Todd Blanche's attorney general nomination moves forward after key Senate vote — full video

[0:00] I've said in the past, I'm happy to stay afterwards if any of my colleagues feel like [0:05] they want more time to make their remarks. [0:11] Additionally, I want to thank Senator Cornyn and Senator Tillis. [0:18] Tillis isn't here yet, but you can tell them I'm thanking him for their work, [0:26] very hard work, related to today's nomination. [0:29] Their concerns about the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the IRS settlement were shared by many, [0:39] including this senator. [0:41] I'm grateful that they, as well as Mr. Blanche and the White House, [0:46] worked in good faith to solve them, formally rescinding the fund [0:52] and clarifying the scope of release of claims has put this issue to bed once and for all. [0:59] I was probably a little late a week ago last night getting involved in this issue, [1:09] and when I got involved in it, I thought to myself, [1:13] it's just common sense what Tillis and Cornyn are asking out of the executive branch of government, [1:21] government, and I don't think it should have taken as long as it did to get it resolved, [1:26] and I don't have any way of knowing exactly everybody that was involved in it, [1:32] but it's just a crime that it took so long to work out with such a common sense thing [1:39] that's pretty simple, that when you have a settlement, [1:42] it's involved with the settlement at that time and anything in the future [1:47] that might be gone wrong of whether somebody had done something illegally [1:52] or somebody wasn't paying their taxes, [1:55] that it wouldn't apply to anything in the future. [1:59] To me, that's very common sense, [2:01] and that's all that I see that, [2:03] at least for one half of what Tillis and Cornyn were trying to accomplish, [2:10] should have been accomplished very easy, [2:12] and it seems like it took the longest part to get settled, [2:17] so I thank everybody for their patience in doing it. [2:20] Turning to today's agenda, [2:22] I'd like to say a few words about Mr. Blanche. [2:26] The Justice Department has thrived under his leadership. [2:29] Among other things, Mr. Blanche has led major successes [2:34] in thwarting federal program fraud and racial discrimination [2:39] and restoring the safety of every American. [2:43] I'd like to take a few moments to reflect on that last one, [2:47] the safety of Americans, [2:49] primary job of the Attorney General and the Justice Department. [2:54] At the end of the hearing, [2:56] Mr. Blanche stated that his job was, quote, [2:59] quote, securing safety for every American, end quote. [3:04] He is absolutely right. [3:07] It's clear that from his track record [3:10] that Mr. Blanche has succeeded. [3:13] We've seen report after report showcasing [3:16] the Department's increase in violent crime arrests, [3:23] disruption of terrorist activities, [3:25] and the seizure of illegal firearms and controlled substances. [3:30] The Council on Criminal Justice recently issued [3:34] a 2026 mid-year report on crime trends. [3:40] The results are very astounding. [3:45] The reported rates for homicide dropped 51% [3:49] from its peak over nine years ago. [3:53] Carjackings down 73%. [3:57] Residential burglaries down 56%. [4:02] Motor vehicle thefts down 51%. [4:07] Now, critics might say, [4:09] well, there was a spike of crime in 2020. [4:14] So it looks, let's look at the reported crime rates in 26% [4:20] compared to 2019. [4:24] Sexual assaults down 13%. [4:28] Assaults with firearms down 17%. [4:30] Robbery down 41%. [4:33] Robbery down 41%. [4:34] Drug offenses down 15%. [4:38] And that's just a few of the statistics I could give you. [4:42] Without objection, I want to enter this report in the record. [4:47] Is there any objection? [4:48] I hear none. [4:49] Based on these stats, it's evident that no Justice Department in our nation's history [5:11] can boost, boast the successes of this Justice Department under Mr. Blanche's leadership. [5:20] Still, the critics can't bring themselves to acknowledge this reality. [5:27] The Washington Times stated, quote, [5:29] The encouraging news was met with little explanation as to why crime, [5:36] especially homicides, has cratered after spiking from 2020 to 2022, end of quote. [5:44] That's a strange thing for them to say. [5:48] The press has no explanation for what changed between then and now, [5:52] because I can think of an explanation. [5:57] I think every American in this country who feels safer at home [6:03] and in their towns and cities can think of an explanation. [6:08] It's very obvious. [6:11] Todd Blanche's Justice Department has reprioritized the safety of Americans [6:17] after the Biden administration opened borders to violent criminals [6:21] and then turned a blind eye to heinous crimes that were happening around the country. [6:27] The Biden administration was too busy weaponizing the Justice Department [6:33] against political opponents to stop real crime. [6:37] And so please don't forget, whistleblowers and media outlets reported [6:41] that the Biden FBI even reassigned personnels from investigating child sex crimes [6:49] to work on January 6th cases. [6:53] So it's no surprise that when the Trump administration secured the borders [6:57] and Mr. Blanche did his job prioritizing safety of Americans, crime has come down. [7:05] But despite clear evidence that America is safer under Mr. Blanche's leadership, [7:12] some have alleged that he doesn't care about victims. [7:17] I can think of plenty of victims who would disagree with that. [7:20] This committee received a letter from more than 300 Angel families [7:25] who strongly support Mr. Blanche. [7:29] They praised his commitment to, quote, [7:32] core public safety priorities, stopping illegal immigration, [7:40] eliminating cartels and transnational criminal