Todd Blanche nomination hearing to serve as US Attorney General

[0:02] Thank you. [0:36] Thank you. [1:11] Thank you. [1:42] Thank you. [2:12] Thank you. [2:42] Thank you. [3:12] Thank you. [3:42] Thank you. [4:12] Thank you. [4:42] Thank you. [5:12] Thank you. [5:42] Thank you. [5:44] Thank you. [6:14] Thank you. [6:16] Thank you. [6:18] Thank you. [6:20] Thank you. [6:22] Thank you. [6:24] Thank you. [6:26] Thank you. [6:28] Thank you. [6:30] Thank you. [6:32] Thank you. [6:34] Thank you. [6:36] Thank you. [6:38] Thank you. [6:40] Thank you. [6:42] Thank you. [6:44] Thank you. [6:46] Thank you. [6:48] Thank you. [6:50] Thank you. [7:20] Thank you. [7:50] Thank you. [8:20] Thank you. [8:50] Thank you. [9:20] Thank you. [9:50] Thank you. [10:20] Thank you. [10:50] Thank you. [11:20] Thank you. [11:53] Thank you. [12:23] Thank you. [12:53] Thank you. [13:23] Thank you. [13:53] Thank you. [17:25] Thank you. [18:01] Thank you. [18:39] Thank you. [19:16] Thank you. [19:49] Thank you. [20:27] Thank you. [21:03] Thank you. [21:36] Thank you. [22:16] Thank you. [22:50] Thank you. [23:23] Thank you. [23:56] Thank you. [24:30] Thank you. [25:01] Thank you. [25:34] Thank you. [26:06] Thank you. [26:38] Thank you. [27:10] Thank you. [27:42] Thank you. [28:12] Thank you. [28:44] Thank you. [29:15] Thank you. [29:48] Thank you. [30:21] Thank you. [30:55] Thank you. [31:29] Thank you. [32:00] Thank you. [32:31] Thank you. [33:02] Thank you. [33:32] Thank you. [34:04] Thank you. [34:38] Thank you. [35:08] Thank you. [35:39] Thank you. [36:11] Thank you. [36:44] We're here. [37:15] Thank you. [37:49] Thank you. [38:20] Thank you. [38:53] Thank you. [39:26] Thank you. [39:59] Thank you. [40:32] Thank you. [41:05] Thank you. [41:38] Thank you. [42:10] Thank you. [42:41] Thank you. [43:11] Thank you. [43:42] Thank you. [44:14] Thank you. [44:45] Thank you. [44:46] Thank you. [45:17] you. [45:49] Thank you. [45:50] Thank you. [45:51] Thank you. [45:52] Thank you. [45:53] Thank you. [45:54] Thank you. [45:55] Thank you. [46:24] Thank you. [46:25] Thank you. [46:26] Thank you. [46:27] Thank you. [46:28] Thank you. [46:29] Thank you. [46:30] Thank you. [46:31] Thank you. [46:32] Thank you. [46:33] Thank you. [46:34] Thank you. [46:35] Thank you. [46:36] Thank you. [46:37] Thank you. [46:38] Thank you. [46:39] Thank you. [46:40] Thank you. [46:41] Thank you. [46:42] Thank you. [46:44] Thank you. [46:45] Thank you. [46:46] Thank you. [46:47] Thank you. [46:48] Thank you. [46:49] Thank you. [46:50] Thank you. [46:51] Thank you. [46:52] Thank you. [46:53] And this has been second case brought by an unqualified and unlawfully [46:54] appointed YouTubeитель. [46:55] Lindsay [46:58] Halligan. [46:59] So now, Mr. Comey is being prosecuted for taking pictures of sea shells. This prosecution [47:00] personally ordered by the president who despises Mr. Comey for overseeing the investigation [47:05] of Russian interference in the 2016 election. You have also baselessly indicted the Southern [47:11] Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization that has worked tirelessly to expose violent [47:18] extremists like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, a group which we in the Senate know well for their [47:24] January 6 escapade, the same people you gave a clean slate for their role in attacking this [47:30] Capitol. A federal judge recently singled out your quote, remarkable statements targeting Kilmar [47:37] Abrego Garcia as evidence that his criminal prosecution was quote, marked by a retaliatory [47:43] taint for successfully fighting his deportation. And despite my repeated request, you have yet to [47:50] produce the DOJ memorandum concluding that it was legally permissible for the President of the [47:56] United States to accept a gift of a luxury airliner from the royal family of Qatar despite constitutional [48:03] and statutory foreign gift prohibitions. Earlier this month, that jet was launched as Air Force One [48:10] despite credible reports of security vulnerability. Last weekend, the Department of Justice responded [48:16] not by addressing these concerns, but by sending federal agents with subpoenas to the homes of the [48:22] reporters who exposed these lapses. In less than 18 months at the Department of Justice, you've shown [48:28] you're still President Trump's personal attorney. Your tenure can be summed up in the four words you [48:34] said, quote, I love you, sir, to President Trump. This was your response when you asked what you would [48:40] say to him. This nation deserves an attorney general who loves the Constitution more than any single [48:46] president, an attorney general focused on keeping America safe and combating corruption, not [48:51] satisfying the president's personal grievances or channeling crypto cash to the administration's [48:58] mega faithful. Mr. President, Mr. Chairman, I yield. [49:02] Now we turn. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My goodness, I expect you'll be getting a lot of [49:11] questions about how one person may influence every decision you make and unduly influence everything [49:16] you do. And I hope you say you are absolutely right. And it is that granddaughter sitting right [49:20] behind you. She is the cutest thing I've ever seen. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. [49:27] I have the distinct pleasure of introducing Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. He serves and has served as [49:35] our Acting Attorney General and our Deputy Attorney General. And amongst all of the questioning today, [49:42] most of which I hope is in good faith, sometimes it gets lost that he is a former prosecutor and [49:50] dedicated his life to prosecuting for this nation. The greatest testament to his good character and wise [49:58] judgment is he is now a Floridian and my constituent as the newest senator from the great state of Florida. [50:04] But he has led a very distinguished career within the realm of the Department of Justice of which he now [50:11] seeks to head as the permanent Attorney General. And before I go more into that, I want to thank you, Mr. Blanche, [50:19] for offering yourself not just first as Deputy Attorney General, but now as Acting Attorney General, [50:24] anyone of us on either side of the aisle sitting here today knows what it means to serve and what comes with that [50:30] and what that takes every day and certainly what that means for your families that stand beside [50:36] and behind you and sometimes hold you up throughout the process. We thank you and we thank your family [50:41] that is here today. Since President Trump took office and leadership, including you, entered the [50:49] Department of Justice, as you heard our chairman say, you have worked to achieve the lowest murder rate [50:54] since 1900. Violent crime arrests are up 184 percent. Over 2,400 gangs and criminal enterprises have been [51:01] disrupted and dismantled. 2,900 almost 3,000 child predators and human traffickers have been arrested. [51:07] That is an increase of 70 percent since 2024. And when it comes to fighting for a fentanyl-free America, [51:15] which we both appeared at a summit this week, you and the department are excelling there too. DOJ has made over [51:21] 6,300 fentanyl arrests, seized more than 5,000 kilograms of fentanyl powder, 55 million fentanyl [51:28] pills. That is fatal doses enough to kill 428 million people. And just so that everybody understands [51:34] what that means, that is more than the population of the United States of America. That's just a few [51:42] top line numbers on core operations at the heart of DOJ's mission. The DOJ is indeed in the driver's seat [51:49] of the war on fraud. And I hope members on both sides of the dais will give you time to talk about [51:55] that today, not only for their consideration of your nomination, but also so the American people [52:00] can hear about that. I know that you are in for a long process today, so I want to take my remaining [52:07] time to talk about you, the person, your career, Todd Blanche. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is a [52:12] patriot who was raised in the Department of Justice. He spent nearly, he spent nearly a decade in what is [52:18] recognized as one of the best prosecuting offices in the country, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the [52:23] Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted drug traffickers and violent criminals. In fact, [52:29] this career dedicated to justice and the rule of law started even before that. He started at the [52:34] Department of Justice as a paralegal. I love that story, how you started there and you worked your way [52:40] through the ranks. And it was always about hard work. Throughout time, he didn't just clock in and [52:45] clock out. He did really good work, such good work that he was noticed routinely and honored [52:50] for his commitment to excellence. In 2011, while he was at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern [52:55] District of New York, he received the Director's Award for Superior Performance as an Assistant U.S. [53:00] Attorney in the Criminal Division. In 2013, he received the Federal Drug Agents Foundation's True [53:05] American Hero Award. He received the New York City Police Department commendation three different years. [53:12] He received the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration commendation two different years and a commendation [53:17] from the FBI two separate years. And to round out this collection, he received recognition from the ATF [53:24] in three years. I think this is emblematic of a career that was really spent doing the work of the [53:31] people and trying to do it well, keeping his head down without seeking recognition, but he couldn't help [53:37] but get it because of the work and the superior performance that he was doing. And I really think that's an [53:41] example for anyone watching today, anyone in this audience, any young person at home, any young lawyer, [53:47] do good work, put your head down. You are evidence of that. You do good work, you do a job well done, [53:53] and you get noticed for that, and opportunities will seek you out, commendations will seek you out, [53:57] more than networking, political connections, anything like that. It is that in which people will seek you out [54:04] to serve. And it may be just that job well done that got you recognized by the President of the United [54:10] States and completely changed your life. Some members will try to hold that against you today. [54:16] They will ignore that long career and every commendation that you received before you ever [54:22] met or served or acted as an attorney for the President. They'll ignore all those orders, [54:31] and they'll gnash their teeth because they don't like one man. And I believe that misses the mark. [54:38] It completely ignores the fact that the reason you stepped up to serve is because you love this [54:46] country. You dedicated your career to the Department of Justice. And in fact, you lived out the motto in [54:53] Latin. I will not say the Latin because no one will understand that. But I will say the motto of the [54:58] Department of Justice is who prosecutes on behalf of justice, not who prosecutes on behalf of a political [55:06] agenda or to target someone who prosecutes on behalf of justice. And you stood up and took on that [55:13] responsibility. And so I hope today's questions will focus on allowing you to explain the legal positions [55:21] of the Department that you've been a part of or why you've made certain positions in cases or compliance [55:27] with orders. All things that might go towards how you were performed on behalf of this great nation and [55:34] the people you serve, how you will excel as an attorney general. But I suspect that nuance and good [55:40] faith will be the price paid for clips and likes by some members in this room. I hope today is the [55:46] exception. Nonetheless, I thank you for stepping up to serve, acting as the attorney general in this time [55:55] in which we are seeking for your formal nomination. I thank you for being willing to take on not only this [56:03] nomination process, but the job itself, because that will be an enormous responsibility, not only to [56:11] the Department of Justice and the people that work there, but for the American citizens in this country [56:15] moving forward. So I thank you very much. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I introduce Mr. Todd Blanch as [56:21] President Trump nominee. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Moody. Would you please stand at this point and [56:26] respond to this oath? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this [56:35] committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. Thank you for [56:42] your positive response. Now it's up to you to take what time you want to make a statement and introduce any [56:51] people you have with you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman Grassley. And thank you, Senator, [56:58] for that introduction. I appreciate you and your friendship. Good morning, Chairman Grassley, [57:06] Ranking Member Durbin, and the other members of the committee. Thank you for having me. As Senator Durbin [57:15] said a minute ago, I would like to offer each of you my condolences for the loss of your colleague, [57:21] Senator Graham. He was a patriot and a friend to so many to so many of us. It's a loss for the American [57:29] people. And I think honoring him today and as he's been honored for the past several days is [57:35] is the right thing to do. 17 months ago, I sat at this table as the nominee to be the deputy attorney [57:41] general. And I told you that serving in the Department of Justice was my American dream. Since then, [57:50] I have I've helped lead it first as deputy and now as acting attorney general. And I'm here today to earn your [57:56] trust once more. I've lived the American dream. I waited tables to get through college, moved to New York [58:06] with my wife and two young kids, went to law school at night, read textbooks on the late train home while I [58:15] worked days as a paralegal at the U.S. Attorney's Office. From that start, I became a prosecutor and spent nine years [58:24] prosecuting violent gangs and drug dealers. I rose through the ranks of the Department of Justice [58:30] as a line prosecutor, then a division chief, then as of last year, deputy attorney general and now acting [58:36] attorney general. But I did not take that path for a title. I took it to make a difference for American [58:44] families and the towns they call home. I am exceedingly grateful to President Trump for his trust and to my [58:54] family who have carried me through every long day and late night. My wife, Christine, our wonderful [59:01] children, Sydney and Justin, my granddaughter, Blaine, who's here today. All of them are here today. My [59:06] wonderful friends, many of whom are here today, are really what would make this worth it and what gets me [59:14] through my days. And so I want to thank them for not only being here today and supporting me, but also [59:19] being being with me every step of the way of the journey that we're on together. My family's blessings [59:27] should be available to all Americans. When a family can send their kids to school, walk their neighborhood [59:34] after dark and build a life without fear. Every promise of the American dream is within reach. When [59:41] they cannot, none of it is. That's my job, securing safety for every American. I'm pleased to testify [59:50] again today to tell everybody here that we are doing just that. We are keeping America safe. Since [59:59] President Trump took office, it's been said a few times this morning already, but it bears repeating, [1:00:05] murders are down roughly 20 percent nationwide. We have the lowest murder rate since 1900. Violent crime [1:00:14] arrests are up nearly 114 percent. We've taken almost 5,000 child predators and human traffickers off the [1:00:23] streets. And the Department of Justice has filed nearly 100,000 indictments and informations since [1:00:32] January 20th, 2025. Additionally, in just the last four weeks, in just the last month, we've paid 96 million [1:00:42] dollars in claims through the public safety officers benefits program to eligible surviving families of [1:00:50] fallen public safety officers. Even while fewer law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty [1:00:57] than the prior years. And obviously, these are not just numbers. Each one is a family that still has [1:01:06] its son or daughter and an officer who came home for dinner. If you look at Washington and Memphis as [1:01:13] examples, where we have worked with federal, state and local partners, pulling thousands of criminals [1:01:20] off the streets in those two cities. Homicides in DC are down about 60% and overall crime in Memphis [1:01:27] declined by more than 40%. We've seized thousands of illegal guns, brought more than 150 missing children [1:01:36] home in those two cities and cleaned up parks and spaces family once avoided so you can take your kids [1:01:44] and loved ones there once again. We are enforcing our borders. We are prosecuting the smugglers who [1:01:52] profited from an open border, removing criminal aliens and dismantling gangs like MS-13 and TDA. [1:01:59] We're smashing the cartels and ending the scourge of drugs in our communities. We designated the major [1:02:06] cartels as foreign terrorist organizations because that's exactly what they are. And we're using every tool [1:02:15] that unlocked. Narco terrorism charges, forfeiture and extraditions. Dozens of cartel leaders are now [1:02:23] in American custody. Drug seizures are skyrocketing and overdose deaths are finally falling. We are [1:02:32] protecting taxpayers. Last year, the department brought the largest health care fraud takedown in [1:02:38] American history. More