Todd Blanche MELTS DOWN Trying To Defend Trump's DESPERATE Election Scheme

[0:00] Donald Trump's corrupt Attorney General Todd Blanche failed miserably this morning on CNN [0:05] when Dana Bash confronted him and pressed him on Donald Trump's scheme to try to delay [0:10] and overturn the Alaskan Senate election if they don't elect a Republican. [0:15] If you like watching videos of Donald Trump's cronies like Todd Blanche get humiliated and [0:22] called out for trying to justify and explain away his anti-American anti-democratic corrupt abuses of [0:31] power like this video and subscribe to Reflect Politics to get videos like this delivered [0:35] straight to you. Hello I'm Dana Bash in Washington where the state of our union is wondering what's [0:39] in store next week. We're nine days from the midterm elections and President Trump seems concerned. [0:45] He took to social media last night to vent about his new obsession Alaska's Senate race where [0:51] incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan is trying to fend off a challenge from Democrat Mary Peltola but [0:57] there is a complicating factor. A man named Dan J. Sullivan is also on the ballot raising Republican [1:04] fears that voters might get confused. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in June that the second Dan [1:10] Sullivan can remain on the ballot but the president is now objecting accusing Democrats of wanting to [1:16] steal the election and saying the Justice Department was trying to stop this impending [1:21] crime and tragedy. Now he's referring to a DOJ lawsuit filed just on Friday days before the [1:28] election pushing to stop Alaska's certification process if the incumbent Republican Senator Sullivan [1:35] suffers a loss. Here with me now is the Attorney General of the United States Todd Blanche. Thank you [1:42] so much for being here. I want to start where I just left off which is the question what exactly is the [1:49] crime that the president says is being committed in Alaska? Well, it's not the president, it's not only [1:56] the president that's saying that. It's the director of the Alaskan election process who has said that [2:02] the second Dan Sullivan is going to create confusion, is not a real candidate and is on the ballot [2:08] only to pull votes from the incumbent. So the real question that Americans should be asking is not what [2:14] you just opened on. But how as a country, how as Alaskans are we allowing this to happen? How can it be [2:20] that somebody that the director of the Alaskan election process has said is a fraud and should [2:26] not be allowed to run because his only purpose is to pull votes away from another candidate who's running [2:31] for the right reasons. And so, yes, so the department, what's the crime? Well, it depends. [2:36] There could be a crime, but the real wrong here is that Alaskans are going to be confused and will [2:41] not have their vote heard. So an Alaskan intends to vote for one candidate but is confused because [2:47] of the second candidate with exactly the same name who's voted Democrat his entire life, [2:53] who donated money to the other Democrat opponent, is running. That's the real question. [2:58] Mr. Attorney General, I don't need to tell you that the Constitution says, Article 1 in the [3:02] Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, states that the times, places, and manner of holding elections [3:08] for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state. You mentioned the fact that people [3:14] are upset in Alaska. It went all the way up to the Alaska State Supreme Court, and they ruled four [3:20] months ago on this matter. They said that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. could remain on the ballot. [3:26] Well, conveniently, you put up the Constitution on your screen, but you highlighted only the first [3:33] clause. Why don't you show the next clause to your viewers, which says that Congress is allowed to [3:38] pass laws to make sure that that happens. Put that back up there. And that's exactly what we're [3:42] doing. So the Alaska Supreme Court did not address the federal law that's implied. [3:48] We have it up. Go ahead. [3:48] And that is what we are doing now. So, okay. So, but look, so you highlighted the first clause. [3:53] The second clause says, but the Congress may at any time by law, and we have a law, [3:58] and that's the law that we're relying on when we, when we filed suit earlier this week. [4:02] The so-called voter voter law. [4:03] So this isn't about taking away the rights of a, well, that's not what the, that's what [4:08] the so-called mean. That's not what the law is called. I mean, it's a voter registration act. [4:11] I mean, so. [4:12] Go ahead. [4:13] Go ahead. [4:13] No, you go. [4:15] No, but what we're doing, what we're doing, the Alaska Supreme Court has said that under Alaskan [4:21] law, this second Sullivan can, can run. That's because unlike many states, Alaska doesn't [4:26] have a statute or a law that says that, that the same name can't run, but make no mistake [4:31] about it. The head of Alaskan