organizations, [7:45] ending trafficking and dangerous drugs and human beings, [7:49] and protecting American communities from violent crime, end of quote, of their statement. [7:58] As we heard from one of these angel moms at the hearing, Jennifer Boss, [8:06] her testimony was heart-wrenching as she told about her daughter's tragic and gruesome death. [8:13] She stated, quote, [8:15] from the time I've spent talking to Todd Blanche, [8:19] I knew immediately that he makes victims a priority. [8:25] Under his direction, the DOJ has engaged directly with Angel families [8:32] and treated us not like political props, but as partners in preventing fugitive future tragedies, [8:42] and that's all that we've ever asked for, end of quote. [8:47] Ms. Boss concluded by stating, quote, [8:51] I 100% believe that Todd Blanche will be one who can deliver justice, [9:00] saving lives of people who will never know it, end of quote. [9:05] Ms. Boss knows that America is safer with Mr. Blanche at the helm. [9:11] The Angel families know it, and Americans across the country know it. [9:16] Today, I'm not only voting to advance Todd Blanche's nomination, [9:21] I'm voting for the safety of the American people. [9:25] Senator Durbin. [9:26] Thanks, Mr. Chairman. [9:29] Reflect on the fact that as we meet today, [9:31] there are thousands, literally tens of thousands, [9:34] of men and women in the United States [9:36] who got up this morning and put on a badge [9:39] or picked up their briefcase and went to work [9:41] to make sure that we would be safe. [9:43] They are in law enforcement all across the United States of America. [9:47] They count on this system of justice, as we all do, [9:50] to give us not only safety in our homes, [9:52] but also fairness when it comes to treatment by the government. [9:57] The man we are discussing this morning seeks to be [9:59] the number one law enforcement enforcer of the United States of America, [10:05] the Attorney General of the United States, [10:07] the highest-ranking law enforcement position. [10:10] And what have we learned in the last few weeks [10:12] when it comes to Todd Blanche? [10:14] We have learned that simply his word is not enough for most of us, [10:20] not even for some of my Republican friends. [10:22] Even his word under oath is not credible enough. [10:26] We have a demand by colleagues that I support, [10:30] a demand that Mr. Blanche, [10:32] when it comes to important promises to the American people, [10:35] put it in writing. [10:37] Put it in writing. [10:38] And in fact, he did. [10:41] Mr. Chairman, the political escapade of the last week [10:43] has made it clearer than ever that Todd Blanche has no business [10:46] serving as our nation's chief law enforcement officer. [10:49] Two Republican members of this committee said they would not vote for Mr. Blanche [10:54] unless the J6 cop-beater slush fund was permanently and irrevocably terminated. [11:02] And of course, these two members, and I support their position, [11:05] said to Mr. Blanche, [11:06] you have to put it in writing if you're going to say those words. [11:10] President Trump responded, as we might have guessed, [11:13] as he always does, [11:15] by doubling down on his position [11:17] and personally attacking our colleagues. [11:21] To state the obvious, [11:22] Mr. Blanche's statement on the slush front [11:24] and the IRS immunity agreement [11:26] are not signed by the parties to the settlement agreement [11:29] and are therefore unenforceable. [11:33] The parties could still sue to enforce the agreement, [11:36] and the cop-beater's fund can easily be revived [11:39] with a new order from the Department of Justice [11:41] 15 minutes after Mr. Blanche is confirmed as Attorney General. [11:46] Indeed, the president himself has loudly telegraphed, [11:50] that's his plan. [11:51] This is the exact issue that the two senators identified [11:54] as a basis for their objection to his nomination, [11:58] Blanche's nomination. [11:59] To my Republican colleagues, [12:01] you gave Mr. Blanche the benefit of the doubt [12:03] when you supported his nomination to be Deputy Attorney General. [12:07] 17 months later, there is no doubt where his loyalty will lie. [12:12] Take a look at this promise, [12:14] unprecedented, I believe, in the history of the United States, [12:17] that somehow Mr. Blanche engineered an agreement, [12:20] an understanding, a settlement, you name it, [12:23] that said that Donald Trump will never be held responsible [12:27] for any violations of tax crimes [12:29] before the date of this document that was signed. [12:34] Saying that the president can commit any crime [12:36] in the tax code and not be held personally responsible? [12:41] Does that sound like he is being held to an accountability [12:44] that we all expect of every single American? [12:48] Instead of serving the American people [12:50] and upholding the rule of law and the Constitution, [12:53] Mr. Blanche has aided and abetted [12:55] the most corrupt administration [12:57] in the history of the United States. [13:00] Prior to this hearing, Mr. Blanche told me he, quote, [13:03] made a mistake, close quote, [13:06] by creating the January 6th slush fund. [13:09] Where did he say it? [13:10] In my office, with witnesses, my staff, [13:13] to what I'm about to say. [13:15] When I asked him about this under oath, [13:17] Mr. Blanche falsely claimed [13:19] that he never made this statement. [13:21] That's not true. [13:23] Mr. Blanche's willingness to casually lie under oath [13:26] about a statement he made in a room full of witnesses [13:29] shows the lengths he will go to [13:31] to avoid offending President Trump. [13:34] Why doesn't he want to concede he made a mistake? [13:36] We all do that from time to time, right? [13:38] No, no, no. [13:39] Manly mega leaders do not admit a mistake [13:43] or use the word sorry. [13:45] So he was held