than $14 billion and another $11 billion in total fraud in just the last three [1:02:47] months. That's money stolen from the Fisk, stolen from Medicare, from seniors, working families, and [1:02:55] we're clawing it back. We're doing all of this, I will add, through partnership. Federal agents, state [1:03:02] troopers, county sheriffs, local officers, and state attorneys general in your home states, all pulling [1:03:10] in the same direction. That is what happens when we fight crime together, and I want to bring that model [1:03:16] that we've done in a few towns to more communities in every state. Above all, we are restoring American [1:03:25] trust. In recent years, we watched the Justice Department turned against many of you and a former [1:03:33] president, and it damaged the public's faith in justice. We are fixing that. Members of this [1:03:41] committee on both sides have fair questions about the hard debates of the past year, and I welcome [1:03:47] them. I'm proud of what we've done to help American families see safer streets and to have a fair shot at [1:03:54] the life they're working to build. None of this is a Republican or Democrat issue. Every senator here has [1:04:02] constituents who just want to be safe. The men and women of this department are the [1:04:06] finest people I have ever worked with, and leading them is the honor of my professional life. We are [1:04:16] keeping America safe, and we are just getting started. I love this country. I love the Department [1:04:25] of Justice. Thank you very much, Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before this committee today, [1:04:30] and I look forward to to answering your questions. Thank you. Thank you for that testimony, [1:04:37] and we'll now have our 10-minute rounds of questioning. I'll start, and then Senator from Illinois. [1:04:49] I've long been concerned about concentration and anti-competitive conduct in health care technology, [1:04:57] but particularly in agriculture. Family farmers deserve fair prices. I held a hearing on [1:05:06] anti-competitive activities on anti-competitive activities in this committee last October on the subject of [1:05:13] agriculture. As I recall, as a result of that hearing, the president issued an executive order, [1:05:21] and an investigation was started in your department, and I've sent some pause in that right now. So, [1:05:31] if confirmed, do you have a commitment that the Justice Department will make anti-trust enforcement a priority? [1:05:40] And since I think there aren't too many people in the Justice Department know much about agriculture, [1:05:46] with some concentration on agriculture? Chairman, absolutely. You're right. President Trump issued an executive order. [1:05:53] I have worked already closely with Secretary Rollins on this very issue. We recently held a press conference [1:06:01] announcing some of the work that we're doing to not only deal with the anti-competitive behavior [1:06:07] that we've seen, but also to help ease prices in the cattle market around the country. So, yes, [1:06:12] Chairman, I commit to that. Our committee has received a lot of outreach about the department's [1:06:18] litigation position in Louisiana versus FDA. The plaintiffs in this case challenged the relaxed [1:06:27] regulation governing mail-order abortion drugs. Can you tell the committee about this case and explain [1:06:34] what the department's doing? Chairman, first, President Trump is the most pro-life president [1:06:42] in history, and the work that this department's doing in that space is something that hasn't been done [1:06:49] for 10 years. For the first time in a decade, HHS and the FDA are actually taking a real look [1:06:55] at what's happening with some of these abortion pills and whether they're actually safe or not. [1:07:00] As it relates to the litigation you referenced, it would be wrong for me to talk about any litigation [1:07:08] strategy beyond what's in our briefs, but suffice to say, Chairman, that as we talk about in our briefs, [1:07:14] we are not in any way defending what Biden and what his administration did with respect to that judge. [1:07:24] But beyond that, I don't want to comment on the strategy about that litigation. [1:07:29] This committee has also received outreach concerning the department's handling of the investigation [1:07:38] and release of Epstein files and your role in it. Some allegations include problematic redactions, [1:07:47] insufficient effort to follow investigative leads, a refusal to meet with victims, [1:07:56] and questions regarding the transfer of Maxwell to lower security prison. I want you to take the [1:08:04] opportunity to respond to these allegations. What would you like this committee to know regarding these files? [1:08:11] When President Trump signed the Epstein Transparency Act, the Department of Justice [1:08:18] undertook a Herculean task to review millions and millions of potentially responsive files. We were [1:08:25] required under the statute to do this expeditiously and very quickly. The Department of Justice did so. [1:08:32] We reviewed over six million pages. Many of these pages were not responsive. And what I mean by that is, [1:08:39] we intentionally over collected potentially responsive documents. So for example, there was a case going [1:08:47] on in Florida at the same time as the Jeffrey Epstein case involving another defendant named Epstein having [1:08:55] nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. When we collected materials, we collected everything involving Epstein, [1:09:00] including the Epstein that had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. [1:09:04] So the review of materials included non-responsive materials. The reviewers were qualified, [1:09:12] experienced attorneys within the department and the FBI. They took pains to apply appropriate redactions. [1:09:20] There were mistakes that were made. And so approximately one percent of the redactions had to be fixed [1:09:26] after we released the Epstein files. Chairman, we had dozens of lawyers on call 24-7. Whenever we learned [1:09:36] that any victim's name had been improperly not redacted, we immediately took the document down [1:09:43] and fixed it as soon as we could. That doesn't excuse the mistakes of which I take responsibility, [1:09:49] but it does mean that we tried to fix them. We complied with the act. It required us complying with judges [1:09:56] rules in New York, which required us to redact certain victims' names. Even if the victim was also [1:10:04] somebody who participated in criminal conduct, the judges in New York did not allow us to unredact those [1:10:12] names. The other thing that we did, Chairman, is we made unredacted versions of the entire database [1:10:20] available to everybody in this body. And we did that because of transparency. Remember, for four years, [1:10:26] there wasn't a peep about Jeffrey Epstein. The Biden administration did nothing to be transparent about [1:10:32] the Epstein case. We have been extraordinarily transparent in not only producing the records, [1:10:37] but letting unredacted versions be available to anybody in this body. And if, after reviewing [1:10:43] unredacted materials, a member had concerns about why something was redacted, they brought them to [1:10:49] the department's attention and we addressed that. So I want to make sure the American people know that [1:10:57] this administration, when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, has been more transparent than any past [1:11:03] administration than Biden was or anybody else. And what we did is we complied with the law. [1:11:09] And if we learn a new material, we will most certainly review it and make it available. When [1:11:15] it comes to the victims of this horrible man, we will never, never not talk to victims. We will never [1:11:25] not do everything we can to prosecute anybody that committed any crimes against any of these women. [1:11:33] And so that narrative is false. We have spoken with over 30 representatives of dozens and dozens of [1:11:41] victims since this process started. Any victim, if they're here today, I would encourage them to or their [1:11:48] lawyers to meet with the FBI. We will 100 percent investigate. There are no closed investigations. [1:11:55] If we learn today, if we learn next week, if we learn next month that there's an individual that we can [1:12:02] investigate, indict and prosecute out of the Epstein files, you better believe that we will. And so [1:12:09] we worked hard, the hardworking lawyers within the department to do the right thing with the, [1:12:14] with the, to comply with the act. And we did. And we'll continue to do so, Chairman. [1:12:19] Jack Smith and his team possessed that reviewed congressional information and other sensitive materials [1:12:26] officials when they shouldn't have. And they were advised not to describe the steps you've taken to [1:12:33] impose accountability so that this egregious and partisan misconduct never happens again. [1:12:39] Yeah. The biggest thing we can do, Chairman, is be transparent about what happened. And that requires [1:12:45] us doing a check on, on ourselves and on the work that, that happened before us and being transparent [1:12:51] with this body and providing records to you. I think when the American people understand and learn [1:12:57] what happened and the egregious abuses that happened, um, it will be a check on making sure it never happens [1:13:04] again. Um, we, we strive every day to not only move forward as a department doing the right thing, [1:13:11] but to make sure that any, any, anything that happened in the past, um, whether it's releasing emails [1:13:18] or, or admitting to the things that we did and the department did that we shouldn't have done, [1:13:23] um, to, to, to making, being transparent with the American people about that, that's the best we can do. [1:13:28] And that's what, that's what we're doing. Uh, I made mess messages public between Jack Smith's office [1:13:34] that appeared to relate to the Trump classified document case. Those messages showed government [1:13:41] personnel left open a classified facility and potentially mishandled classified information [1:13:48] causing a security violation. Well, defense counsels to Trump, uh, did the government apprise you of these [1:13:57] issues? And secondly, did the Biden justice administration do any investigation into this [1:14:03] misconduct? We were never advised, uh, at that time when I was defense counsel to president Trump, [1:14:09] and I'm not aware of any investigation that was started by for that alleged conduct. Uh, the justice [1:14:16] department must do a full and complete investigation into this matter. Uh, this will probably have to be [1:14:23] my last question. On March the 15th this year, I made public a signed and sworn statement from an FBI [1:14:30] official. That statement says two important things. Special counsel Mueller's team lacked a legal basis to [1:14:38] pursue a FISA renewal of the Waleed Fares and investigate Thomas Burr, uh, Burrack, uh, but did so [1:14:48] anyway, what steps have you taken to investigate these very troubling criminal allegations? [1:14:54] And if you haven't taken any action, why not? We, we are investigating that chairman and it would be [1:15:01] inappropriate in this setting to get into the details of that investigation, but the, the sworn affidavit [1:15:07] that, that we reviewed from, that you provided, um, does raise serious allegations. Yes. [1:15:13] Thank you very much. Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, Mr. Blanche. Uh, [1:15:19] I have a few questions I'd like to ask you. Is it not true that Congress had to pass a law requiring [1:15:25] the Trump administration to disclose the Epstein files, the Epstein files transparency act passed by [1:15:31] bipartisan roll calls in the house and Senate to finally get the files made public? President Trump [1:15:38] signed that law. Yes, of course he did. After overwhelming numbers of the house members and [1:15:42] Senate members voted for it, uh, on a bipartisan basis because the administration would not voluntarily [1:15:49] produce these documents. I've mentioned that's not true. Well, what part of it isn't true? Um, we, [1:15:54] we were prohibited by law from, from producing those documents that you're, this is a judiciary committee. [1:16:00] There are laws that did not allow us to produce those documents, which we made plain, um, in numerous [1:16:05] court filings. So when, and president Trump had said from day one to release the files, even when he was [1:16:10] running. Yeah. And so, yes, he signed it into law and we comply with it. I remember and everyone in the [1:16:16] audience remembers the links that the administration went through to delay production of these documents [1:16:23] to the point where Congress did an extraordinary thing, discharge motion in the house to bring this [1:16:29] matter before them and vote on a bipartisan basis to compel your administration to disclose those [1:16:35] documents. Let me talk to you for a moment about the survivors who are in the room. There are 10 [1:16:40] individuals who were exploited and abused by Mr. Epstein. They are here today. None of them have had [1:16:47] a chance to speak to anyone in the department or FBI, though they've asked repeatedly. So can I get your [1:16:53] word under oath that within the next 30 days, you will personally sit down with these 10 victims and hear [1:17:00] their case in terms of what needs to be done by the Department of Justice? Chairman, I appreciate them [1:17:06] being here today. I also have somebody from my office, um, who's spent her entire career working [1:17:12] on cases like Mr. Epstein's. She's in charge of our task force investigating human trafficking. She's [1:17:18] available to talk to them. She can sit right next to you. She can sit right next to you when you meet with [1:17:23] these survivors. I am. I have never said I will not meet with survivors. Will you meet with these 10 [1:17:28] survivors? I'm asking you on the record. If they have lawyers, as you know, I'm prohibited from [1:17:33] meeting directly with them. I have met with counsel for survivors, as has many people in the Department [1:17:39] of Justice, over 30. But if they are represented by counsel, we will work with their counsel. If they [1:17:44] don't have a lawyer, I will certainly make arrangements to make sure the right people at the [1:17:48] Department of Justice meet with them. Absolutely. Will you get it done within the next 30 days? [1:17:52] I will get it done today if that's necessary. I mean, my point is there's somebody here [1:17:57] who can meet with them today, get their information and arrange to meet with them. [1:18:00] I think you ought to be in the room. Pardon me? [1:18:03] I think you ought to be in the room because you ought to hear this. You have a singular responsibility [1:18:08] for these files. Uh, there is a delay in meeting the statutory requirement of disclosure. You were [1:18:14] involved in that. I think you ought to be part of this. I am definitely part of it, and I have been [1:18:19] from day one. And it will be done within the next 30 days? I have, I can keep on repeating myself, [1:18:25] but I said it could get done as soon as today. It could have gotten done last week. We remain [1:18:30] available to meet with any victim or their representative at any time. [1:18:33] Will you notify the committee when you've done this? [1:18:36] Uh, that would be prohibited by law if they're talking about an ongoing investigation. [1:18:42] I'm asking you if you'll notify the committee that you met with the survivors. [1:18:44] It depends on what they said. I'm not sure I'm allowed to notify you, um, if there's an ongoing investigation. [1:18:50] Well, you're dancing on the head of a pin here. I'm not dancing on any pin. [1:18:55] You have these survivors who have the courage to come before this committee, [1:18:59] have the courage to tell their terrible stories, how they were exploited. [1:19:03] Don't you think it's important that we have a prompt response by our government to these survivors? [1:19:08] Absolutely. And there will be a prompt response. I, my heart breaks for every survivor, [1:19:15] every victim of Mr. Epstein. Absolutely. And I would love to prosecute anybody that did any harm to [1:19:22] these victims. Will you meet with them within the next 30 days? The last time I asked a question, [1:19:25] you can say yes or no. I can keep on answering it the same way. Um, I can meet with them. My staff [1:19:30] will meet with them. We have a staff member here today who specializes. If you can meet with them, [1:19:33] will you meet with them? Um, I'm not sure what you're looking for me to say. As I said, [1:19:38] yes, there are, there are, if they're represented by council, I'm not allowed to meet with them directly. [1:19:44] As you know, um, I assure you the FBI who are experts in this space, prosecutors who are experts [1:19:51] in this space and me, if necessary, will absolutely meet with them. I promise you this. I think I will [1:19:57] stay updated and know everything that's happening with any victim that has information about any of [1:20:03] any other people that work with Epstein that committed any crimes with Epstein. Absolutely. [1:20:08] Well, if you're truly committed to extraordinary transparency and you're willing to meet with [1:20:13] these victims, I hope you will do it immediately or we're going to hold you to it. I want to ask you [1:20:19] about the immunity provisions that you assigned, uh, relative to the, uh, responsibility and liability [1:20:28] of the president and his family and their businesses when it comes to tax audits. Would you like to explain [1:20:35] how we can give to the president and his family and businesses exemptions from complying with the tax [1:20:42] laws of the United States? It's, it's not