elections had made very clear that this candidate's only purpose [4:36] is to confuse voters. And so what, what do you think the Department of Justice should [4:40] do when there's a head of, there's a federal system in place, there's laws in place that [4:45] allow us to step in if constitutional rights and statutory rights are potentially being violated [4:50] in the election process. We don't do it very often, but can you name a single time in our [4:55] history where this has happened at a Senate race? No, it's happened in local races before, [5:00] but never before have, have, have opponents gone to such lengths to try to thwart and cheat [5:05] in an election as they're doing in this case. And that is not my words. That's not President [5:09] Trump's words. Those are the words of the head of the election, Alaskan election system. [5:15] You are right that the constitution says Congress can change the laws. And, um, that is a law that [5:21] the courts will decide on whether or not your challenge is going to, is going to live. Um, [5:27] the Alaska Republican Senator, Lisa Murkowski said that you, the DOJ should never have filed this [5:35] lawsuit. She said, Alaskans don't need any help voting for their preferred candidates. And the state [5:41] of Alaska has already handled this by clearly distinguishing the candidates on this year's [5:45] ballots. Again, this isn't my words. These are, uh, Lisa Murkowski, your fellow Republican. Um, [5:50] and she's referring to the fact that through the legal process in Alaska, the, um, decision was [5:56] that the ballot would clear from their perspective, more clearly state that the incumbent Republican [6:02] Senator Dan Sullivan would be noted as such. Uh, and it would differentiate from Dan Sullivan. [6:09] That's what Lisa Murkowski is referring to. I don't, I understand what the senator said, [6:13] but I, I would point out that the, the relief that we're seeking isn't different from what the [6:17] senator is talking about. We're not saying that the federal government's going to decide who the [6:21] next senator from Alaska is. What we're asking the, the, what we're asking the court to do is make [6:26] sure that after the, after the election, if it's clear that there was confusion, if it's clear, [6:32] and that's for a court to decide at a later date, if there's litigation, but if it's clear that there [6:37] was confusion and that confusion led to an unjust improper result, that is not the will of the [6:42] Alaskan voters. We want to make sure that the Alaskan system and the Alaskan state courts and [6:46] the Alaskan electoral process can understand that in a way that lets them do the right thing. [6:51] Okay. So let's say that happens and you are successful in this complaint. Can we just play out [6:57] how that would work? Um, the incumbent Republican loses, you win, then ballots are secret. So how are you [7:07] going to find the people who voted and ask them whether or not they intended to vote for this Dan [7:14] Sullivan or that Dan Sullivan? Isn't that undermining the integrity of the election? Wait, sorry. So you're [7:23] just not right about what you're saying. So under Alaska, they have a rank-based voting system. I want you to explain to me the [7:28] practicality of if you are successful, how you are going to determine what voters intended. Where are [7:35] they? How are you going to find them and determine what they intended when they cast their ballots? How [7:39] is that going to work? So it, well, it's, that's exactly what we're trying to do in this lawsuit. [7:44] So because of rank-based voting, voters, they wrote, they write not just one, not just two, [7:49] but multiple names on the ballot. And so there are a number of scenarios where it could be obvious [7:54] that a voter was confused by the way they wrote down candidates. And in those cases, and it's not when [8:00] you say you, you, you, you, you're talking about the Department of Justice. Wrong. That will be the [8:04] Alaskan system and the Alaskan state electoral system looking into whether voters were confused. [8:09] But it will be at your behest. How will they be able to do that? [8:11] It won't be at my behest. We're filing a lawsuit to allow the documents and the ballots to be in a [8:16] place that the Alaskan government, that is what we're asking for in the lawsuit. If we are successful, [8:21] the state of Alaska, if something happens after the election that is clear that voters were confused and [8:27] that confusion, which by the way, why is this controversial? The fact that I'm saying that [8:32] voters, um, that they're so confused by what, by what a candidate has done in literally making [8:38] up a candidacy to try to confuse voters, that we're going to try to create a situation where [8:43] that can be remedied, that shouldn't be something that is causing this, this shock and horror. [8:48] That should be what every single Alaskan expects of their government. [8:53] If there were two Democratic Dan Sullivans on the ballot, [8:58] and they were potentially canceling each other out, would you be filing the same