accountable by the president. [13:48] Mr. Blanche's claimed he would recuse himself [13:50] from matters involving President Trump [13:52] in his personal capacity. [13:54] Yet he personally signed the agreement [13:56] releasing President Trump, his family, [13:59] and businesses from tax liability. [14:02] When asked how DOJ justified the slush fund's [14:05] outrageous $1.776 billion price tag, [14:12] Mr. Blanche refused to answer. [14:14] He shows contempt for this committee [14:15] and for our history by refusing to admit [14:18] that the sum was chosen to signal support [14:21] for the January 6 rioters, [14:23] and many of us remember when they attacked [14:26] and invaded the Capitol. [14:27] Those rioters shamelessly invoked 1776 [14:32] to compare themselves to American revolutionaries. [14:35] Give me a break. [14:37] Mr. Blanche told me that a ruling against the settlement [14:39] was, quote, a hit piece personally directed at him. [14:43] This is no surprise coming from the man [14:46] who declared that the justice suburban [14:47] is, quote, at war, close quote, with the courts. [14:52] These are not the words of someone who would serve our nation [14:55] as a top law enforcement official. [14:58] One of Mr. Blanche's first acts as deputy attorney general [15:01] was to issue a memo gutting [15:03] DOJ's crypto crime enforcement, [15:05] which allowed the president to rake in [15:08] $1.4 billion in a crypto windfall last year, [15:15] even as Americans reported billions of dollars [15:18] in cryptocurrency fraud losses. [15:20] The president did just fine. [15:22] Thank you. [15:23] Meanwhile, Mr. Blanche still has, [15:26] through his children and grandchildren, [15:28] $150,000 in crypto assets. [15:32] Last year, under Mr. Blanche's leadership, [15:35] more than 1,000 FBI personnel [15:37] were pulled off key law enforcement priorities. [15:40] What was a higher priority than their oath [15:43] that they've taken to uphold the law? [15:46] They were directed to flag Epstein records [15:48] and looked for any mention of Donald Trump. [15:52] Mr. Blanche refused to tell me who gave this order, [15:55] but former Attorney General Bondi made it clear, [15:58] saying Blanche was, quote, [15:59] in charge of the Epstein files. [16:02] And when the Epstein Files Transparency Act [16:05] forced DOJ to release the files, [16:07] not only did the department delay reviewing and producing it, [16:11] it recklessly failed to redact [16:12] hundreds of survivors' personal information, [16:16] victimizing them all over again. [16:18] And they testified before this committee [16:20] came ready under oath to that fact. [16:24] Meanwhile, the names of powerful Epstein cronies [16:27] remained protected in clear violation of the law. [16:31] When scrutiny of the Epstein cover-up intensified, [16:33] Mr. Blanche participated in secret meetings [16:36] in the White House Situation Room of all places [16:38] to strategize about protecting Trump, [16:42] not Epstein survivors. [16:44] Mr. Blanche volunteered to interview [16:45] convicted sex trafficker, [16:47] Ghislaine Maxwell, [16:49] a transparent attempt to exonerate President Trump. [16:52] Just days later, [16:53] she was transferred to a minimum security camp, [16:56] which is unheard of, [16:58] unprecedented, [16:59] for serious sex offenders like her. [17:01] Mr. Blanche agreed to meet with Epstein survivors [17:04] after months of pleas. [17:06] Only when his nomination was in jeopardy [17:09] and a member of this committee said [17:10] he wouldn't meet, [17:12] wouldn't consider voting for him [17:13] unless he met with these survivors. [17:15] He finally met with them for almost an hour. [17:19] As one survivor, Dan Obensky, [17:21] who testified before this committee said, [17:23] the meeting was a box-checking exercise. [17:26] Mr. Blanche refused to take accountability [17:28] for redaction failures, [17:30] and he wouldn't commit to following [17:32] their suggested investigative leads. [17:36] It is clear that Mr. Blanche hopes [17:37] to sweep the Epstein scandal under the rug. [17:40] I thank those survivors [17:41] for the courage they showed in this room, [17:44] today and around the country, [17:46] for continuing to advocate for survivors [17:49] and speak truth to power. [17:51] Mr. Blanche has played a key role [17:52] in terminating thousands [17:54] of Department of Justice officials. [17:56] The chairman talked about [17:57] his law enforcement record. [17:59] Let's look at it. [18:00] The goal is clear. [18:02] Replace these DOJ officials [18:04] with unqualified mega-loyalists [18:06] who will rubber-stamp [18:08] President Trump's corruption. [18:11] Under Mr. Blanche's leadership, [18:13] more than 16,000 employees [18:16] have left the Department. [18:18] 16,000 employees have left [18:21] the Department of Justice, [18:22] including more than a fourth [18:23] of its attorneys. [18:25] Many have been fired for declining [18:27] to initiate vindictive prosecutions, [18:29] are refusing to follow unethical orders, [18:33] like career immigration litigator [18:34] Erez Zeruvny, [18:36] who refused an order [18:37] from Mr. Blanche's former law partner, [18:39] Amo Bove, [18:40] to lie in federal court. [18:43] Mr. Blanche bragged about [18:44] firing career law enforcement officials [18:46] simply because they were assigned [18:47] to investigate [18:48] President Trump's misconduct. [18:51] Mr. Blanche is responsible [18:52] for Department losing [18:53] thousands of years [18:54] of law enforcement [18:56] and national security expertise. [18:57] This makes all of us less safe. [19:01] Consider this quote. [19:02] On Blanche's watch, [19:03] the Trump DOJ [19:05] has pursued an unabashedly [19:07] vindictive agenda [19:08] of leveraging the government's [19:11] awesome prosecutorial powers [19:13] in its public trust [19:15] against the president's [19:17] political