an exemption to comply with the tax laws of the United States [1:20:49] as part of the settlement. It was an agreement, uh, that any past audits would, would be, would end. [1:20:55] The United States, your signature, the United States releases, waves, acquits and forever discharges [1:21:04] each of the plaintiffs when it comes to tax liability. That's, that's how it reads. It's pretty, [1:21:10] pretty sweeping. You don't think that is a discharge forever for liability of past of, of any past [1:21:19] filings. Yes. All right. It is. How do you explain that to American people? Everyone in this room, [1:21:25] all of us on this side, we have to follow the tax laws of the United States. And if we don't, [1:21:30] we can help be held responsible for it to the point of even criminal prosecution. Why did you decide that [1:21:36] President Trump and his family and their businesses should be exempt from that same responsibility? [1:21:42] As part of this, the settlement between the IRS and President Trump and some of his family, [1:21:48] two of his sons and, and his organization, um, as is typical when there's a settlement between [1:21:54] plaintiffs and, um, the IRS, part of the settlement included release of, of any past audits. It does not [1:22:02] give any protection to the president, his family, or his organizations for any taxes they file. If [1:22:07] they filed at the day after I, the day of that I signed that agreement or the day after they have [1:22:12] no protection. No matter what their liability, no matter what their violation of tax law, [1:22:17] you signed a document that forever discharged them from any legal responsibility. As part of the [1:22:23] settlement that we entered into any past audits were often, how often do you think that's been [1:22:28] done in the history of the United States involving the president of the United States? I'm not sure [1:22:33] it's ever been done, but this type of settlement is done regularly. So you're saying that when it [1:22:38] comes to the president of the United States, his family and businesses have no responsibility under [1:22:44] the tax laws for any wrongdoing prior to the signing of this document? No, I mean, I didn't say that at [1:22:50] all. I, I, what I'm saying is that I think President Trump and his family are the first president [1:22:55] that had their tax returns illegally taken illegally, um, and made available to the public. So that is [1:23:02] unique to president Trump. Yes. But this type of settlement is not unique to the department of [1:23:07] justice or the IRS. It's hard to explain to the American people that no one is above the law when [1:23:12] that type of document was signed by you forever discharging that family and that president from any [1:23:20] liability for violating the tax laws. Nobody is above the law. And when we enter into settlements [1:23:26] like that, we do it with all kinds of people. It's not just president Trump. It doesn't make any of [1:23:31] those individuals above the law. So let me ask you since, uh, you don't believe anyone should be [1:23:36] above the law about the January six rioters pardoned. We've taken a look at some of the people that the [1:23:42] president pardoned on his first day in office, the ones who attacked this Capitol and I'll use the word [1:23:46] attack because I was here and I saw what happened. Anyone looking at the videos knows what happened on that [1:23:52] day. Among those who were pardoned by the president are individuals who've gone on to commit serious [1:23:57] crimes against, uh, innocent victims across the United States. Do you think that blanket pardoned [1:24:03] by the president of January six rioters was the right thing to do? I think that this, the constitution [1:24:08] gives the president the full power to pardon anybody for any reason he wants. And so I, I don't question [1:24:14] president Trump's authority or is a decision to do so on January 20th. You don't question his decision? [1:24:21] As I said, president Trump under our constitution, just like president Biden has the authority to [1:24:26] pardon anybody for any federal crime. And, and that's something that every president, um, that's [1:24:32] a privilege, every presence afforded and, um, including, including president Biden and president Trump. [1:24:37] Well, I can tell you he may have had the authority to do it, but, uh, I think someone should have grabbed [1:24:42] him by the arm and said, stop. You can't release all of those rioters. Some of them actually physically [1:24:50] assaulted policemen in the Capitol. Some of them were guilty of crimes, uh, serious crimes before [1:24:56] that day. And for the president to give a blanket pardon to these individuals is something that I [1:25:01] don't, I don't think you can explain to the American people. You certainly can't explain it to the [1:25:04] policemen who have almost lost their lives because of these attackers. I yield, Mr. Chairman. [1:25:09] Before I go to Senator Cornyn, I'd like to enter into the record, um, for supporting Mr. Blanche nomination [1:25:19] from, uh, former attorney general, John Ashcroft. And this is a quote from the letter. [1:25:26] This rule of law is the best friend of, uh, liberty to safeguard this core value. America needs an [1:25:38] attorney general exclusively devoted to the rule of law and will honor his oath to the constitution. [1:25:45] Todd Blanche is the right person for that responsibility. His record and credentials [1:25:51] undergird my whole hearted support for his nomination without objection. That'll be entered [1:25:59] into the record. Senator Cornyn. Good morning, Mr. Blanche. Uh, congratulations on your nomination. [1:26:06] There's a lot to admire about your record or service to, uh, to our country. And, uh, I respect [1:26:13] the fact that you want to continue that service as the, uh, attorney general. As I told you in my [1:26:20] office, I think the, uh, attorney general has the hardest job in Washington, DC, because you are [1:26:26] at the same time, a member of the president's cabinet subject to dismissal, uh, whatever the president [1:26:33] wants for any reason or no reason at all. But then you will also have a duty as the chief law enforcement [1:26:40] officer of the United States. And, um, I think it's a very, very difficult balance. And I want to ask you [1:26:48] a little bit about that, particularly in connection with the settlement of the tax, uh, case. There's so [1:26:55] much that's unusual about this. First of all, the fact that the, uh, tax returns were leaked by a [1:27:04] IRS contractor, Charles Little John, who was appropriately convicted of a crime for doing [1:27:11] that. President Trump, uh, and his, uh, his family were, uh, definitely, uh, victims of a crime there. [1:27:18] Um, but it happened back in 2020 and the lawsuit wasn't brought until 2026. So, uh, with the two-year [1:27:27] statute of limitations, uh, it seems to me that, uh, that was something I know that was the subject of [1:27:32] pleading in the, uh, in the complaint and attempt to avoid the two-year statute of limitations. But [1:27:38] that struck me as, as unusual. Um, but let's talk a little bit about the set, about the, uh, settlement [1:27:46] agreement in the release. Um, first of all, I believe you have said that the weaponization fund [1:27:52] is a moot issue. Is that your position? Yes, it is a moot issue, meaning there is no weaponization [1:28:00] fund. The weaponization fund is dead. It's not moving forward. Well, I would refer you to the, uh, [1:28:07] settlement agreement. Do you have to have a copy of that in front of you? I do not. Okay. Well, [1:28:12] you probably know what's, what's in it. I'm familiar with it. Yes. I'm sure you are. On page four, [1:28:17] this settlement agreement can be modified, may be modified only upon the written [1:28:21] agreement of the parties. Has there been a written agreement of the parties to modify the settlement [1:28:26] fund? No, the settlement fund is just not moving forward. There's no, there's no modification. It's [1:28:31] just, it never started. No money went from the treasury to any other account. There's no commissioners. [1:28:36] It's not moving forward. Well, so the settlement agreement remains as it was originally. Um, [1:28:43] but you're, I hear what you're saying. Um, is it in, is the settlement agreement enforceable as a [1:28:50] contract by the parties? Well, yes, it's an enforceable document. So I suppose if, if [1:28:57] President Trump's counsel sought to enforce it, um, that they potentially could, um, including, [1:29:03] including the weaponization fund. Well, they could try to enforce the contract. They can't force [1:29:09] the department of justice to move forward with the weaponization fund. They could potentially say that [1:29:13] I suppose that we breached by not moving forward. They haven't done that. And I'm, I'm not aware [1:29:19] that they're planning on doing that. Like I said, Senator what, and, and Senator Durbin talked about this, [1:29:25] but I've talked extensively with, with you and other colleagues about potentially, um, um, codifying. [1:29:34] So there's no weaponization fund, which is certainly something that could be done. And I wasn't [1:29:38] meaning to insult that this body, but just that in response to questions from senators about whether [1:29:43] that could be done, we very much are okay with that. But just to be clear, the president of the [1:29:48] United States, who was a plaintiff in this lawsuit, uh, has not agreed in writing, uh, to delete the [1:29:55] weaponization fund. And there's no guarantee that he or one of the other plaintiffs might raise that issue [1:30:02] by way of a lawsuit and, uh, a breach of contract lawsuit in the future. [1:30:06] Well, Senator, the, the plaintiffs have no power over the fund. The fund was administered solely by [1:30:12] the, um, by, by the five commissioners and through the department of justice. So no, [1:30:16] they don't have any power with respect to the fund at all. I suppose they could bring a lawsuit, [1:30:21] um, and then we would litigate it. But even if we were litigating it, there's no fund. So the results [1:30:26] of such litigation, whatever it would be, wouldn't be a revival of the fund. [1:30:31] I want to ask you about the release. And I know I'm guilty of what a lot of lawyers are [1:30:37] guilty of and having a chart you can't read, but I know you're familiar with this document, [1:30:42] which is the, uh, the release that you signed on May the 19th, 2026. First of all, um, does this [1:30:51] purport to release parties or people who were not parties to the lawsuit? [1:30:55] No, Senator. Well, it says here that, um, claims asserted by defendants or any of the [1:31:06] plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals, including without limitation family or others [1:31:13] filing jointly or parties, including trust, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates, [1:31:17] or subsidiaries. They weren't a party to the lawsuit, were they? I didn't hear everything you [1:31:23] just said, Senator, but the, the, the only parties that were, um, that, that had any, um, release [1:31:30] as respect to any potential audits, even if they existed or the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. [1:31:35] Did you, did you talk to the president about, uh, the settlement? [1:31:39] He originally sued for $10 billion and settled for an apology and this weaponization fund and then the [1:31:46] release of future, uh, liability for tax audits to, uh, did you discuss it with him? [1:31:51] No, I did not. He had outside counsel. I did not discuss it with his outside counsel either. [1:31:58] It was done by other people in the office. And the, uh, this also, this was a lawsuit brought [1:32:05] Can I, can I qualify that? Sure. After, um, when, when we determined not to move forward, [1:32:10] um, as, as the president has said, um, that's the only time that he and I had any conversations [1:32:16] about this at all was after when it was dead, when we said, we're not moving forward. [1:32:21] And this lawsuit was brought against the IRS and treasury, yet this release purports to, [1:32:28] uh, apply to defendants or other agencies or departments. So does this release apply to, [1:32:39] let's say, uh, uh, investigation by the security and exchange commission or some other federal agency? [1:32:45] No, that's the standard language that we use when we enter into, um, settlements between [1:32:52] plaintiffs and the IRS. But no, it doesn't bind, um, it's, it's issued by me because statutes require [1:32:59] and authorize me to do that, um, as opposed to other, um, cabinet members. And it, in this case, [1:33:05] it binds only the IRS and by extension, the treasury. Well, I, I hear what you're saying, [1:33:11] but I certainly don't read that in the, in the agreement. But let me, let me turn, [1:33:15] since I only have a few minutes left. Uh, Senator, uh, Grassley raised the issue of the [1:33:22] mefeprestone, uh, lawsuit. And just to be clear, you, you understand the difference between the [1:33:28] morning after pill and mefeprestone, don't you? Yes. And so mefeprestone is a, is a chemical [1:33:36] abortion that can be administered up to 10 weeks of gestation. Um, the, uh, length of gestation [1:33:44] should be, it's, uh, according to the medical literature, uh, confirmed by ultrasound or [1:33:50] clinical assessment by a healthcare provider. And, um, it's generally safe and effective for, [1:33:57] by, according to the literature when used under medical guidance. But the problem is that, um, [1:34:03] President Biden's administration changed the Trump policy and allowed the administration of this [1:34:10] abortion, chemical abortion drug without any medical guidance whatsoever. And, uh, as you know, [1:34:17] I've written a letter, Senator Tillis and I sent a letter, uh, yesterday. And, uh, what I would [1:34:23] appreciate, I understand you can't necessarily, uh, talk too much about your litigation strategy in the [1:34:29] case of Louisiana against FDA, but I would appreciate it if you would respond to this letter, [1:34:34] uh, for the record about the intentions of the administration. If President Trump is the most [1:34:40] pro-life president, this ought to be a pretty easy call, uh, because women are hurt as a result of, [1:34:48] uh, uh, side effects, uh, heavy bleeding, prolonged, uh, potentially infection or sepsis, [1:34:54] uh, incomplete abortion, other complications when this is being sold through the mail or through, [1:35:01] uh, online, uh, online, uh, prescription. Uh, will you do that for me? Yes, Senator, I will. [1:35:11] Finally, let me just go back to the, uh, in the 50 seconds I have, go back to this release. [1:35:18] This reports to release lawfare or weaponization and or weaponization. Those aren't legal terms of [1:35:31] art, are they? I think they are just legal terms of art. They're not, there's not. Have they been [1:35:37] defined in any case or any statute? Not that I'm aware of, no. So they're not a legal term of art? [1:35:44] Well, I think that they, they, the terms have been, um, used by the legal community and by people [1:35:51] within government, but no, I don't, I'm not sure that they're in Black's Law Dictionary. [1:35:55] So we don't know what that covers? Well, I think it depends on the [1:35:59] circumstances of the facts presented as to whether it covers, as to what it covers. Sorry. [1:36:04] Thank you. My time's up. Klobuchar. Uh, thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chair. Um, [1:36:12] Mr. Blanche, after both the assassination of Melissa Hortman, our former Speaker of the House, [1:36:19] and after the Annunciation school shooting in which 20 people, uh, were gunned down through [1:36:25] stained glass windows, federal law enforcement, as you and I discussed in my office a few weeks ago, [1:36:31] worked cooperatively with state and local. And we also know that they've worked together on the [1:36:37] important work, uh, going on in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota with regard to fraud [1:36:43] and the ongoing fraud investigation. And I know we have your commitment to continue giving resources [1:36:50] for that investigation. Is that correct? Yes, absolutely. Thank you. So, um, we also discussed my [1:36:56] concern about the lack of cooperation we saw after the horrific killings of Renee Good and Alex Preddy, [1:37:04] uh, with the federal government refusing to cooperate with state law enforcement for months, [1:37:10] blocking Minnesota investigators from accessing the, accessing the scene of Alex's death, [1:37:17] even though they had a judicial warrant. Um, they also failed to secure, according to news reports, [1:37:23] failed to secure and process the scene, failed to process Renee Good's car for evidence. Uh, when we [1:37:30] met a few weeks ago, um, at length, I asked you to ensure full cooperation, and I appreciated that the [1:37:36] department shared evidence with state investigators early this week. Will you commit, uh, to continued [1:37:44] information sharing between federal and state investigators in these cases, as well as with [1:37:51] regard to the recent shootings in Texas and Maine? I expect that these investigations should be run [1:37:58] as every investigation of similar kinds. And so that necessarily includes, um, working with state and [1:38:05] locals in the appropriate way. I think that the definition of full cooperation, um, can be disputed, [1:38:12] but I very much expect that whether it's the inspector general or the US attorney's office or the FBI [1:38:18] or who's ever on the federal side of the investigation, where appropriate to, to work with state and [1:38:24] locals, um, I think a lot of the news reporting that you referenced is actually not accurate with what [1:38:30] has been happening since the unfortunate events, um, several months ago. Okay. But that aside, we've seen [1:38:35] these recent shootings in Maine and the reactions of the communities understandably concerned as well as [1:38:42] Texas, um, and, um, I think that this is, people are going to want accountability in these cases. And one of the [1:38:50] things that doesn't get as much attention is, um, the non-death cases. The Hmong elder pulled out of his [1:38:56] house in Minnesota in his underwear and Crocs in 10 below zero weather. And as the nation's chief law enforcement [1:39:04] official, do you agree that it is unacceptable for federal agents to forcibly enter someone's home [1:39:09] without a warrant and drag them onto the street without even checking that they have the right [1:39:14] person? Well, it depends on the circumstances as you just, as you know, I mean, yes, obviously law [1:39:20] enforcement agents need a warrant to enter a house except for limited exceptions to that. Um, so, so yes, we, [1:39:27] we very much believe in, um, the, uh, the constitutional protections afforded of American citizens. The same [1:39:35] protections are not afforded people who are here illegally. So it's not a black and white answer where I can [1:39:41] say yes or no, but yes, I very much expect the law to be followed by our law enforcement agents. [1:39:46] So since the civil war along those lines, federal law has made it clear that the president does not have the authority to [1:39:53] deploy armed federal officials to election sites. Uh, will you commit to following clear federal law [1:40:00] and not deploying federal agents to polling locations? I will commit to following the law center, [1:40:06] of course. Okay. Does that include not deploying federal agents to polling places? I will absolutely [1:40:14] follow the law no matter what it includes. So yes. Do you understand why voters, U.S. citizens, [1:40:20] are concerned about armed agents at polling places? I'm, I'm not aware of armed agents being at polling [1:40:28] places. Um, so I don't, I'm not aware of that concern, but I will tell you, we will follow the law, [1:40:34] Senator. All right. Uh, the DOJ has carried out a campaign to push states to turn over voters, [1:40:41] sensitive and private data to the administration. 