lawsuit? [9:04] Absolutely. Of course. And by the way, [9:06] there wouldn't be the same shock and horror. I mean, the fact that CNN hasn't even talked about [9:11] this for months and months and months and months until we filed the lawsuit, [9:13] the fact that there's a candidate in Alaska running, literally making up a name to confuse voters, [9:19] and it doesn't even rise to the level of any shows on Sunday morning. But when we try to remedy it, [9:24] suddenly it's, it's this surprise that's really disappointing that there isn't the same [9:28] frustration with the, with the system that allows this to happen, right? You agree with [9:33] me, Dana, right? That this is done to confuse voters. You agree with me, right? [9:36] I, I, I, what I disagree with you on is that we haven't- [9:38] Come on, you can say it. You can say it. You can say it. [9:40] Is that we haven't, we haven't covered this. We have covered this. And the Supreme Court [9:45] answered this- But do you agree with me that this, this candidate is trying to confuse voters? [9:49] My- This candidate is trying to confuse voters, right? [9:51] My question for you- There's no other alternative. [9:53] Was about the federal government's role, and you're right, the, the courts will determine [9:57] whether or not you have one. Let's talk about the president. Yeah. [10:00] On Friday, he said, quote, I'm the one that said, do it. Did the president direct you to sue Alaska? [10:09] So the president has been talking about Alaska for months and months, right? So, so in, in your opening [10:13] monologue, you suggested it's his latest concern. That's not true. He's been talking about it since, [10:18] since May and June when this started happening. And so this isn't something that just popped up. [10:23] Similarly, the Department of Justice has been looking at it since it happened, [10:26] because it is wrong. It is wrong. Putting aside whether we're going to win or lose in the courts, [10:31] putting aside what the Alaskan Supreme Court has done. In our system, we should not have a candidate [10:36] who has to worry about another candidate being on the ballot for no other reason than to confuse voters. [10:42] And so, so it's something the Department of Justice has been looking at for a while, and, and we, we wish that [10:47] there, that we didn't have to do this. We hope for a resolution that works. [10:50] So then why? So given what you just said, the Supreme Court in Alaska [10:55] made this decision in June, and you said the president's been talking about it for a while, [11:00] why, why wait till less than two weeks before the election to file? [11:03] Well, there's a couple different reasons. One, we had to file before the election because the reef, [11:09] the relief that we're seeking, which again, isn't to determine who the senator is. It's not to try to [11:15] overturn something the state is going to do. It's just to make sure that they're, that the ballots [11:19] that come in are kept in a way that may allow a court to, to, to investigate further or to have [11:25] the Alaskan investigation investigate further. And second, the Alaska Supreme Court indicated they [11:29] were going to issue a decision behind their ruling. And, and we were hoping to have that. It hasn't, [11:34] they haven't issued such a decision. Can we go back to the. [11:36] And so, and so we have no time. Okay. Can we go back to the question I asked [11:39] about the president? Did he direct you to file this lawsuit? [11:45] So I, I talk about this all the time. Okay. I will never talk about any communications I have [11:50] with the president of the United States. But what I will say is that the president is not shy to, [11:55] to the American people and has been very clear with the American people about his concerns about [11:59] what's happening in Alaska. And, and so the fact that, and the Department of Justice has been as [12:04] well, which is our job. It's what we're supposed to be. And so this lawsuit was a result of the work [12:09] that the department of attorneys did in the civil rights unit that, that determined that there was a [12:14] federal law that obligated us to try to step in to stop what, what, what, what, what, what, [12:20] what I think every American views is an injustice. Like, I mean, you won't admit it, [12:24] but it is true that the only reason this man is on the ballot is to confuse voters. I mean, [12:28] if everybody would start with that premise, then I think the, the, the, the, the, the, the, [12:33] the frustration people are having towards the department adjusted would dissipate [12:36] because we're doing the right thing. Okay. I just want to emphasize what you said, [12:41] that you didn't say no, that the president didn't direct you. And this is a president who [12:45] are saying Democrats are trying to steal this important seat. He's admitting it's political. [12:51] Do you see your job as helping Republicans keep the seat? He's not admitting it's political. Wait, [12:57] you're saying that a president saying that there's a, that there's a improper, something improper [13:02] happening at