enemies. [19:18] These aren't my words. [19:20] This is the conclusion [19:21] of the National Review, [19:23] the leading conservative publication [19:25] founded by William Buckley. [19:26] This isn't about Democrats [19:28] versus Republicans. [19:30] This is about rule of law [19:31] versus lawlessness. [19:33] The attorney general [19:33] is supposed to be [19:34] the people's lawyer. [19:36] Department of Justice [19:37] should work on behalf [19:39] of all the American people. [19:41] Mr. Blanche continues to operate [19:43] as the president's [19:44] personal lawyer, [19:46] treating the Justice Department [19:47] like a law firm [19:48] serving one client, [19:50] the president. [19:51] The president has made it clear [19:52] he plans to keep [19:54] Mr. Blanche in place [19:56] as acting attorney general [19:57] a damning comment [19:59] on his capacity [20:00] to honorably serve [20:01] in this role. [20:02] This committee does not need [20:03] to legitimate [20:04] Mr. Blanche's appointment [20:05] by providing our consent. [20:08] I yield. [20:09] Before I call on Democrats [20:12] to speak, [20:12] I'd like to have [20:13] Cornyn and Tillis [20:16] have a few minutes [20:18] and then we'll go [20:19] to the other side of the aisle. [20:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [20:24] The office of attorney general [20:28] is one of the most challenging [20:30] jobs in the cabinet. [20:33] You are at the same time [20:34] the people's lawyer, [20:35] as Senator Durbin has said, [20:37] while you are a member [20:39] of the president's cabinet, [20:40] subject to being dismissed [20:41] at the pleasure [20:43] of the president. [20:44] It is a very challenging [20:46] balance to strike, [20:49] to be sure. [20:52] The tax lawsuit [20:53] that was filed [20:54] by President Trump [20:55] and his son [20:56] and the Trump organization [20:57] in January of 2026 [21:00] was what prosecutors [21:02] called unparalleled [21:03] in the IRS's history. [21:07] A contractor [21:08] of Bose Hamilton [21:09] got the job [21:12] at the IRS [21:12] for the express purpose [21:14] of leaking tax returns, [21:17] private tax returns, [21:18] of people he thought [21:21] the public needed [21:22] to know about. [21:23] That is a violation [21:24] of the criminal law [21:25] and the contractor [21:27] is currently serving [21:29] a five-year term [21:30] in the federal penitentiary [21:32] for that. [21:34] Initially, [21:35] when the president [21:35] filed suit, [21:37] he sought $10 billion [21:38] in damages. [21:40] That is nowhere [21:42] to be found [21:43] in the final settlement. [21:45] The settlement documents [21:47] also created [21:47] a roughly $1.8 billion [21:50] weaponization fund. [21:52] That is no longer [21:53] part of the settlement. [21:55] I have been very clear, [21:59] as others have, [22:01] that in order [22:02] to support Mr. Blanche's [22:04] nomination, [22:05] I needed specific assurances [22:07] in writing [22:08] about a release [22:09] signed by the acting [22:11] attorney general [22:12] last May. [22:13] I asked for written [22:14] assurances [22:14] that clarifies [22:16] the scope [22:17] of the parties [22:19] to the IRS [22:20] audit agreement [22:21] and that permanently [22:22] ends [22:23] the weaponization fund. [22:25] While this may sound [22:26] like nitpicking [22:27] to some, [22:29] it's critically important [22:30] not only to me [22:30] but to other members [22:32] of the Senate. [22:33] What Mr. Blanche [22:34] said under oath [22:35] in his nomination [22:37] hearing on these topics [22:38] was important. [22:40] He said under oath [22:41] subject to the penalties [22:42] of perjury [22:43] that he signed [22:44] the release, [22:45] the release he signed [22:46] only applies to the IRS [22:47] and the Treasury [22:49] and only the parties [22:50] who were defendants [22:52] and the plaintiffs. [22:53] And he also said [22:55] once more [22:56] that the weaponization fund [22:57] was dead. [22:59] This past Sunday, [23:01] Senator Tillis [23:01] and I came to an agreement [23:03] after numerous meetings [23:04] with the Department [23:05] of Justice [23:06] and Mr. Blanche [23:07] on an agency [23:09] interpretative guidance [23:11] document [23:12] that reaffirms [23:13] what Mr. Blanche [23:14] said in his sworn testimony [23:15] in front of the committee. [23:17] This document [23:18] will help limit [23:20] the substance [23:21] and scope [23:22] of the audit protection [23:23] to the defendants [23:26] in the lawsuit, [23:27] the IRS [23:27] and the Treasury [23:28] and it limits it [23:29] to the parties [23:30] to the audit settlement [23:32] it limits the parties [23:34] to the audit settlement [23:35] to the plaintiffs, [23:36] the people who brought [23:37] the lawsuit [23:37] and no one else. [23:40] And importantly, [23:41] it was retroactive, [23:43] stated to be retroactive, [23:45] not prospective, [23:46] doesn't apply [23:47] to future audits, [23:48] but does settle [23:49] all claims [23:50] that were subject [23:51] to the lawsuit [23:52] and those that could [23:53] have been brought [23:54] in that lawsuit. [23:56] And again, [23:57] importantly, [23:58] it ends [23:58] the weaponization fund. [24:02] The DOJ [24:02] has repeatedly said [24:04] that this is their [24:05] legal position [24:06] and interpretation, [24:08] including filings [24:08] in the Floyd [24:09] v. Department of Justice [24:11] in the Eastern District [24:12] of Virginia [24:13] and Dunn v. Trump [24:15] and Citizens [24:15] for Responsibility [24:16] and Ethics [24:17] in Washington v. Trump [24:19] in the District [24:19] of Columbia. [24:20] They've been consistent [24:21] about their assertion [24:24] on behalf [24:24] of the United States [24:25] of America [24:27] that the weaponization fund [24:29] is dead. [24:30] And of course, [24:30] I expect them [24:31] to live up to