30 states, including Republican led states like [1:40:47] Georgia and West Virginia have refused. In doing so, the West Virginian Republican Secretary of State [1:40:53] said, quote, I will not break the law, give up our state's rights or compromise the privacy of our [1:40:59] citizens. 15 federal courts and decisions from Democratic and Republican appointed judges have all [1:41:06] found that these actions to force, um, the states, uh, to turn over this data, uh, to, uh, is unlawful. [1:41:16] Could you discuss how cutting off anti-terrorism funding to states that refuse something that 15 federal [1:41:24] courts have found to be illegal enhances our national security? So those cases are, are still being litigated. [1:41:32] So I, I, I can't talk specifically about the, the cases that you mentioned, but overall, what I will [1:41:38] say, Senator, is that, um, election integrity is extraordinarily important to this administration. [1:41:44] It's important to this body. And so to the extent that the work that we're doing is to [1:41:49] make sure that we have fair and honest elections, that the only people voting are the people who are [1:41:54] eligible to vote and that they're only voting once that's, that's important. [1:41:58] If secure elections important, how does stopping the longstanding practice of critical information [1:42:04] sharing and scenario planning between the DOJ, other federal agencies and state and local election [1:42:10] officials promote election security? Because we have been, we have heard from our own secretary of [1:42:17] state that Steve Simon, that the standard briefings trainings have not happened. [1:42:22] We're not doing that. So I, I, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but, but I'm, I'm happy to, [1:42:28] follow up with your office about that. Appreciate that. Appreciate that. [1:42:32] So, um, you and I, uh, talked about, um, some of the antitrust concerns I have the independence [1:42:39] of the department. I was very concerned by the department's weak settlement of the [1:42:45] monopolization suit against Live Nation Ticketmaster. Um, do you believe that this settlement was good [1:42:52] for consumers? And if so, then why didn't, there was another case, of course, that the state attorney [1:42:59] generals brought that it's going to result in much better protections for consumers. Why didn't the DOJ, [1:43:06] uh, join them stay in that suit? I share your concerns. And, and yes, I do believe that settlement [1:43:11] was good for consumers. We, um, we got a, the American people got a lot out of that settlement with Live Nation. [1:43:17] And, and, and you talk about another case that's separate, that's ongoing litigation that could [1:43:21] potentially take years to resolve. And so, um, when we make a decision as a department to, to settle a [1:43:27] case, we, we are only thinking about the American consumer and making sure that, that we're complying [1:43:33] not only with the laws, but with what's right for. Did the White House have any involvement in that [1:43:38] decision? In, in the decision regarding which case? To settle the Ticketmaster case. The, [1:43:44] we work at times closely with White House counsel on certain issues. Um, I am sure that, um, I, I wasn't [1:43:52] directly part of, um, discussions, but so, so I, I can't speak to that, but I, I'm mostly not saying [1:43:58] they were not part of it. So, okay. Are you concerned that former Republican Principal Deputy Assistant [1:44:04] Attorney General Roger Alpert, who has appeared before this committee as a Republican witness, uh, [1:44:09] in the past has said that in your department, antitrust cases are being resolved based on political [1:44:16] connections, not the legal merits? Um, no, his words don't concern me because they're not true. [1:44:23] Well, a lot of us disagree on that front. So, um, I want to turn to some, um, sort of number of issues [1:44:31] involving, um, security. So, in the wake of the shooting last year, Annunciation Catholic School [1:44:38] was approved to receive funding through the office for victims of crime, for mental health, [1:44:43] and other support services. And I appreciate that the department has worked closely with the [1:44:48] Annunciation community on this issue. Um, but the delays in the release of these funds are creating [1:44:53] budget concerns. Um, could you commit to work with me on getting those funds to the school? [1:44:59] Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Uh, the president's most recent budget reduces COPS office funding by nearly 500 [1:45:07] million eliminates the stop school violence program that I championed with Senator Hatch. He was the [1:45:13] lead on it. Um, are you concerned that cutting this funding will impact school safety? [1:45:19] Uh, no, we have, we have, um, I understand the question. I fully expect that the grants that, [1:45:26] that ultimately are included in the, the budget that's passed will make sure that we're providing [1:45:31] appropriate funds to, to our communities so that they can continue their good work. [1:45:35] Um, I have concerns about, and I've heard this from several law enforcement and domestic violence [1:45:41] groups about the DOJ plan to consolidate the pop cops program, HIDA program, office and violence against [1:45:49] women. Um, and why do you think this will be helpful? Uh, because, uh, we believe that they have [1:45:56] very different functions. I agree with you. That's not what we're doing. There will still be three [1:46:00] separate functions. What we're doing is consolidating above them to one group so that the application [1:46:06] process is, is smoother and easier for, for grantees to, to do their work. And also so that [1:46:12] internally, some of the bureaucracy that was involved in having three separate bureaucratic streams [1:46:19] doing the same work, even though you're right, the underlying programs serve different functions [1:46:24] was not efficient. So we're, we're making that efficient. [1:46:26] And I'll follow up with you with some of the domestic violence grants. Um, and also just want [1:46:31] to mention the continued enforcement under the take it down act that Senator Cruz and I passed and how [1:46:37] important that is going forward. Thank you, Senator. Yes. [1:46:40] Before I go to Senator Kennedy, I'd like to read a letter supporting the nominee from the National [1:46:48] Association of Police Organizations. More than 1000 police organizations and 250,000 law enforcement officers, [1:46:57] nationwide is represented by this letter. Quote, Mr. Brett Blanche has proven his commitment to the rule of law [1:47:05] and a fair and impartial justice system. As deputy attorney general and later acting attorney general, [1:47:11] he has built a strong partisanship with law enforcement, uh, enforce, enforcement community. [1:47:20] From supporting the department of justice, law enforcement assistance grant programs to working to ensure [1:47:26] accountability within the public safety officers benefits program. He's considered, uh, [1:47:36] he is consistently endeavored to meet the needs of state and local law enforcement officers [1:47:42] and their families end of quote without objection will be entered in. Senator Kennedy. General, I, I, I assume [1:47:59] that you consider yourself to be qualified to be the permanent attorney general. Is that right? [1:48:06] Yes, Senator. I've read your resume. We all have, um, you don't need to comment on this, but it just seems to me that no [1:48:16] fair-minded person could, uh, conclude that you're not qualified. Um, you spent a long time with the department, [1:48:24] it's been a long time in private practice. So the opposition of my democratic friends must be based [1:48:34] on something else. Um, are you and president Trump friends? I'm his lawyer, was his lawyer, and now I'm [1:48:45] the deputy attorney general. So I met him as his criminal defense attorney. I'm not sure there's very [1:48:51] many people who have ever had a criminal defense attorney who calls that person their friend. Um, I now have a [1:48:58] Well, let me put it this way. Are you enemies? No, we're not enemies at all. No. Have you ever [1:49:06] seen a president of the United States appoint an enemy to be attorney general? I have not. Um, usually [1:49:19] they appoint their qualified friends, don't they? Yes. I mean, one president appointed his brother, [1:49:28] right? He did, Senator. And I can think of another president who appointed his former law partner. [1:49:34] Is that right? It is correct. Okay. Um, are you responsible for all the president's decisions? [1:49:48] No, Senator. I'm not. I mean, does the president get up in the morning and and and give you a call [1:49:55] first thing and say, Todd, tell me what I ought to do today? He does not. Does he ever ask your opinion [1:50:05] on actions he should take? Yes. Do you tell him the truth? Every time. Have you ever disagreed with [1:50:14] him? Yes. And has he ever disagreed with him and he did it anyway? Yes. And did you go call a press [1:50:26] conference and and uh, announced that the president made a bad decision? Absolutely not. That's not what [1:50:34] attorney general attorneys general do. Correct. Okay. Has he ever asked you to do anything illegal? No. [1:50:45] Would you do it if he asked you? Absolutely not. How many, how many, uh, pages of the so-called Epstein [1:51:03] files, uh, has the department released? Nearly three million. How many more pages are there? That [1:51:15] are responsive? We're not aware of any. How about, how about that in the department's, uh, opinion or [1:51:22] opinion are not responsive? Well, from, well, from what we collected, three million, three million, [1:51:27] that were just nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein or the case at all. Okay. Why don't you just [1:51:32] why don't you just release everything? Just let it rip. Well, that would be, that would be against [1:51:36] the law. Because the only, because the only reason we could release the three million we did is because [1:51:40] of the Epstein Transparency Act. There are federal laws that prohibit the release of case files. Um, [1:51:47] and the Epstein Transparency Act was very explicit and specific about what could be and should be [1:51:53] released. Other than to himself, well, first, we can agree, can we not, that Mr. Epstein was a pig? [1:52:02] Yes. Um, other than to himself, who, if anyone else, did Mr. Epstein traffic young women to? There's, [1:52:19] there's, there's from what we learned from what we know, but when we, so when we know, I mean, [1:52:24] what's in the FBI files and what's in the DOJ files, um, we, we did not identify, identify evidence. [1:52:32] And by we, I mean, career prosecutors, not, not me, not my leadership, but career prosecutors in New York [1:52:39] and career prosecutors in Florida who worked this case hard, um, did identify other participants, [1:52:45] some, some of whom, as has been discussed, um, were also victims themselves of Mr. Epstein. But we did [1:52:53] not have evidence, um, as of now of other men, um, who were, um, that were trafficked, um, that Epstein [1:53:03] helped traffic. That is, does not mean it didn't happen. And I want to be clear about that. It just [1:53:07] means that we have evidence, um, that the FBI gathered and that the Department of Justice gathered, [1:53:12] and that's the body of, of work that, that we have to work with, which is why I said earlier, [1:53:17] if there's anybody out there, victim or otherwise, that has information, I beg them to come forward. [1:53:23] Okay. Okay. Did, uh, did, uh, did Jack, did Jack Smith read my, read my emails? Um, um, I'm not, [1:53:34] I'm not sure, Senator. I don't know. Would you check for me? We, we will check Senator. Yes. Um, [1:53:40] I think he read Senator Grassley's email. How did he, how can someone at the Department of Justice [1:53:54] get Senator Grassley's emails without probable cause? [1:53:59] There are checks in place that should make it extraordinarily difficult for a prosecutor [1:54:05] to, um, collect and review a Senator's emails or a Congressman's emails or a lawyer's emails or [1:54:12] other folks that have privileged protections associated with their communications. Um, [1:54:16] and those checks and balances should always be used. Should always be used. But Mr. But Mr. [1:54:21] Smith just ignore them. I, I cannot, I cannot speak for Mr. Smith, Senator. Would you, would you [1:54:29] check for me first if he, first if he read, if he read my emails? We will check. We will check. Number two, how he got them. And, and number three, [1:54:39] I don't mean, I don't mean to single out my friend Senator Grassley, um, um, but, but, but, but, [1:54:47] what, what, what, what emails did he give of Senator Grassley? And, and I mean, I mean, were they, [1:54:53] what were they, what were they limited to at all? You know, you know, did he get emails for Senator Grassley talking about his corn harvest? [1:55:01] And, and all of that. And, and who did you share them with? Do you know if, if Mr. Smith shared my emails with, with Attorney General Garvin? [1:55:11] I, I do not, I do not know. Can you check for me? We are investigating that Senator, yes. Yeah, I'd kind of like to know all that. Um, now, Mayor Lori Lightfoot sent us, she sent a world letter, um, suggesting that, that we should not confirm you as Attorney General. Who, who is Mayor? [1:55:37] Mayor Warren Lightfoot, just for the record. So she's the former mayor of Chicago. Um, I believe she had a brief stint in the Department of Justice prior to, uh, her political life. Right. Um, and, and you had some conflicts with it. I do not believe she supports our administrative efforts, uh, making America safe again. Right. She thinks cops are a bigger problem than criminals. Would that be fair assessment? She definitely, [1:56:16] either myself or this administration supports, which is to always back our law enforcement. She thinks if a cop shoots a criminal, it's automatically the cop's fault. But if a criminal shoots a cop, it's automatically the gun's fault. Would that be a fair assessment of the mayor's position? [1:56:35] Well, her public statements suggest that. Okay. Would you put her even in charge of a ham sandwich? I don't believe she should be, um, any part of this administration. Well, the, the, the people in Chicago apparently agreed. I think she, uh, she ran for an election and got 16% of the vote. Is that right? Do you recall? I'm not sure what percentage she got, Senator. Okay. Um, tell me a little bit. [1:57:16] Under, under your authority, the department has concentrated on, which I agree with, uh, in addition to, to prosecuting crime is the prosecuting prosecution of white collar crime fraud. Tell me a little bit about that. We, it's incredible since COVID the, um, absolute thievery that's happened from the fisc, um, by, by people in this country. And so we have, we have focused tremendous, tremendous amount of efforts, not only in the new division, every, every U.S. attorney's office, every, every, [1:57:48] inspector general, um, and their, um, and their offices, the FBI, the FBI, DHS, and HSI, to, to just root out this fraud. You have examples of, of rampant, of individuals just stealing. So setting up entire, um, centers for autism when there are no patients, when there is no center, and taking millions of dollars of, of, of hard earned taxpayers' money. And so we are very focused on that. We've already, like I said earlier, billions and billions we've already collected in just the past couple of months. [1:58:17] That effort is going to go forward for as long as I am in the position that I'm in now, no matter whether I'm confirmed