the ballots is necessarily political. He's the executive. He's the, he's supposed to make [13:07] sure that there's everything in this country is running right. He said Democrats are trying to [13:11] steal this election. But steal this election how? Finish your thought. It's not my thought. [13:18] By cheating, by putting a candidate up. No, no, no, that's not all he said. He didn't stop there. [13:22] You can't just cherry pick a quote from the president of the United States and ask me to comment [13:25] on it. What he has said repeatedly, repeatedly is that the reason why this is not fair, this is not a [13:31] fair fight in his mind because there is a man on the ballot with, I mean, let's just keep on saying it again, [13:36] with the same name as the incumbent senator who happens to be a Republican. [13:39] I understand, but this is a question about, about the law. Do you believe that that is illegal? [13:46] Is it illegal to have one ballot with two people of the same name? That's, that's, [13:52] that is one of the fundamental questions that will be asked. So, so here's the answer, [13:58] the very short answer to that question, okay, which is that it is an obligation of the states [14:03] to avoid confusion, among other things, confusion in the minds of voters in the election process. [14:09] So the question is whether Alaska, by allowing this to happen, is violating the law and the [14:15] federal law and the constitution by allowing confusion in the ballot. Okay, that is the, [14:20] the state, the legal question. And in my mind, it's not a hard one, because not because of what [14:26] President Trump has said and not because what I think, but because the head of the Alaskan election [14:31] process has said it. So it's not my words, not President Trump's words, it's the head of Alaska [14:35] elections. Can we take a step back here as to, you were asking why, uh, people are, are asking [14:41] questions about this. And let's just talk Turkey, because one of the big questions is whether or not [14:50] the president is laying the groundwork for a scenario where the, whether it's Alaska or somewhere else, [15:01] there is, in your words, a couple of days ago, a doomsday scenario. And we could be in a situation [15:08] where President Trump tries to overturn the election. And the result of that could be, [15:15] God forbid, what we saw after January 6th. That is one of the big fundamental questions. [15:21] Oh, you got to stop it with that. You are not being a real person. Come on, man. [15:24] Come on. That is crazy. It is not crazy. Hold on a second. Wait, wait, wait, stop, stop, stop. [15:29] I would have said that before January 6th. You asked the question, let me answer it. Hold on. You, [15:32] you set me up, you set me up with the following question. Okay. Because of the president, [15:36] because the Department of Justice is concerned that there is an absolute fraud happening in Alaska, [15:42] and he wants to do something about it. You're saying, Mr. Attorney General, [15:45] because the president of the United States wants to stop a fraud and confusion in Alaska. [15:50] This is a president. Is he going to do something crazy? That has a history. That is not, that is not [15:54] a real question. I wish it wasn't. That is not a real question. I wish it wasn't. I'm sorry. But, [15:58] but if you're laying the groundwork for the president to try to overturn an election [16:04] that he doesn't like, there is concern. We're not laying any groundwork for the [16:08] president to do that. So your premise, your question is not true. What I said, and so if you, [16:13] so you have to listen to what I say, or it's not a fair conversation. What I said is, [16:16] the groundwork that we are laying is for Alaska, for the state of Alaska, if it becomes an issue [16:22] after the election, we'll have the ability to determine whether there was confusion that [16:27] violates the law in determining who the senators should be. That is not Donald J. Trump. That is [16:31] not our president. I have your complaint right here. You said, [16:34] to guard against a danger, it is vital that defendants not certify any election results that may be [16:39] impacted by voter confusion. You're putting into the ether, into a complaint, into a lawsuit, [16:46] the potential to not certify. I read the whole thing. [16:49] That's not where it ends. That is not the whole thing. What the rest of that paragraph says and [16:55] what the rest of the relief that we are seeking is not to not certify. It's to not certify if the [17:01] law is broken. So if the law is broken, and that's for Alaskan and the Alaskan court system to [17:06] determine if the law is broken, then any state should not certify. I think we can all agree with that. [17:11] Yeah. And again, the Alaska Supreme Court, which by way of the constitution, the first part of it [17:19] says that the states should decide. Right, but not the second part. [17:22] Should decide. And the courts are going to determine whether your lawsuit using [17:28] a law that is on the book, passed by Congress, is going to determine. But my