that [24:32] in any future litigation. [24:35] Given this agreement [24:38] with Mr. Blanche, [24:40] I expect the department [24:42] to live up to this [24:45] in future litigation [24:46] and I will vote [24:47] to advance him [24:48] out of the committee today. [24:50] But my vote [24:50] to advance Mr. Blanche's [24:52] nomination [24:53] goes beyond this document. [24:55] We need a stabilizing force [24:58] at the Department of Justice [24:59] and Mr. Blanche [25:01] deserves the opportunity [25:02] to provide that [25:03] as opposed to continuing [25:05] to serve in an acting capacity [25:07] and as the deputy attorney general. [25:10] The Department of Justice [25:11] does not need [25:12] a temporary, [25:14] unconfirmed nominee [25:15] as our nation's [25:16] top law enforcement officer. [25:18] President Trump [25:19] needs someone in this role [25:20] as well with a strong legal mind [25:23] but who also is close enough [25:25] to him [25:26] to give him confidential legal advice [25:28] to tell him hard truths. [25:30] I thought what Mr. Blanche said [25:32] during this hearing was very important. [25:35] He said, [25:35] I can give the president [25:36] confidential legal advice [25:37] but of course [25:39] he doesn't have to follow it. [25:41] He was elected president [25:42] of the United States [25:44] and not me. [25:46] That's the fact. [25:49] I would advise Mr. Blanche [25:50] not to be afraid [25:51] to capitalize [25:51] on that earned trust [25:53] when necessary [25:54] for the good of the country. [25:56] I want to thank him [25:56] for being willing [25:57] to work with us, [25:59] Senator Tillis and me, [26:00] and I want to commend my staff [26:02] led by Francie Rooney [26:04] and others [26:04] for their hard work [26:05] on these negotiations. [26:07] I'm glad we could address [26:08] these issues here [26:09] in committee [26:10] so that this nomination [26:11] can move forward [26:12] and I'm grateful [26:13] to the chairman [26:14] for giving me [26:15] and Senator Tillis [26:16] the latitude to do so. [26:18] Senator Tillis. [26:19] Thank you, Mr. Chairman [26:21] and thank you, [26:22] Senator Cornyn. [26:23] I am by no means [26:24] going to match up [26:26] against Senator Cornyn, [26:27] a lawyer and a former judge, [26:29] except to say [26:30] that I believe [26:31] that we have addressed [26:32] the concerns that I have. [26:33] The first one, [26:34] I called the payout pot [26:35] for punks. [26:36] I've never liked [26:37] this 1776 fund. [26:39] It made no sense to me [26:40] and I thought [26:40] it was an insult [26:41] to the police officers [26:42] and the people [26:43] that defended us [26:43] on January the 6th. [26:45] It's done. [26:46] It's been rescinded [26:47] and I am satisfied. [26:50] I also feel like [26:51] Senator Cornyn [26:52] addressed the other [26:53] piece of it [26:54] that has to do [26:55] with the audit [26:55] to my satisfaction. [26:57] You know, [26:58] the thing that interests me [26:59] and I'm kind of curious [27:00] about the speeches [27:01] that come after here [27:02] is how everybody [27:04] has this view [27:06] of they are as pure [27:08] as the driven snow [27:09] and it's the other side [27:10] that has a problem. [27:11] I think we both [27:12] have a problem, folks. [27:13] If you want to talk [27:14] about weaponization, [27:16] take a look [27:17] at the Biden administration. [27:19] Take a look [27:20] at the Obama administration. [27:21] Take a look [27:22] at Crossfire Hurricane. [27:23] Take a look [27:24] at the codes [27:25] that Lois Lerner [27:26] used in the IRS [27:27] to target businesses [27:28] to try and unbank them. [27:31] Take a look [27:31] at the prospective pardons [27:33] on the way out the door [27:34] that President Biden did [27:35] for family members, [27:36] for staff members [27:38] in Congress. [27:39] The bottom line is [27:41] nobody is clean here. [27:43] And until we start [27:44] recognizing this behavior [27:45] as bad, [27:46] we're just going to one-up it. [27:47] Maybe it's a little bit [27:49] more intense [27:49] in this administration [27:50] than the last one [27:51] and that a little bit [27:53] more intense [27:53] than the prior administration [27:55] and so on and so forth. [27:56] But, folks, [27:57] we've got to end this stuff. [27:59] We do. [28:00] I'm going to support [28:01] Mr. Blanche's nomination, [28:03] but what I hope [28:03] I see out of him [28:04] is a bending of the curve [28:06] of this absurdity. [28:08] The 86-47, [28:11] some bonehead [28:12] in North Carolina [28:13] thinks that that's a crime. [28:14] Well, they better damn sure [28:16] have information [28:16] to back it up [28:17] because if all it is [28:18] is a picture, [28:19] that person should lose [28:20] his job, [28:21] his or her job. [28:22] Similarly, [28:23] the people [28:24] who went after Republicans [28:26] in the Biden administration [28:27] should probably [28:28] be disbarred [28:29] or disciplined. [28:30] So at the end of the day, [28:32] don't act like [28:33] you're standing [28:33] on some sort [28:34] of moral high ground [28:35] if you start attacking [28:36] this administration [28:37] because I can match you [28:38] almost deed for deed. [28:41] What I would like [28:41] to see here [28:42] is maybe people saying, [28:44] look at it, [28:44] instead of, [28:45] instead of criticizing [28:47] people on the other [28:48] side of the aisle, [28:49] why don't you go back [28:49] and hold your own caucus [28:51] and your conference [28:52] to our standard. [28:53] That's what I'm doing. [28:55] That's what Senator [28:56] Cornyn's doing [28:57] and that's what I think [28:58] the American people [28:59] want more of. [29:00] And Mr. Chair, [29:01] thank you for your patience. [29:02] I know from time to time [29:04] I don't like delaying markups [29:07] but I thought [29:07] that this was a very important