or not. And, um, and it's extraordinarily important to every American that this doesn't happen. Because we're not talking about, um, whether someone agrees or disagrees with a policy. It's just outright theft, um, by, by individuals. And, and, and unfortunately, many state governments, um, if they, if they, if they, if they didn't absolutely know what was happening and just encourage it, they certainly stood idle. [1:58:47] While it was happening, which is also a problem. [1:58:49] Don't, don't forget to check on my emails for me. Senator, yes. Thank you. [1:58:54] Senator Whitehouse. Good morning, Mr. Blanche. Good morning. Why won't you tell us what became of the $50,000 in confidential money that the FBI reported that it gave to Tom Holman? [1:59:11] I'm, I'm not aware of what you're speaking about, uh, to the extent that there have been public reporting about, um, an investigation. I know nothing about it. [1:59:20] Well, the public reporting is that the FBI reported giving $50,000 in the nature of a bribe to Tom Holman. And there's been no report of what became of that $50,000. Will you answer that question? Not now, but will you answer that question? Because we've been asking for a long time now. Your department certainly knows what's happening. [1:59:40] I'm, I'm not aware that that's true. Well, take a look at it and it's publicly reported and the FBI reported it and you should answer the question. That's not the only one. Here's a list of unanswered questions that I have just asked. [2:00:02] I don't know how it is that the chairman thinks that you've cooperated, uh, with the committee or that you've been transparent with the committee. That is not my experience. [2:00:13] You said earlier that you welcome our questions. Great. Answer our questions. That's the real point. [2:00:20] Where we've failed to get answers to our oversight questions. We've actually had to revert to the Freedom of Information Act, the general law of government transparency to try to get answers from the Department of Justice. [2:00:35] Here's how we did. Not well. We have this stack of questions that you haven't answered in the nature of oversight. We have this stack of FOIA requests that you haven't answered. [2:00:55] And I think it's important for us to believe that you actually take seriously your constitutional oversight responsibilities in order to confirm you that you actually take seriously your obligations to this committee, irrespective of party majority or minority in order to confirm you. [2:01:16] So I will ask before we get to a vote on this that you take a look at these and get us answers where we have had answers. Mr. Blanche, they have not been informative. They have been blow offs. [2:01:28] So let's move on to Trump versus IRS. [2:01:36] Our research indicates that senior DOJ officials have never in the history of the Department before faced a judicial inquiry into a fraud on the court participated in by the Department of Justice. [2:01:56] That was the inquiry open in Florida. The question about fraud on the court committed by the Department of Justice remains open in the judges decision. [2:02:07] Here's what she did find. She found that the Department of Justice colluded with the Trump plaintiffs, that the Department of Justice violated DOJ policies in that collusion, that department attorneys were derelict in their responsibilities as DOJ attorneys, [2:02:30] that the Department of Justice, that the Department of Justice filed to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States of America, its true client. [2:02:40] And as I said, the fraud on the court question remains open, an unprecedented allegation about the Department. [2:02:51] As a result of that, the order was transmitted to the New York State Bar for potential disciplinary proceedings. [2:03:00] I would like to ask, in addition, since this is new news, the decision was, what, two days ago? [2:03:07] I would like to ask that you say to us that you will be willing to provide all of the documents and communications between the Department of Justice and the Trump plaintiffs in that matter. [2:03:18] I'm not aware of any communications. I didn't have any. So if you put a request in, we'll look at it. [2:03:27] I mean, obviously, that's active, continued litigation in the Southern District of Florida. [2:03:33] So it depends on explain how it is active, continued litigation in the District of Florida. [2:03:41] Well, there's been several indications that the parties of I never entered notice of appearance, but the parties intend to appeal the judges Monday 56 page decision. [2:03:53] Well, it'll be interesting. Do you intend to appeal the Department of Justice? [2:03:59] We weren't really even part of that decision. So to the extent there's something that we can appeal, I very vigorously will encourage the department to do so. [2:04:09] Well, here's the tell. In that case, the Department of Justice filed no answer, filed no agreement with respect to the extension of time, filed no response to the case or controversy amici, filed nothing related to the withdrawal of the complaint, filed no settlement and filed no response to the fraud on the court inquiry. [2:04:38] To me, as a one time litigator, that looks like really weird behavior. [2:04:44] And when for the first time in history, there's inquiry into fraud upon the court committed by the Department of Justice, the silence from the department in response to that is deafening, Mr. Blanche, deafening. [2:04:57] And it strikes me that the stratagem here was to file no pleadings to try to keep the department out of the authority of the court when what the department knew to be a collusive and false enterprise was blown up in that court. [2:05:19] Now, it didn't work because the court found collusion and it takes two to collude. [2:05:25] And they also went on and made the other adverse findings about the department's conduct. [2:05:30] And the problem here, Mr. Blanche, is that it's not just that one occasion between judges appointed by every president harshly criticizing the department's work in your tenure, grand juries rejecting indictments, judicial findings of outright misconduct, capable lawyers fleeing the stinking ship. [2:05:52] This seems to be the most troubled department of justice in history. [2:05:58] Here are some of the misconduct findings against your U.S. attorneys. [2:06:04] And if I haven't put it up yet, here's a word cloud of the commentary by federal judges about the conduct of your DOJ. [2:06:15] These are red flag words that when I was a U.S. attorney would have provoked at minimum an internal conversation about what the hell went wrong and very likely a conversation with OPR and maybe OPR pursuit. [2:06:29] Words like pretext mean a lot coming from a judge about a government argument usually enjoying the presumption of regularity. [2:06:38] We need answers. I need you to be able to tell me that this kind of misconduct is going to stop if you're confirmed as attorney general. Can you say that? [2:06:48] The Department of Justice works hard. The prosecutors work hard every day. [2:06:54] And I appreciate the the handpicked words that you have behind you right now. [2:06:59] But that's not reflective of the hundred thousand indictments and informations that have been filed to do the work that I talked about earlier today. [2:07:08] And so while cherry picking a few isolated words from district court or magistrate judges in certain districts is something that you're entitled to do. [2:07:17] It's absolutely false to suggest that this Department of Justice not executing as we should in doing the right thing every single day. [2:07:26] I will tell you that you are wrong that in the history of the department, this kind of criticism by federal judges is unprecedented. [2:07:35] And it comes from judges of every different political persuasion. [2:07:41] Let me ask about the FBI. How long do you intend to put up with that Kash Patel character? [2:07:53] Are you good with his airplane jaunts? Are you confident he's not drinking on the job? [2:07:57] Are you sure none of his travel is a pretext for vacation activities like snorkeling Olympics and visiting girlfriends? [2:08:03] Are you sure he knows what he's doing? Do you vouch for him? [2:08:07] Are you willing to look at whether he lied to this committee? [2:08:09] That's an extraordinarily obnoxious question, Senator. [2:08:13] And I have full faith in Director Patel and the work that he's doing every day. [2:08:18] Great. You get to own that. [2:08:20] One last thing, if I may. [2:08:25] You have refused to exclude January 6 rioters from your anti-weaponization fund. [2:08:30] You have refused to put in writing that the slush fund is dead. [2:08:35] Indeed, you signal to allies that payouts are still on track. [2:08:38] You have vacated seditious conspiracy convictions against members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. [2:08:44] You hired January 6 rioter Jared Wise who had urged the mob to kill police officers. [2:08:50] You've scrubbed press releases about January 6 prosecutions and called the releases partisan propaganda. [2:08:57] You denied that Trump encouraged any violence on January 6. [2:09:02] You've cleaned house of every attorney who worked on a case related to Trump. [2:09:07] And you've bragged that bringing justice for violent rioters meant that every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted. [2:09:15] I hope that our colleagues who are concerned about what happened on January 6 take that into account. [2:09:20] Thank you. [2:09:21] Would you like to respond? [2:09:23] I would. [2:09:24] Almost everything the senator just said, and he's protected. [2:09:28] He's allowed to lie. [2:09:29] But almost everything he just said was absolutely false. [2:09:33] Okay, starting with the fact that I have never, I have never said that any sort of violence against law enforcement is appropriate. [2:09:41] I have never said that publicly. [2:09:43] I have never said that in a speech and I certainly do not believe it. [2:09:46] I did not hire the person referenced. [2:09:49] And that's that is, again, something that just happens not to be true. [2:09:53] When I talk about what happened with the January, the convicted January 6 defendants, I talk about what President Trump did. [2:10:01] It's the absolute right to pardon anybody for any reason he sees fit and every one of them got pardoned or commuted. [2:10:08] I am not celebrating that. [2:10:09] It is a fact. [2:10:10] And the fact that my department had to take action in response to those pardons by dismissing some cases is exactly what I have to do under the law. [2:10:19] And it's what I did so that the narrative that the senator just suggested and put on me as something I believe is absolutely not true. [2:10:28] Since he accused me of lying personally, Mr. Chairman, let me ask that I put this series of concerns into a question for the record. [2:10:41] And that you under oath one by one, tell me where there's a lie. [2:10:45] I'm happy to do that. [2:10:46] We'll get that to you. [2:10:47] I'm happy to do that. [2:10:49] Absolutely. [2:10:50] Before I go to Senator Blackburn, since oversight was brought up and responsiveness to of your department, I'd like to speak about how it was with the Biden Justice Department's non responsiveness to my oversight letters. [2:11:08] If the Biden Justice Department would have been remotely responsive, there wouldn't be such a backlog right now. [2:11:17] So let's not pretend for a minute. [2:11:19] The last administration was a benchmark of responsiveness. [2:11:23] And this administration to its credit has been more responsive. [2:11:28] I talked about, in my opening statement, 43,000 pages of documents that you have released compared to a lot less in the previous administration. [2:11:39] Senator Blackburn. [2:11:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:11:43] Thank you for being with us today. [2:11:45] Before I get to my questions, I would like to make you aware that when ranking member Durbin was chairman in the last Congress, I tried repeatedly to subpoena the Epstein files so that we could get those banking records and those flight logs and repeatedly that was blocked. [2:12:07] So the Democrats at that point didn't want to know what was in the Epstein files until they lost the majority. [2:12:16] And then they were held bent to get that. [2:12:19] I also want to make certain that we get on the record that you and that DOJ has met with the following list of attorneys who represent victims, [2:12:33] including many who have claimed that they've never had a meeting with DOJ. [2:12:39] Now here is this list. [2:12:41] Seagrid McCauley. [2:12:42] Jordan Merson. [2:12:44] Gloria Allred. [2:12:45] Eric Fidai. [2:12:46] Alan Goldfarb. [2:12:48] Daniel Kaiser. [2:12:49] Miriam Wang. [2:12:51] Miriam Meyer Wang. [2:12:53] Glenn Nick. [2:12:54] Adam Horowitz. [2:12:56] Jack Scarola. [2:12:57] Dennis Artie. [2:12:59] Kevin Menser. [2:13:01] Jill Greenfield. [2:13:02] Julie Keys. [2:13:03] David H Brody. [2:13:05] Robert Glassman. [2:13:06] Kate L. Doniger. [2:13:08] Andrew Villa Caston. [2:13:10] Brittany Henderson. [2:13:11] Brad Edwards. [2:13:12] Avron Robin. [2:13:14] Neil Binder. [2:13:16] David Flessig. [2:13:17] Roberta Kaplan. [2:13:19] Tasha Thompson. [2:13:20] For the record. [2:13:21] I do want to talk with you a little bit about Memphis and the Memphis Safe Task Force. [2:13:28] We are so grateful. [2:13:30] When you talk about a success, the work that has been done in Memphis in fighting crime, [2:13:37] this is going to be a big part of President Trump's legacy in his commitment to Memphis. [2:13:44] The commitment that has been made by his administration is something that Miffians and all West Tennesseans are incredibly grateful for. [2:13:55] And this is something with President Trump, with Kash Patel. [2:14:01] We started saying, please help us. [2:14:03] And that call was answered. [2:14:05] I brought the crime stats. [2:14:08] We get the daily report from Memphis. [2:14:11] 11,040 arrests have been made. [2:14:15] And yesterday there were 40 arrests. [2:14:18] These included someone charged with second degree murder, another with first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, attempted rape and aggravated assault. [2:14:33] There have been nearly 2,000 firearms that have been seized and there have been 155 children that have been recovered. [2:14:41] The stats here tell the story. [2:14:44] You, President, Director Patel and the agencies that are there working with our governor, state agencies, the Memphis mayor, the Memphis police chief. [2:14:56] This is the way to fight crime and we are ever so grateful and we want to be able to sustain and build on that. [2:15:08] And I'd like for you to talk just a moment about Memphis and what lies ahead for Memphis and more broadly for other countries, other cities and counties that are focused on public safety. [2:15:25] Thank you, Senator. [2:15:26] Thank you, Senator. [2:15:28] What we have done and by we, I don't mean the Department of Justice alone. [2:15:32] I mean state and local partners, the National Guard, all of our federal agencies, DHS in Memphis should be a poster child for a lot of cities in this country. [2:15:44] You, you have a city that, that had skyrocketing crime and restaurants that were out of business storefronts that, that didn't exist. [2:15:51] They were boarded up and, and we came together and you're right. [2:15:55] It was President Trump working with, with you, working with the governor, working with our partners and said, we're going to fix this. [2:16:02] We're going to, just like we did in DC, we're going to go into this city and we're going to arrest. [2:16:06] I mean, amazingly, a very small percentage of your Memphis's population was committing a very large percentage of the crimes. [2:16:15] And so if you can focus on that small percentage, you're, you're actually able to bring the crime stats down remarkably, which is exactly what we did. [2:16:21] As far as what happens going forward, we keep on doing it. [2:16:25] I mean, Memphis that there's restaurants opening in Memphis. [2:16:28] There's stores opening in Memphis. [2:16:29] There's the, it's a, it's a new city compared to where it was one year ago. [2:16:34] And that's something that we can't let up on. [2:16:36] And, and, but again, I look at it as a poster child of what we should do in cities across this country. [2:16:42] And we are pleased to know that you all are doing a model city program at DOJ in order to help with public safety. [2:16:50] And other areas. [2:16:52] Yes. [2:16:53] And that's not just for Memphis, but for several cities around the country where we are going to give, put money where our mouth is and put, put a lot of resources into the cities to, to help make sure that cities that, that need to be safer are safer. [2:17:06] And if they're, they're on the right track, that they have the resources they need to keep doing it. [2:17:10] When you were in the office, we talked about my carjacking bill that would lower the intent standard to a general knowingly requirement, giving the prosecutors, federal prosecutors more tools so that they could hold some of these violent carjackers accountable. [2:17:32] We thought it was going to move with the NDAA and, uh, leader Schumer has blocked that and we're disappointed. [2:17:41] It's a bipartisan bill, but, uh, talk about the importance of lowering that statute so that we can prosecute these crimes. [2:17:51] Yes, it's a, it's, it needs to be done because they're carjacking, not only in Tennessee, but, um, at every city in this country has, has gotten out of hand. [2:18:00] The, the criminals are better at it than they, that they have tools that make it easier to get into cars. [2:18:05] They're willing to exact violence. And so the standard that exists now under the statute, but also because of, of certain cases, um, make it higher than, than a