fundamental question has [17:34] been given where we are and given the fact that the polls show that the president is, his party is [17:42] potentially not going to do very well if that is what is underlying what is going on in Alaska. [17:49] And I don't think it's an unfair question to ask that given what we saw after the 2020 election. [17:54] But here, so I just fundamentally disagree with you. The conversation that you and I have been [18:00] having for the past 10 minutes has nothing to do with the fact that Alaskans, as not found by [18:05] President Trump, Alaskans are going to go to the ballots potentially confused, okay, which is not [18:10] something that's allowed to happen in this country. So instead of focusing on how we can address that and [18:15] how we can remedy that, you're talking about January 6th, okay? And that's so embarrassing to this [18:20] network that that's what you're talking about. The real conversation should be why in Alaska? [18:26] Oh, come on me. Why in Alaska? Why in Alaska? There's literally confusion. And then you cite polls. [18:32] I mean, this isn't a conversation about polls. It's not a conversation about January 6th. [18:35] It's a conversation about an election that we are about to have. [18:37] This is a conversation about what's happening in Alaska right now. [18:38] It's a conversation that we are about to have. [18:40] In Alaska is what you're talking about. In Alaska. [18:42] And you haven't once uttered the fact that there's no, there's no dispute that this [18:46] candidates on the ballot to confuse voters. You won't even concede that basic premise that the [18:51] head of elections has already conceded. I'm not arguing that. I am just saying that this [18:54] was litigated in the Alaska courts, went all the way up to the Supreme Court. Unless federal [19:00] laws violated, unless federal laws violated. And by the way, the Alaskan Supreme Court explicitly [19:04] didn't consider federal law. That wasn't before them. And so we are not doing anything improper. [19:09] We're not doing anything we're not allowed to do. And we have to let the process play out. [19:13] But I do think it's important for the American people to understand that we are not, President [19:18] Trump is not trying to take over a state election in any way, shape or form. What we're trying to do [19:23] is make it make it clear that if it is obvious after the election that confusion led to an improper [19:30] and illegal result, that the Alaskan system should be able to address that. [19:34] We are going to all be waiting to see how the federal courts rule on your complaint. [19:40] I appreciate you coming here this morning, Mr. Attorney General. [19:44] Thank you. It was good to be here. [19:45] This is the beginning of the second coup attempt by Donald Trump. First attempt was January 6th. [19:50] Now we have him once again, trying to overthrow our democracy, trying to cast doubts on our free [19:58] and fair elections, trying to step in to Alaska and dictate who's going to win their Alaskan Senate [20:08] election. It's clear that if the Democrat wins, Donald Trump is going to spend every day [20:17] at every press event, every time he steps in front of the camera talking about how Democrats [20:23] stole the election. And what he's going to try to do is he's going to try to pressure Republican [20:28] leadership in the Senate to not swear in that Senator. If it means that Republicans can hold the [20:34] majority because the Senate is the only thing standing in between Donald Trump and a prison [20:40] sell. He's going to be impeached in the House. And if Democrats turn the Senate blue, he's going to be [20:48] removed. And then the investigations are going to start the investigations, which we all know have a [20:56] pretty good chance of finding Donald Trump guilty of crimes against this country, of being just the most [21:05] despicable human being that this country has ever seen. Todd Blanche just really, he showed his true [21:18] colors. He showed the scheme here because when Dana Bash asked him how they're going to be able to prove this, [21:25] how they're going to be able to prove that there was confusion in Alaska, he couldn't answer because [21:32] it's not about proving confusion. It's not about proving that the Republican would have won if the [21:40] Independent wasn't on the ballot. No, it's just about saying so, saying that the election was rigged. [21:48] This is all the long con, the long coup con from Donald Trump and his corrupt attorney general. [21:56] And I say corrupt because he's supposed to be the people's attorney. And yet he's sitting there [22:03] telling Dana Bash that he's not going to talk about his conversations with the president as if they [22:09] should be secret, as if there's some client attorney privilege there. Donald Trump is not his client. [22:16] We the people are Todd Blanche's client in ideally, but we're clearly not. Todd Blanche serving as [22:24] Donald Trump's defense attorney, serving as his henchman, the guy who will be willing to carry out [22:31] Donald Trump's attempt to end our democracy.