one [29:09] because we got [29:10] to a good outcome [29:11] and I appreciate Mr. Blanche [29:12] working in good faith [29:13] and I am prepared [29:15] to vote yes today [29:16] in his confirmation [29:17] or in his, [29:18] in moving his confirmation [29:19] or nomination forward. [29:23] The White House. [29:23] Thank you, Chairman. [29:26] Today I think is a sad [29:29] and embarrassing day [29:31] for this committee [29:32] as it looks like [29:34] on a party-line vote [29:35] we are going to advance [29:37] out of this committee [29:38] probably the most [29:40] discreditable person [29:41] ever to seek the office [29:43] of Attorney General [29:44] of the United States. [29:47] The reasons to vote against him [29:49] number in the hundreds [29:50] but let's just focus [29:53] on a few [29:54] where my Republican colleagues [29:57] purport to have [29:58] great concern. [29:59] Let's start [30:01] with the Epstein files [30:04] where Todd Blanche [30:08] participated [30:10] in the cover-up [30:11] continues [30:13] to participate [30:15] in the cover-up [30:17] and is responsible [30:19] for a massive [30:20] screw-up [30:21] of the release [30:24] of the documents. [30:26] Cover-up [30:27] and screw-up [30:29] on the Epstein files. [30:32] What do I mean [30:32] by cover-up? [30:34] Well, first [30:36] they looked at [30:39] four FBI 302s [30:42] that were the testimony [30:45] of a woman [30:47] who told the FBI [30:48] in a formal statement [30:50] that she had been [30:51] sexually assaulted [30:52] and physically assaulted [30:54] by Donald Trump [30:56] around 13 or 14 years of age. [30:59] Of those four 302s [31:04] they released one. [31:08] The one that did not [31:09] mention Donald Trump. [31:13] Well, fortunately [31:14] for transparency [31:16] these documents [31:18] had been released [31:19] in other areas [31:21] and bait stamped. [31:25] So people figured out [31:26] that some were missing. [31:28] And with that [31:29] the other 302s [31:30] that mentioned [31:32] Donald Trump [31:33] had to be produced. [31:35] Only because [31:37] they got caught [31:38] were those 302s [31:39] produced. [31:41] And right now [31:42] as we sit here [31:43] Todd Blanche [31:45] is still sitting [31:46] on 37 pages [31:47] that are almost [31:50] certainly the agent's notes [31:52] off of which [31:54] the 302s [31:55] were taken. [31:59] That should be [32:00] disclosed [32:01] under the Epstein files law [32:04] but instead [32:06] those 37 pages [32:09] remain covered up. [32:11] Where else [32:11] did the cover-up go? [32:12] Well, the Department [32:13] of Justice received [32:14] suspicious activity reports [32:17] from the Treasury Department [32:18] about Epstein's accounts. [32:20] many of them [32:21] related to Russia. [32:26] You'd think [32:26] that an investigative body [32:29] like the Department [32:30] of Justice [32:31] could look at a document [32:32] called [32:33] Suspicious Activity Report [32:35] and deduce that [32:38] there might be [32:39] suspicious activity. [32:44] But did they even [32:45] have a look? [32:47] Billions [32:48] of dollars [32:49] in Epstein Fund [32:51] transfers [32:52] and the Todd Blanche Department [32:55] never even [32:58] had a look. [33:00] And then you get to [33:03] Ghislaine Maxwell [33:05] where a deputy attorney general [33:10] flew to Tallahassee [33:11] to have a private meeting [33:13] with a woman convicted [33:18] of participating [33:20] in Epstein's depravity. [33:22] And what was the upshot [33:25] of that meeting? [33:26] Was it to get more information [33:28] about who else [33:29] was culpable? [33:30] About whose secrets [33:32] were still being kept? [33:33] No. [33:36] It was to get [33:37] exculpatory information [33:39] about Donald Trump [33:40] and then reward her [33:44] with a move [33:47] to a club-fed prison. [33:51] Now the nominal excuse [33:52] for that is [33:52] oh she was [33:53] in danger [33:55] in her earlier prison. [33:59] So we had to move her. [34:03] How often [34:04] does a prisoner [34:06] allegedly facing [34:08] threats or danger [34:10] get moved [34:11] to a less [34:12] secure facility? [34:13] I mean think about it. [34:18] It doesn't pass [34:19] the test [34:20] of common sense. [34:27] So between [34:28] the botched [34:29] disclosure [34:30] which revealed [34:32] victims [34:34] of Epstein's [34:36] depravity [34:37] whose names [34:39] had not been [34:40] previously known [34:41] in some cases [34:42] with photographic images [34:44] with their addresses [34:45] in some cases [34:46] photographs [34:47] without being [34:50] fully clothed. [34:53] Where does the buck [34:54] stop for that [34:55] if not with Mr. Blanche? [35:01] That was [35:01] an epic botch [35:03] that did real harm [35:05] to Epstein's victims. [35:11] Voting for this guy [35:12] today [35:13] gives their blessing [35:16] to the screw-up [35:19] to the botched release [35:22] that even [35:23] Pam Bondi [35:24] pointed at Blanche [35:25] as responsible for [35:26] and it gives the blessing [35:30] to his continuing role [35:31] in the cover-up [35:33] of Epstein files. [35:39] So there's Epstein [35:40] for you [35:40] and let me add [35:42] ask the letter [35:43] from the Epstein victims [35:45] to Senators [35:47] Tillis and Cornyn [35:48] to be put [35:49] into the record. [35:52] So next we get [35:53] to this crooked [35:54] slush fund [35:55] Trump family [35:55] tax amnesty scam. [35:58] Let's [35:59] take a look at that. [36:00] We've got these [36:01] two new pieces [36:03] of paper [36:04] one signed [36:06] only by Todd Blanche [36:07] one not signed [36:08] by anybody [36:08] neither of which [36:10] has any legal [36:11] effect whatsoever. [36:14] They are decorative. [36:14] So what problems [36:19] do they leave behind? [36:20] Well one is [36:21] can you trust [36:23] Todd Blanche [36:23] going forward? [36:27] I will tell you [36:29] I do