regular general intent crime and law enforcement and prosecutors will do the right thing. [2:18:20] So we need to be empowered with tools to, to prosecute these cases. [2:18:24] And if there's cases where somebody was in the car and didn't know prosecutors are not going to move forward, they'll do the right thing, but, but it shouldn't be the law that, that, that puts the damper on that. [2:18:34] And so I'm hopeful that we can continue to work together on that and that, um, because it is very important. [2:18:40] There was a deeply disappointing decision from the court and the Trump versus Barbara case that it's clear that Congress and the, we're going to have to step up and do something about birthright citizenship. [2:18:56] And this is our opening. We know that birth, birthright tourism is something that is taking place in our country. [2:19:06] We know that during the first Trump administration, there was a good bit of evidence on this. [2:19:12] I've had a band birthright tourism bill that would block these 33,000 births a year from people who are circumventing our, our laws and coming here simply for the purpose of giving birth. [2:19:28] It's primarily the Chinese and it is, uh, also the Russian oligarchs that are exploiting this. [2:19:39] And my bill would make coming here to give birth and admissible as a, uh, as a way to obtain a visa and deportable immediately deportable, uh, as an offense. [2:19:54] And touch on why Congress needs to act and give the administration more tools to enforce this. [2:20:04] Yes. [2:20:05] So the very day or the day after the decision came out, the department of justice issued a directive to prosecutors to focus on, um, the conduct you're describing using existing laws and tools that we have, which is mostly around false statements or fraudulent information in the visa application process. [2:20:22] We're going to do that. [2:20:24] And, and that's, that's pretty much, um, we are limited in how we can prosecute, um, folks that are coming here for, for lying about why they're coming here, coming here just to give birth. [2:20:34] And also the organizations that are facilitating that, um, any congressional statutory adjustment, um, the, the spring court opinions relied in part on the statutory part of this, um, that, that would control would give us more tools and would give the president more tools to, to keep out [2:20:51] people who are absolutely not coming for the right reason, only coming to give birth. [2:20:56] And you're doing a great job on fraud and going after fraud that has been committed. [2:21:03] Uh, the fraud task force seems to be working well. [2:21:07] And from Tennesseans, I hear a good bit about this. [2:21:11] They want the fraudulent activity to stop. [2:21:14] It's taxpayer money and they want their money to be used right wisely. [2:21:20] Um, we have had legislation that would apply to, uh, individuals that have come into the country either illegally or maybe they've been naturalized citizens. [2:21:34] Uh, but the Fraud Accountability Act would push for that deportation and denaturalization if they have been found to be defrauding individuals or local, state or federal government. [2:21:50] And I wish, um, over time, and I'll ask you for this in writing since I'm over my time. [2:21:56] But I'd like to hear from you why it is important to put more tools in that toolbox for you all to go after these individuals that are defrauding the U.S. taxpayer. [2:22:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:22:11] Thank you. [2:22:12] Before I call on Senator Coons, Senator Durbin would like to speak for a short time. [2:22:17] Very short. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, based on the statements just made by the senator from Tennessee. [2:22:23] We've checked the transcript of the committee during the November 30th, 2023 Supreme Court ethics subpoena authorization markup. [2:22:31] I chaired and attempted to recognize Senator Blackburn multiple times so that she could offer amendment regarding Epstein's flight logs. [2:22:41] But her Republican colleagues prevented her from doing so by filibustering and then invoking the Senate rule on two hours to end the markup. [2:22:49] Many Epstein records, including flight logs, have been public for years. [2:22:53] My staff subsequently reached out to Senator Blackburn to work to identify which record she actually wanted and still believes had not been made public. [2:23:01] To this day, she's never responded. [2:23:03] Mr. Chairman, um, since he mentioned my name, I have previously and will continue. [2:23:12] There is video. There is a transcript. And Mr. Blanche, I'll be happy to forward that to you. [2:23:18] Senator Coons. [2:23:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member acting attorney general Blanche. Thank you for your service and for appearing here. [2:23:27] And thank you to your family and to the men and women of the Department of Justice who work tirelessly to fight crime and to make our nation secure. [2:23:34] I'm grateful for their service. I'm sorry that your schedule apparently didn't permit us to meet before this confirmation hearing, but I hope and expect we'll find time to meet soon after today. [2:23:44] Absolutely. Thank you. [2:23:46] Thank you. As I consider your nomination, like all other nominations to similar cabinet positions, I need to know you're qualified to serve. [2:23:53] You demonstrably are that you have the policy views to serve. Well, we will discuss that today. [2:23:58] And most importantly, in this role that you have the independence to serve as the attorney general for the American people. [2:24:05] And that last question has troubled me the most. You're in charge of a Department of Justice. I don't recognize prosecuting the president's political enemies firing rank and file prosecutors and FBI agents because of the cases they were assigned to slashing grants for law enforcement and public safety. [2:24:24] These are some actions that in your previous confirmation hearing before us, you said you would not take. Now, I appreciate your statement walking back the $1.8 billion weaponization fund that you created, but I question how it got that far and we'll get into that. [2:24:40] Um, you sat in appropriations hearing earlier this year before me and defended it at that time. In fact, I, if I remember correctly, you told me I was wrong for criticizing it. [2:24:49] But following questions by senators Durbin and Cornyn, I'm concerned it's not dead yet. And I think we should talk that through. [2:24:56] Overall, this is not what I believe the American people expect or deserve from the Department of Justice. Having spent critical parts of January 6th in this room, taking shelter from the mob. [2:25:08] Um, I just wanted to open with some questions. How many people were convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers on January 6th? [2:25:15] Um, I believe around 120, um, approximately, but I could be off a few more, a few. [2:25:24] You are. Um, the answer is more than 200. And how many of those individuals had their sentences commuted or were pardoned by President Trump? [2:25:32] President Trump either commuted or pardoned every defendant from the January 6th event. [2:25:37] That's correct. And in this room right now and outside this room are Capitol Police officers protecting us in this hearing room. [2:25:44] Um, how many of them do you think might have friends or colleagues, um, who were attacked by supporters of the president on January 6th? [2:25:52] I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure many of the Capitol Police officers who are here today worked either were working in January 6th or or knew people who were. [2:26:02] I'll just say that, um, I considered a shameful slap in the face of the men and women of law enforcement for those convicted of assaulting police officers to have been pardoned. [2:26:11] I know you were not serving as deputy attorney general when President Trump pardoned those folks, but you said just a few moments ago that you were not celebrating this decision by the president. [2:26:21] He was exercising his constitutional power. But earlier this year in front of CPAC, a conservative event, um, I would say from the transcript, you actually trumpeted it as an achievement. [2:26:30] And I quote saying, if you look at what happened to the men and women convicted because of January 6th by 5 PM on January 20th, every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted by President Trump. [2:26:40] So when folks say you've done nothing, I say you have a very short memory. Would you say that you're proud of President Trump's decision to pardon individuals who assaulted law enforcement? [2:26:55] No, that's not what I was saying there at all, Senator. So I was responding to inquiries around why more hadn't been done by the Department of Justice with respect to January 6th defendants. [2:27:06] And so my answer was that they January 6th defendants and some of their lawyers had a short memory because a lot had already been done. Indeed, by the end of the day on January 20th, they had all been pardoned or commuted. [2:27:19] So I wasn't celebrating it. I was merely stating a fact, which is that the January 6th defendants did receive a, a very generous, um, pardon or commutation from President Trump. Every one of them on January 20th. [2:27:32] A generous and in my view for those who had assaulted police officers, unwarranted, unjustified, a historical and a terrible precedent. Let me move on to questions I've asked in previous hearings. [2:27:43] Is President Trump just as a simple matter of constitutional law eligible to run for another term as president in 2028? [2:27:50] I don't believe he is. No. [2:27:52] Um, that is a correct, in my view, reading of the plain language of the 22nd Amendment. Um, why do you think several of the judicial nominees of this administration have referred to this [2:28:01] administration, have refused repeatedly to answer that question simply and clearly as you just did when I put it to them? [2:28:07] I have no idea why they answered questions. Me neither. [2:28:11] I mean, you're asking me to speculate about something. I don't know. [2:28:14] Is the Department of Justice that you are running independent from the White House? [2:28:19] The Department of Justice, like every single department in the executive, is part of the executive. I mean, Article 2 of the Constitution, um, gives the power of the executive to President Trump. [2:28:30] So we certainly operate with integrity. We certainly operate in the single mindset to serve the American people and do the right thing. [2:28:38] Um, but, but I am a member if confirmed. Um, I will be a member of the cabinet. I'm serving in the acting capacity that way now, just like the other cabinet members. [2:28:47] And President Trump can fire me whenever he wants. So, um, do you have a sense why he fired your predecessor? [2:28:53] I have no idea. I mean, President Trump, we, we all serve at the pleasure of President Trump in, in this administration. [2:29:00] Did President Trump ever post on Truth Social directing your predecessor to get at it, to prosecute his perceived political enemies? [2:29:09] I don't think those were his exact words, but he did. [2:29:12] Those were not his exact words. [2:29:13] No, but. [2:29:14] Clearly that was the intention. Um, it is my impression, sir, that you are here rather than your predecessor because the President was unhappy with her failures to actually secure convictions of folks like Attorney General Tish James or former FBI Director Jim Comey. [2:29:29] If you're confirmed and you're asked to take an action you believe to be illegal or unethical, would you resign? [2:29:35] That will never happen. But yes, if it were to happen, I'm not going to violate my oath to the Constitution. [2:29:41] I appreciate that answer. Um, you did answer a question by a colleague about input that you gave to the president. Did you ever say no to the president on the slush fund, the anti weaponization fund? Did you advise him against this? [2:29:55] I am not, will not talk about communications I have with the president. I served as his lawyer for a couple of years before he was elected. I'm the deputy attorney general and the acting attorney general. So I'm not going to talk about communications that I have with him. But Senator, I will say that, um, President Trump trusts me to give him counsel. Um, counsel does not mean and yes, man. [2:30:19] And so that's, and that's true in my case, like it should be in any attorneys general. [2:30:23] So let me just for a minute, bear down on the anti weaponization fund. You've testified to the house. We are not moving forward with that fund period, but you've repeatedly refused to put that commitment in writing or to submit a declaration to the court. [2:30:35] You're an officer of the court, a member of the bar. You should be able to make that assertion in a court filing or even in a letter submitted to this body. [2:30:42] On May 19th, you testified before the CJ, the justice appropriations subcommittee. Since the case had been dismissed, there was no judge and no mechanism for judicial review. [2:30:51] But in an opinion this week, a federal judge wrote, and I'm quoting that your testimony was at best misleading and at worst disingenuous explaining the court remained available to review this agreement. Had you sought relief. [2:31:04] Why not seek review of the settlement agreement or submit some records, some writing given that the president continues to publicly champion this weaponization fund and given your previous answer to me in another hearing that you wouldn't say whether or not those who assaulted cops on January 6th would be eligible for multimillion dollar payouts. [2:31:26] So there's a lot of questions there. First of all, we have put it in writing. It's in repeated court filings in EDVA and DC. So this narrative that you won't put it in writing happens not to be true. [2:31:42] The reason why neither myself nor Secretary Besant agreed to put a declaration in is because there's long standing precedent that judges cannot ask cabinet secretaries or people like me to put in declarations. [2:31:54] It has nothing to do with whether the fund is alive. I'm under oath today and I've said it's dead repeatedly. [2:32:01] I said it to the House Oversight Committee and I'm happy to say as many times as necessary. [2:32:07] As far as what the judge said in Florida, just the last question you asked about Florida, that judge disagreed with what I said. [2:32:16] I still believe that 11th Circuit precedent, which I've studied, I am right. So we'll see. [2:32:22] Thank you. You did say earlier, this is the most transparent department of justice in American history. We have nothing to hide. [2:32:28] And you started by saying we're here to rebuild trust. Two decisions or two OLC opinions I'm very interested in. [2:32:37] I'm the senior Democrat on defense and intelligence approach. I'm the most senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee on my side, who's currently serving on this committee. [2:32:45] I'm curious as to why the most transparent department has refused to release the OLC opinion that justifies the 66 strikes the military has conducted on boats in the Caribbean, which have killed more than 220 people, either a redacted version or in a classified setting to me and others who are in relevant decision making positions. [2:33:06] Well, Senator, we made the head of OLC available on multiple occasions to explain that to you and other members of the committee. [2:33:15] And that is extraordinarily transparent and unprecedented that we've done that whether an OLC opinion is released is there's a lot of process that goes into that. [2:33:25] But the idea that we were not transparent about our legal basis. There is absolutely not true. [2:33:29] Okay. Another chance to be transparent. The FISA court in March certified your section of section 702 proceedings, but found compliance deficiencies. [2:33:39] This is an important power of the federal government that will soon be up again for vote. And you have not declassified that opinion. [2:33:46] Senators Cotton and Warner Republican and Democrat leads on intelligence in April wrote the administration saying that they expected declassification of this March opinion within two weeks, yet it remains classified. [2:33:59] You have a bipartisan request from the leadership of Intel. Will you declassify it or make it available to us? [2:34:05] We'll we'll continue to look at that. I agree with you that that's a very important issue and we need 702 reauthorized. [2:34:13] Thank you. Last question, if I could, the safer the Safer Supervision Act is co sponsored by senators Lee Cornyn Tillis and Lankford, and it gives a path forward to making sure that federal probation and parole is more effective. [2:34:27] We've discussed it before. Will you meet with me to talk about ways that this important criminal justice reform supported by federal law enforcement could move forward? [2:34:36] I think that that please give a short answer to that. I think it's yes, absolutely. [2:34:41] I very much agree with what you're trying to do there, Senator. Thank you. [2:34:44] Before I call on Senator Schmidt and after Schmidt gets done speak questioning, we're going to take a 15 minute break and that 15 minute break starts when you leave the chair and be back in at the 15th minute. [2:35:01] Before then, I'd like to enter in the record for supporting your nomination from 382,000 members of the national fraternal peace, fraternal order of peace. The letter emphasized Mr. Blanche's distinguished record of public service and his commitment to work closely with law enforcement across the nation. The letter states quote, we believe Mr. Blanche's leadership will help [2:35:30] will help ensure that the Department of Justice remains focused on public safety, the rule of law and providing unwavering support