] No. [1:37:57] No. [1:38:02] No. [1:38:04] No. [1:38:08] No. [1:38:09] Aye. [1:38:10] The nomination will be favorably reported. Before we adjourn, I have some letters I want to put in the record. [1:38:14] I have some letters from, well, I'm not going to bother to read it. It's not worth reading at this point. The meeting is adjourned. [1:38:27] No. [1:38:28] No. [1:38:29] No. [1:38:30] No. [1:38:31] No. [1:38:32] No. [1:38:33] No. [1:38:34] No. [1:38:35] No. [1:38:36] No. [1:38:37] No. [1:38:38] No. [1:38:39] No. [1:38:40] No. [1:38:41] No. [1:38:42] No. [1:38:43] No. [1:38:44] No. [1:38:45] No. [1:38:46] No. [1:38:47] No. [1:38:48] No. [1:38:49] No. [1:38:50] No. [1:38:51] No. [1:38:52] No. [1:38:53] No. [1:38:54] No. [1:38:55] No.