not. [36:31] I think it would be [36:32] unreasonable [36:32] to trust him [36:33] going forward. [36:35] There is enough [36:36] weasel room [36:37] in these documents [36:39] to drive a truck [36:40] through. [36:41] And what might [36:42] that truck [36:43] look like? [36:44] Well [36:45] you could get rid [36:46] of the anti-weaponization [36:49] fund [36:50] for 1.776 billion [36:53] and in a month [36:55] put out the [36:57] Trump justice fund [36:58] for 1.9 billion. [37:02] Nothing in this document [37:03] prevents anything [37:05] like that from happening. [37:07] You could open [37:09] a drive-up window [37:10] at the Department [37:11] of Justice [37:12] for cop beaters [37:14] from January 6 [37:15] to come through [37:17] and get friendly [37:20] Federal Tort [37:21] Claims Act [37:22] settlements [37:23] from the Department [37:24] of Justice. [37:25] They're already [37:26] handing out [37:27] settlements [37:27] to Trump's allies. [37:31] What's to prevent [37:32] the drive-up window? [37:35] Come on in. [37:37] Here we are. [37:38] We got the friendly [37:39] form for you to file [37:40] and here's a check. [37:43] Nothing [37:44] prevents the cop beaters [37:46] from being funded [37:47] by the Trump [37:49] Department [37:50] of Justice. [37:55] But let's assume [37:56] that we really [37:57] have made a big [37:58] improvement here. [38:02] Let's assume [38:03] that the burglar [38:06] has been forced [38:08] to give back [38:10] some of the jewelry [38:12] he stole. [38:16] Being forced [38:17] to give back [38:17] some ill-gotten gains [38:20] doesn't mean [38:24] you're not still [38:26] a burglar. [38:27] There's a question [38:28] of the man's character [38:30] that he was willing [38:32] to get into [38:34] these schemes [38:35] in the first place. [38:38] Into what George Will [38:41] called the sludge [38:42] of self-dealing [38:44] of this administration. [38:48] even if there isn't [38:54] slush fund 2.0 [38:56] and even if there [38:59] isn't the drive-up window [39:02] for cop beaters, [39:04] there's a real problem [39:07] with an individual [39:09] who would agree to that [39:10] in the first place. [39:12] To me, [39:14] that should be disqualifying. [39:17] And the last bit [39:18] on that [39:19] is how he got there. [39:21] Let's not forget [39:22] that there is an ongoing [39:24] proceeding in Florida [39:25] in federal court [39:27] with an open question [39:29] whether Todd Blanche [39:32] committed a fraud [39:34] upon the court. [39:36] We don't hear that term [39:39] fraud upon the court [39:40] very often. [39:41] It's probably the worst thing [39:43] you can accuse someone of [39:45] in a court proceeding. [39:48] It means you're an officer [39:50] of the court. [39:51] It means you abused [39:53] the process of the court. [39:55] And you did so [39:56] in order to accomplish [39:58] an unjust and wrongful result. [40:01] It's actually worse [40:03] than contempt of court. [40:04] It is so bad [40:06] that in the history [40:08] of the Department of Justice, [40:11] no senior official [40:12] has ever been even accused [40:15] of a fraud upon the court. [40:18] And we're advancing this guy [40:20] before that question [40:21] is settled in Florida [40:23] while there's still [40:26] a bar issue, [40:29] a disciplinary issue [40:30] with the New York bar [40:31] related to that misconduct. [40:35] Fraud on the court [40:36] is a big deal [40:38] and it's not going away. [40:43] Then last of all, [40:45] you've just got [40:46] the general dishonesty [40:48] and incompetence [40:49] of the operation [40:50] that Todd Blanche [40:51] is running. [40:53] And I'm not going [40:54] to go through the list. [40:55] It would take the whole day. [40:59] But let me go through [41:00] a couple of summaries of it. [41:04] The Economist magazine, [41:05] not exactly a left-wing [41:08] publication, [41:09] had its lead article, [41:13] its cover article [41:14] on the U.S. Department [41:17] of Justice [41:18] titled [41:19] Degradation in Process. [41:25] Degradation in Process. [41:27] I ask unanimous consent [41:28] to add that article [41:31] to my remarks. [41:35] Then, [41:36] here's a story [41:37] from ProPublica. [41:40] Federal judges [41:40] chastised Trump's [41:41] Justice Department [41:42] for unlawful, [41:43] unethical, [41:44] and unseemly conduct. [41:45] I'll just read [41:46] the first sentence. [41:48] Across the country, [41:49] federal judges [41:50] are calling out [41:51] Department of Justice lawyers [41:53] questioning in unprecedented ways [41:55] whether they can be trusted [41:57] to tell the truth [41:59] or uphold centuries-old [42:02] legal norms. [42:04] I ask unanimous consent [42:05] that that article [42:06] be added to the record. [42:07] And then there's a group [42:10] called Just Security, [42:13] which reads through [42:15] decisions from federal judges [42:17] around the country [42:18] and gathers [42:21] the incidences [42:24] in which [42:25] the federal judge [42:27] has challenged [42:29] the integrity [42:30] or the competence [42:31] of the Department of Justice. [42:33] It's about this thick. [42:38] I'll just ask [42:40] to have its introduction [42:43] put into the record. [42:46] If my colleagues [42:48] want to go and look [42:49] and see [42:50] what the avalanche [42:53] of misconduct [42:54] that Blanche's leadership [42:56] has precipitated [42:56] looks like, [42:59] you know where to find [43:00] the report. [43:01] Here's the introduction. [43:05] It talks about [43:06] the presumption [43:07] of regularity, [43:08] a judicially created doctrine [43:10] with a long [43:10] and contested history. [43:13] The doctrine affords [43:14] the executive branch [43:15] a distinct advantage [43:17] by instructing courts [43:18] to presume [43:19] that executive officials [43:21] have properly discharged [43:22] their official duties. [43:24] And what the