for the law enforcement professionals who risk their lives daily to protect our families and the quote without objection. [2:35:49] It will be entered. Senator Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Blanche. Welcome. [2:35:55] You are you're entering this arena in this confirmation hearing as the nation's chief law enforcement officer at a very interesting time in our country's history, where the folks on the other side of the dais, the Democrats, in my view, have just taken an all out of salt on the men and women of this country who serve in a law enforcement capacity. [2:36:16] We just a couple of months ago got through a government shutdown where I was on the Senate floor listening to things that I never heard certainly an elected official say in characterizing the men and women who serve this country to enforce its laws, calling them the Gestapo, President Trump's secret police mass mercenaries. [2:36:39] This is insane. These calls to defund ICE, this hammer and sickle wave that came through New York just a few weeks ago that's now dominating the discussion on the other side of the aisle. [2:36:49] The central plank, of course, is defunding the police, assaulting, overthrowing Western civilization. This is not your grandfather's Democrat Party and you're you're fielding questions that I think are totally unfair. [2:37:06] But it's all meant, I think, to undermine and demoralize. I saw it in my time as attorney general in Missouri where we had a Soros funded prosecutor who refused to prosecute crime and police officers, many retired early. [2:37:22] Fewer came into the ranks to protect and serve. And so you're coming at an important time. I think President Trump, like he has with the military, has inspired the men and women on the front lines to serve. [2:37:35] You're helping, I think, restore that with your focus on violent crime, your focus on fraud. [2:37:41] I heard one of my colleagues say that this is the most troubled Department of Justice in history. [2:37:47] I happen to live through the previous administration where you had a Department of Justice completely weaponized against political opponents. [2:37:53] They tried to try to throw their chief political opponent in jail, ruin his family's lives. You were his lawyer to see some of that and I was with you in a courtroom in New York to witness that defense. [2:38:09] Yes. [2:38:10] In one of those cases were aimed against Catholics in this country who happened to attend a traditional Catholic Latin mass, went after parents under the Patriot Act for showing up to school board meetings to object to critical race theory or the masking of their kids. [2:38:28] We lived through Jack Smith and the chairman has just revealed new revelations, of course, that he was reading text messages. By the way, Jack Smith testified under oath. He didn't do that. He testified that they just had the phone logs. [2:38:44] We know that's not true now. Jack Smith should be subject to prosecution for lying to Congress. So this weaponization. Let's draw a distinction when you go after your political opponents. That is a weaponization when you hold people accountable who weaponized the justice system. [2:39:03] That's not the same thing. So you have a very important job. I want to highlight a few things that you've done in your in your time as as as acting attorney general, hopefully. [2:39:14] As attorney general, you're confirmed. You created the National Fraud Enforcement Division. I think this is very, very important. I think it's the tip of the iceberg. What we're seeing in Minneapolis, in California and places that that I think the work will continue carried out the largest health care fraud takedown in department history, expanded the fight against Medicaid fraud after the $90 million Minnesota fraud takedown. [2:39:41] You secured six fraud convictions involving more than $1.1 billion in less than three weeks, cleared the backlog of immigration cases, allowing for deportations, more deportations. [2:39:55] You filed a historic number of denaturalization cases. You secured major anti DEI wins against IBM and PayPal. You ended the EEOC's racist disparate impact regime. You secured 450 years of prison time for Antifa members involved in the terrorist attacks against ICE. You prosecuted the Southern Poverty Law Center for secretly funneling millions of dollars to the KKK and neo Nazis. [2:40:23] That's a pretty, that's a pretty, that's a hell of a record in a hundred days. [2:40:30] But more work continues. I want to talk about a few things that I'd like to, and I'm going to allow you to answer, to focus on. First, I think we have to break this sanctuary city scam, the system. [2:40:46] To the, to the people watching or listening at home. What is a sanctuary jurisdiction? Here's what it means. It means that if you are a criminal child rapist and you're here illegally and you've been released from prison, they will not tell federal immigration authorities that you're being, that that person is being released. [2:41:10] released. They would rather have that individual, that monster released into the community than be deported. That's how sick this regime is. And so, um, we were able to secure in the ice funding. [2:41:22] I was able to secure in the ice funding $350 million to clean up this mess, to allow ice in those sanctuary jurisdictions to actually carry out those deportations. Sanctuary cities be damned. [2:41:33] Um, will you use every tool that you have in your toolbox to go after these sanctuary jurisdictions? [2:41:39] I mean, absolutely. You just hit the nail on the, on the head when you described one example, but there are thousands of examples of our law enforcement agents being put at risk because instead of going into a jail to arrest people watching or listening at home. [2:41:53] What is a sanctuary jurisdiction? Here's what it means. It means that if you are a criminal child rapist and you're here illegally and you've been released from prison, [2:42:05] they will not tell federal immigration authorities that you're being, that that person is being released. They would rather have that individual, [2:42:16] that monster released into the community than be deported. That's how sick this regime is. And so, um, we were able to secure in the ice funding. [2:42:26] I was able to secure in the ice funding $350 million to clean up this mess, to allow ice in those sanctuary jurisdictions to actually carry out those deportations. [2:42:34] Sanctuary cities be damned. Um, will you use every tool that you have in your toolbox to go after these sanctuary jurisdictions? [2:42:44] I mean, absolutely. You just hit the nail on the, on the head when you described one example, but there are thousands of examples of our law enforcement agents being put at risk. [2:42:52] Because instead of going into a jail to arrest somebody or take somebody who's here illegally, even with a final order of deportation, [2:43:01] that individual gets released in the community and it puts everybody in the community at risk. It puts law enforcement at risk. It's not consistent with the law. [2:43:10] And so, yes, I definitely pledge to you that we will do everything that we can at the department to, to, to combat that. [2:43:16] The second one is to crush the machinery that, uh, converts illegal conduct into political power for the left. [2:43:22] And I'm talking about the racial gerrymandering, um, the straw donations, foreign money, identity theft, fraudulent online contributions, [2:43:32] the nonprofits that finance extremism while lying to their donors. [2:43:37] Will you enforce the constitution and voting rights act against unlawful racial gerrymandering and investigate credible evidence of straw donations, [2:43:44] foreign contributions, identity fraud, and other legal activity through act blue or other fundraising platforms? [2:43:50] Yes, of course, Senator. Yes. [2:43:52] Thank you. Third, protect free speech from the new censorship machine. [2:43:58] Search engines determine what information Americans find. We're more and more reliant on these things. [2:44:04] App stores determine which platforms can reach the public. [2:44:07] AI systems increasingly determine which claims are treated as true, false, respectable, extreme, or beyond discussion. [2:44:14] Will you enforce a zero tolerance policy for federal officials who pressure technology companies to suppress lawful speech [2:44:20] and work with Congress to expose communications between federal agencies and the companies controlling search, [2:44:26] social media, app distribution, and AI? [2:44:29] Absolutely. Yes, Senator. [2:44:30] Thank you. I want to just give, for the two and a half minutes I have left with my time, [2:44:35] I guess, give you an opportunity. [2:44:38] You saw what happened to the Department of Justice under Merrick Garland and the dirtbag Jack Smith [2:44:48] and under Joe Biden's regime. What lessons do you draw from that? [2:44:54] The biggest one is that the Department of Justice belongs in the business of protecting our communities. [2:45:01] And so when I talked about, during my opening statement, about bringing the violent crime rates down [2:45:07] and combating fraud and going after the fentanyl crisis in this country, [2:45:12] that's the lesson I learned, is that we do not need to be spending millions and millions of dollars, [2:45:17] bringing hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of prosecutors to D.C. to go after literally an entire administration. [2:45:25] Yes, the president. Yes, his family. But also anybody that knew him, anybody that worked with him. [2:45:30] His gardener at Mar-a-Lago was targeted. We should not be doing that. [2:45:34] We should be arresting bad guys. We should be, and that's what we're doing. [2:45:38] So we're empowering assistant U.S. attorneys around the country, FBI, ATF, marshals, DEA, HSI agents, [2:45:45] to go out and make communities safe. And in my mind, when it comes to the federal government, [2:45:52] that's combating drug dealing, combating illegal immigration, narco-terrorism, using our HSTF task forces. [2:46:00] And above all, and just as importantly, is fraud and bringing money that is stolen from the American taxpayer [2:46:09] and getting it back and putting the guys responsible in prison. [2:46:12] That's what I've learned, is that we can just go out and do our jobs and we can do it. [2:46:18] There'll be noise in D.C. Like I said, we prosecuted nearly 100,000 informations and indictments since January 20th. [2:46:26] We're talking about three or four. And that's the message that I take to prosecutors around the country. [2:46:32] Thank you. And I also want to thank you early on with this administration in Kansas City, [2:46:38] but specifically in St. Louis, working with the department, Kash Patel, others. [2:46:43] St. Louis got the largest infusion of permanent FBI agents anywhere in the country, [2:46:47] and they're helping clean up the streets. People feel safer. It's a great American turnaround as it relates to crime. [2:46:53] Those numbers hopefully will continue, and I look forward to working with you on those efforts as well. [2:46:56] Thank you. We will. Thank you. [2:46:58] Before we take this 15-minute break, I wanted to say that from 1230 till 1, I'll be in the Capitol to vote. [2:47:09] Another Republican will chair the meeting, so we're going to go on through the noon hour. [2:47:14] And so we'll take a break now, and we'll be back at 1145, and Senator Blumenthal will be the first person to ask questions. [2:47:45] Senator Blumenthal, is it quiet enough for you to proceed? Proceed then. [3:00:16] Thank you. Welcome back, Mr. Blanche. Thank you for being here. Thank you to your family. [3:00:24] And I want to join in thanking the men and women of the Department of Justice for their service. [3:00:36] I want to begin where maybe we have some common ground. [3:00:39] You would agree that the Islamic Republic of Iran is well known to detain, torture, even kill political dissidents, including evangelical Christians, would you not? [3:00:57] Yes, Senator, they have done that. Yes. [3:01:00] And last week, the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit alleging that the Trump administration has adopted a policy of collaborating with the Islamic Republic of Iran to provide details about asylum applicants. [3:01:18] This is the United States government providing information regularly and frequently to the Iranian government about Iranian nationals who are seeking asylum here in the United States. [3:01:35] These are declarations made under oath before the court about high officials stationed here with Iran getting information from the United States government. [3:01:48] And then the American government deporting hundreds of individuals, including evangelical Christians, back to Iran where they face torture, imprisonment, potential death. [3:02:05] Were you or the Department of Justice consulted about this policy? [3:02:10] Well, that's not our policy, Senator. We would never send somebody home to be tortured. [3:02:16] That's not what the American people would expect of us. That's certainly not what President Trump does. [3:02:20] So I'm not familiar with the lawsuit you're talking about, but there's no such policy. [3:02:24] Will will you commit to investigate these allegations? [3:02:27] I haven't know nothing about the lawsuit. I will. When I say you say commit to investigate allegations, we don't do that. [3:02:34] But certainly if the lawsuit needs to be answered and part of that includes investigation, absolutely. [3:02:39] Well, you do investigate allegations of illegality. This policy would clearly be not only illegal. [3:02:45] There is no morally repugnant. Would it not you agree with me that it should not be the policy of the United States to do it? [3:02:52] But in your question, you're suggesting there is such a policy. I'm telling you there is no such policy. [3:02:57] Well, if there is no such policy, then I presume you would investigate it. [3:03:04] When I see the lawsuit, I'm just not familiar with it. We will, of course, do what's appropriate. [3:03:09] So you you'd agree with me that it would be wrong when that it would be wrong, meaning it would be wrong to send somebody home to be tortured. Yes. [3:03:16] Let me ask you about allegations in connection with David Gentile. [3:03:25] I think we talked about the these allegations when you visited me. [3:03:30] Thank you for coming to my office in May of 2025. [3:03:34] David Gentile was sentenced to seven years in prison for his role in an almost one point eight billion dollar Ponzi like scheme that defrauded over ten thousand investors, [3:03:48] many of them middle class retirees of their hard earned savings. [3:03:55] And he was in prison. [3:03:59] He boasted to fellow inmates and others that he was going to be released because he paid two point five million dollars for clemency. [3:04:08] Evidence collected by the Eastern District of New York supported those allegations and reportedly also included statements by Father Frank Mann [3:04:24] that he spoke to the president about David Gentile. [3:04:29] The Eastern District of New York was investigating these allegations and reportedly received a call from one of your top deputies instructing them about the concerns of the Department of Justice. [3:04:46] The investigation was stopped by the Eastern District of New York. [3:04:50] I wrote to you on June 23rd and United States Attorney Joseph Nacella about these allegations that investigation into this impropriety was shut down at the request of your offer. [3:05:07] Propriety payment to possibly payment to Father Frank Mann. [3:05:13] And I answered the first question, but when you say stopping an investigation, there's an assumption built into your question that I will not concede. [3:05:19] We will not talk about whether exist investigations exist or don't exist. [3:05:23] And certainly some leak about something that we supposedly did doesn't warrant an answer either. [3:05:29] There was an investigation, correct? [3:05:31] I am. No, I that's my whole point in saying is that there's an assumption baked into your question that I don't think is true. [3:05:37] Meaning that we cannot comment on even the existence of investigations like that. [3:05:41] You commented this morning to Republican colleagues about several investigations. [3:05:46] No, I haven't. [3:05:47] Well, you commented in response to the chairman about the FISA investigation. [3:05:52] About the what? Excuse me? [3:05:54] The investigation that he asked you about. [3:05:56] So Senator, my point is that you're asking me questions about a news article, the source of which was apparently leaks. [3:06:02] It would be inappropriate for me as the acting attorney general to comment on such leaks or news articles that you're referencing. [3:06:11] Well, I accept that you're not going to answer my question. [3:06:15] But I think there is a need for the inspector general to look into the investigation that was apparently, [3:06:22] according to these articles and other information, stopped as a result of your intervention. [3:06:27] Let me move on. [3:06:30] In 2017, more than 10,000 9-11 victims filed suit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. [3:06:39] That lawsuit is heading to trial. [3:06:43] Information was promised by President Trump in September of 2019. [3:06:51] That information has not been provided. [3:06:54] Will you commit to meet with those families and provide the information they need for their lawsuit? [3:07:00] Folks from my office have met with the representatives of those families. [3:07:06] We will commit to continuing to have communications, of course. [3:07:10] And provide the information they're seeking? [3:07:12] Well, you're saying, I don't know what the information is you're talking about. [3:07:14] So obviously, I can't just commit to providing the information. [3:07:17] Well, let's talk about other information. [3:07:19] Information about the Epstein abuses. [3:07:23] Your predecessor apologized to the Epstein survivors, with good reason. [3:07:31] Because as you've said today, mistakes were made. [3:07:34] I'm asking you today, with Epstein survivors in this room, to apologize to them. [3:07:42] Well, so my heart breaks for every victim of any sexual crime, whether it's involving Mr. Epstein or somebody else. [3:07:54] And so, if you're asking me to apologize that this happened to them, of course, absolutely. [3:07:59] This is a horrible thing, which is why this Department of Justice, this administration, [3:08:03] is focused very heavily on going after these predators. [3:08:07] And so, yes, of course, that's part of my job, is being empathetic to the victims of crime. [3:08:11] Will you apologize to them for the mishandling and mistakes that were made by the United States Department of Justice? [3:08:19] I will absolutely say that any mistake that we made should not have been made. [3:08:24] And I very much, I very much apologize. [3:08:27] I can answer the question, or you can just interrupt my center, but I am answering your question. [3:08:32] I very much, and I have said this to anybody that asked publicly before, any mistake that was made is not appropriate. [3:08:40] And so, yes, I am sorry that in about 1% of the documents, mistakes were made. [3:08:46] But what I will say on top of that is we put tons of resources to rectifying those mistakes immediately, [3:08:52] including pulling down documents within minutes of being informed that there were mistakes, potential mistakes made, [3:08:58] and working 24-7 to rectify any mistakes. [3:09:01] And that's what I would expect the victims would want us to do, and their counsel, and this body as well. [3:09:07] And you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that you can well meet with any of the survivors or victims with their counsel present. [3:09:17] You said you can't meet with them, but you could meet with them if they're counseled. [3:09:21] I never said I can't meet with them. [3:09:22] I said if they were represented, I had to meet through counsel, but of course I can meet with them. [3:09:28] I'm the Acting Attorney General of the United States, so yes, I can. [3:09:31] I very strongly believe that for these victims to tell their stories and the evidence that they have, [3:09:37] they should meet, like any victim of a crime, with the FBI or a law enforcement agent, [3:09:43] and that we will do everything we can to prosecute if we can. [3:09:46] The judge in Florida referred your misconduct, she concluded that there was misconduct and misrepresentation, an improper purpose in that legal action, [3:10:00] to the bar of New York for potential discipline, including losing your law license. [3:10:09] I know you disagree with the result of the ruling. [3:10:11] Has that kind of referral ever happened by a federal judge for an Attorney General of the United States? [3:10:20] I don't know, but I'll tell you something. [3:10:23] That judge never asked us to respond. [3:10:25] She never gave us an opportunity to respond to anything. [3:10:27] And she didn't refer me. [3:10:28] She just asked that a copy of the order be provided the New York bar, because there are several activist groups that have filed complaints against me. [3:10:35] So listen, as I've said earlier, I think anybody on this committee, especially the lawyers that have practiced, can read that opinion and reach their own conclusions. [3:10:44] But I very much disagree with the judge's insinuations about me, and we're going to do what we can to make that right. [3:10:53] One last question. [3:10:54] Would you agree with me that agents of the United States should not fire into cars unless they're, fire their weapons into cars unless there is an imminent threat? [3:11:04] Give a short answer to that. [3:11:06] There's a well-established standard as to when an agent can discharge their firearm. [3:11:11] And I think that that's something that should be followed in every case. [3:11:15] And that includes not firing weapons into cars. [3:11:18] Mr. Chair. [3:11:21] Before I... [3:11:22] Well, do you want to respond to... [3:11:24] I mean, there's not really a response. [3:11:26] It requires federal agents to follow the rules. [3:11:30] Then let's move on. [3:11:31] Before I call on Senator Britt, I want another letter supporting the nominee from the American Border Story, [3:11:40] a national organization representing 300 angel families. [3:11:45] Quoting from the letter, the families we work with are not focused on politics. [3:11:52] They want leaders who take crime seriously, who understand the national security implications of open border criminal, [3:12:00] open border criminal networks, and who will prioritize victims over ideology. [3:12:07] We believe Todd Blanche understands that responsibility and would approach the Office of Attorney General with seriousness. [3:12:17] It demands, end of quote, without objection, that'll be entered in the record. [3:12:22] Senator Britt. [3:12:23] Senator Britt. [3:12:24] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [3:12:25] And I think that's an excellent segue. [3:12:27] I appreciate your commitment to all of the victims, the Epstein victims, your commitment to hear from them and fight for them. [3:12:36] Thank you for saying that today. [3:12:38] I only wish that my Democratic colleagues had that same level of conviction when it came to meeting with the families of those who have lost loved ones at the hands of illegal aliens. [3:12:49] So thank you for that letter. [3:12:51] Thank you for your commitment. [3:12:53] I can only hope that they will answer the call and meet with their own constituencies who unfortunately have lost ones that they hold dear. [3:13:03] Mr. Blanche, I want to applaud the work that you and DOJ have done to reduce crime and violent crime across the country. [3:13:11] We've heard it a number of times here today, both in the chairman's opening, to Senator Moody talking about it, to you talking about it. [3:13:19] We currently have the lowest murder rate that we've had since 1900. [3:13:23] When you're looking at violent crime arrests, we are up 184%. [3:13:28] This is real results. [3:13:30] This is what you're supposed to be doing. [3:13:32] Keeping Americans safe. [3:13:34] We know that you've done that through a number of ways, task force and joint operations, inter-agency cooperation. [3:13:42] We've seen the forces, those task forces, successfully pursue numerous cases in our state related to major drug trafficking, related to firearms trafficking, [3:13:53] all of which has been linked to, in many cases, you know, broader criminal enterprises. [3:13:58] So, we're glad that our children are safer and that our communities are safer. [3:14:04] What I'd like to know from you, because we've seen in Alabama this have tremendous results, [3:14:09] we've even seen in one case a corrupt local law enforcement officer in the Southern District of Alabama [3:14:16] who had engaged in a range of criminal activities and his capacity as an officer being held accountable through this work. [3:14:24] Based on what I've seen in Alabama, I hope that you continue this all across the country. [3:14:29] Can you speak to the work of these task forces and the success that you've seen [3:14:34] and how you intend to build upon this work moving forward if and when confirmed? [3:14:40] Yes. [3:14:41] So, the Homeland Security Task Force regime that we've set up in every single state [3:14:46] and every single district in this country is designed to do just what you were describing. [3:14:51] So, work not just with the federal government, not just DOJ, but to work with Department of Homeland Security, [3:14:57] sheriffs, cops, local prosecutors, local law enforcement, and assistant U.S. attorneys [3:15:04] to go into that community and eradicate it of human trafficking, drug dealers, narco-terrorism. [3:15:10] And the results, it's been set up for almost a year in most places, [3:15:15] and the results are evident in the statistics that we show. [3:15:19] But they're really more evident when I go out to U.S. attorney's offices and meet with HSTF groups like I do all the time. [3:15:27] To a person, they say, this is what we needed forever. This is what works. [3:15:31] Having law enforcement get together in a room and say, we need to tackle this gang, [3:15:36] or this apartment building has a drug problem, or even this individual needs to be targeted [3:15:41] because he's a violent felon and needs to go off the streets. [3:15:44] It's basic law enforcement that I've done for a long time that President Trump echoes and trumpets [3:15:51] and has done since January 20th, and I think that's why we're seeing the success that we're seeing. [3:15:56] And we're not slowing down. HSTFs are up and running full speed ahead, [3:16:02] and I hope that we continue to still see the results that we've seen over the past 10 months or so. [3:16:08] Thank you for your commitment to that and all the work that you've done. [3:16:12] I want to take a brief moment. Our distinguished and late colleague, Senator Graham, was excited about your nomination. [3:16:22] He was passionate about many things, which we saw here in this committee just in amazing ways. [3:16:33] One of the things that he was a champion of was the unborn, and that is a deeply held conviction that we both have. [3:16:41] And I want to talk to you and address the issue of the chemical abortion drug that we have seen just spread coast to coast. [3:16:51] As you know, pursuant to a Biden-era administration, administrative action, the FDA, there is no longer an in-person dispensing requirement in place for the drug, for Mifepristone. [3:17:05] It allows it to literally be dispersed across state lines, all across the country. [3:17:14] We are losing children, and we are putting women in harm's way. [3:17:24] Look, it has no oversight, no safeguard. [3:17:29] I got to hear the story of Jonna Affolder, who's here with us today, and I am so grateful for her willingness to be here. [3:17:38] But I got to hear it firsthand yesterday. [3:17:41] I know many people have read her story in recent news articles about her then-boyfriend, now ex-boyfriend, a doctor, no less, actually forcing a crushed abortion pill into her mouth in the middle of the night, [3:17:58] then taking her keys, holding her hostage so that she could not go get help. [3:18:04] This is sick and twisted and must stop. [3:18:10] He used his ex-wife's information to buy those drugs online, to kill his own child, and to endanger Jonna's life. [3:18:22] And sadly her story is one of many. [3:18:24] And so can you commit to me today that this administration and DOJ will prioritize taking meaningful and thoughtful action to address the dangers that occurred in the current status quo to women all over this country? [3:18:38] Absolutely, Senator. [3:18:42] And it's not only what the Department of Justice can do, but it's what the FDA is doing right now for the first time in a decade, [3:18:48] actually doing real studies about the safety and the appropriateness of these drugs. [3:18:53] And, you know, I've seen video myself of what appears to be pills coming even from overseas to young women, [3:19:02] and it doesn't matter who applies for it, anybody can get it. [3:19:05] There's no instructions, they just come dumped out of a little plastic bag, and it's wrong. [3:19:11] And I very much commit our resources to stopping this. [3:19:15] Thank you very much. [3:19:16] I want to turn to an issue that I also raised with former Attorney General Bondi, [3:19:21] and that's illegal offshore gaming and the concern in the rise of illegal gaming amongst minors. [3:19:27] In 2024, a study found that individuals who began gambling before the age of 18 are 50% more likely to develop an addiction to gambling. [3:19:38] This has become a major issue among America's youth, in particular America's young men. [3:19:43] Just last year in the Northern District of Alabama, we saw a case where 10 men pleaded guilty to managing a sports betting operation [3:19:51] and accepted over $2 billion in wagers via an offshore server located in Costa Rica. [3:19:58] Senator Blumenthal and I have worked together on this issue and recently introduced the Game Act, [3:20:03] which would prohibit social media companies and advertising websites from targeting minors with sports betting advertising online. [3:20:11] We also sent a letter to DOJ encouraging the department to use its existing statutory authorities to pursue injunctive relief [3:20:19] and to block illegal offshore gaming operations. [3:20:23] I want to tell you how much I appreciate the response. [3:20:25] It was very substantive that I got to that letter. [3:20:28] But can you also commit to me today that you're going to make this issue a priority [3:20:33] and take robust action to combat the reach of illegal gaming operations within the United States, [3:20:40] and then in particular the targeting of minors through this? [3:20:44] Yes, Senator, absolutely. [3:20:45] Thank you. [3:20:46] The U.S. Census Bureau reported over a decade between 2010 and 2020 that the over 65 population in the United States [3:20:54] experienced the largest ever 10-year numeric gain and percentage point increase in terms of share of the overall population. [3:21:02] In its annual report to Congress last December, the FTC noted that total fraud losses by older Americans [3:21:09] defined as age of 60 and older increased almost fourfold from 2020 to 2024, shooting up from 600 million in 2020 to 2.4 billion in 2024. [3:21:24] As our society ages and it will continue to be a problem that we must take robust action to address, [3:21:31] particularly given technological advances and other ways that this fraud is occurring. [3:21:36] I introduced the Guard Act with Senator Gillibrand, and it would allow state and local law enforcement agencies [3:21:43] to use certain federal grant funding to utilize blockchain for investigating financial fraud. [3:21:50] It would also permit federal law enforcement to assist state and local law enforcement with tracing tools for blockchain technology. [3:21:57] I'm thrilled it was reported out of this committee by voice vote earlier this year. [3:22:02] I know that DOJ has programs in place like Elder Justice Initiative, but can you speak specifically to DOJ's efforts [3:22:10] with respect to elder financial fraud and the extent to which we will work to continue to make this a priority [3:22:16] under your leadership and the importance of collaboration with state and local law enforcement officers [3:22:22] as we work to bring justice to these people who have been abused? [3:22:25] Yes, Senator. We are very focused not only at Maine Justice but at every U.S. Attorney's Office [3:22:31] on protecting our elderly who are absolutely victims of scams of any sort. [3:22:39] And many of the scams are coming from overseas, from Burma and from these literally entire buildings filled with individuals cold calling [3:22:48] our senior citizens trying to get them to give them money or send them money. [3:22:52] And so we've charged I think over $300 this year alone. [3:22:57] We will keep on doing that and it has been a priority as it should be and it will remain a priority of the department [3:23:03] to target these criminals, again many of whom are not even in this country going after our senior citizens. [3:23:10] Thank you so much for your service and I look forward to supporting your nomination. [3:23:13] Thank you Senator. Before I call on Senator Rona, I have another letter for the nominee supporting Mr. Blanche [3:23:23] from the Americans United for Life, a pro-life organization. I quote, [3:23:30] Mr. Blanche's commitment to respecting human life is evident in his actions as acting Attorney General. [3:23:39] We at Americans United for Life are confident in Mr. Blanche's commitment to a fair and even application of the law. [3:23:48] End of quote. Without objection it will be entered in the record. Senator Hirano. [3:23:54] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Welcome Mr. Blanche. [3:23:59] To ensure the fitness to serve of all nominees who come before any of my committees, I ask the following two initial questions. [3:24:08] Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? [3:24:20] No Senator. [3:24:21] Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct? [3:24:26] No Senator. [3:24:27] Mr. Blanche, over the course of the past five months, the New Mexico Department of Justice has talked to your staff [3:24:37] about getting access to information for its investigation into alleged crime at Jeffrey Epstein's Zorro Ranch. [3:24:46] Will you and your team continue to cooperate with the New Mexico Department of Justice and help it get the information it needs? [3:24:56] Yes, we're continuing to work with them and yes. [3:25:01] Thank you. [3:25:02] Mr. Blanche, at an April 8th press conference, a reporter asked you a question about President Trump's desire to see his perceived political enemies prosecuted. [3:25:13] Thank you. [3:25:15] By 시청. [3:25:16] Please be seated. [3:25:17] Nori Blanche. [3:25:18] And at our participants that gerealini and Extremity制 sind apart from U.S Angela, [3:25:21] those蜂 and Cord気miums have just alsaw right. [3:25:23] He's been joined now in the effects and battaloni righost i ubVO said in the effects of this excuse. [3:25:24] He if he is weekable and alleged criminal겠어요 [3:25:25] that won't act indefinitely as basically every member of the investigation today if heism I destroyed [3:25:26] any reduction in international Eisemines or Bases. [3:25:27] Erich ones are cuAUa. [3:25:28] Well then we've had at the workshop for Judea. [3:25:29] But we need to keep up staff so far with him. [3:25:30] . [3:25:32] I wanted to keep talking about CDCA as well. [3:25:33] убли вперed and thank you for being and compliance to the PMCFs and I send the program,