report [43:25] characterized [43:25] is the destruction [43:27] of that presumption [43:29] of regularity [43:30] in this Department [43:35] of Justice. [43:36] So I ask unanimous consent [43:37] that that be added [43:38] as well. [43:40] And then since I've mentioned it, [43:43] I'll also ask [43:44] George Will's article [43:47] where I described [43:49] his description [43:50] of the settlement [43:52] between the president [43:53] and the executive branch [43:55] he heads [43:55] exemplifying the administration's [43:57] sludge [43:58] of self-dealing. [43:59] That also be [44:00] added to the record. [44:02] The last question [44:07] that I'm left with here [44:08] is what's left [44:10] of this committee. [44:12] What's left [44:13] of this committee [44:13] when we don't demand [44:15] straight answers [44:16] from witnesses? [44:20] How many times [44:21] has this Department [44:23] of Justice [44:23] been asked [44:24] what became [44:25] of the $50,000 [44:28] that the FBI reported [44:31] that it handed [44:32] to Mr. Homan [44:34] in a bribery sting? [44:36] That's administrative stuff. [44:39] That gets reported. [44:41] There's an account. [44:42] You've got to check [44:43] the money out. [44:44] If you get the money back, [44:45] you've got to check [44:46] the money back. [44:47] There's an administrative trail. [44:51] We can't get [44:52] any information about that. [44:54] Our Republican colleagues [44:55] see no evil, [44:58] hear no evil, [44:59] and speak no evil. [45:03] Kash Patel [45:03] virtually certainly lied [45:05] to this committee [45:06] sitting in front of us. [45:09] Is there any interest [45:09] in that [45:10] at a time [45:13] when Republicans [45:15] in Congress [45:16] seem agitated [45:17] about Biden officials [45:20] lying to Congress? [45:23] We've got lies [45:25] right here, folks. [45:31] I don't know [45:31] where this committee goes [45:32] after it stops [45:35] being taken seriously [45:36] because all you have to be [45:39] is on the right [45:40] partisan side [45:41] to get this committee [45:43] to roll over [45:45] and play dead. [45:48] Thank you, Chairman. [45:49] Mr. Colbert, Chairman. [45:50] Thank you very much, Chairman. [46:10] Appreciate that we are hearing [46:12] from our colleagues [46:13] at this important moment [46:14] for this important vote. [46:16] So I start with this. [46:18] As you know, [46:19] this year, [46:20] thousands of ICE [46:22] and Border Patrol agents [46:23] descended on Minnesota. [46:26] Two of my constituents, [46:28] Renee Good and Alex Preddy, [46:29] were killed. [46:31] They should be alive today. [46:33] After they were killed, [46:34] the federal government [46:35] refused to cooperate [46:36] with state [46:37] and local law enforcement, [46:39] blocking Minnesota investigators [46:41] from accessing [46:43] the scene of Alex's death, [46:44] even though they had [46:46] a judicial warrant. [46:47] Federal investigators [46:49] mishandled evidence [46:51] and they failed [46:52] to process Renee Good's car [46:54] for evidence. [46:56] Everyone in this room [46:57] have seen those videos. [46:59] Everyone in this room [47:00] knows that at the very least, [47:02] those cases should have been [47:03] and should be investigated. [47:06] And they are now. [47:08] Instead of cooperating [47:10] with local law enforcement, [47:12] which I press the department [47:13] and to do from the beginning [47:14] and as the Justice Department [47:16] had done in past cases, [47:18] including following [47:19] the assassination [47:20] of Speaker Melissa Hortman [47:23] and her husband, [47:25] the marching orders [47:26] from the Justice Department [47:28] to federal prosecutors [47:29] in Minnesota [47:29] were to investigate [47:31] Renee Good and her wife. [47:35] Joe Thompson, [47:36] who is the lead fraud [47:37] prosecutor in my state [47:39] and who I recommended [47:40] to serve [47:42] as acting U.S. attorney [47:43] under this administration [47:45] and was appointed [47:46] as acting, [47:48] he resigned after that. [47:50] He resigned along [47:51] with 14 other prosecutors [47:53] because they did not believe [47:55] what they were being asked [47:56] to do was ethical. [47:58] These are career prosecutors, [48:00] no politics, [48:01] not interested in politics. [48:05] And then, [48:05] more than six months [48:06] after Renee and Alex's death, [48:09] when I asked [48:10] Acting Attorney General Blanche [48:12] if the department [48:12] would finally fully cooperate [48:14] with state law enforcement [48:16] in these investigations, [48:18] he said it depends [48:19] on what full cooperation means. [48:23] The floodgates were open [48:24] to some extent. [48:25] Some information [48:26] was finally passed along [48:28] to this state, [48:29] but it is unclear [48:30] if they have all the information [48:32] that they need. [48:34] Minnesotans deserve transparency [48:35] and accountability [48:37] and not just for the killings. [48:40] We also saw repeated violations [48:42] of Minnesotans' constitutional rights. [48:44] I asked Todd Blanche [48:46] about one such case. [48:48] I asked if it is unacceptable [48:50] for federal agents [48:52] to forcibly enter someone's home [48:54] without a warrant [48:54] and drag them into the street [48:57] without even checking [48:58] if they have the right person. [49:02] This happened [49:02] with a Hmong elder, [49:04] a U.S. citizen, [49:06] saying he was a U.S. citizen, [49:08] dragged out in his underwear [49:09] and Crocs, [49:10] thrown into a car [49:11] and driven around for an hour [49:13] before they realized [49:14] they had the wrong guy. [49:17] Mr. Chairman, [49:19] when I asked Todd Blanche [49:20] about this [49:21] and if this was a violation, [49:23] he said it depends [49:24] and it was not [49:25] a black or white answer. [49:27] Mr. Chairman, [49:28] what is black and white [49:29] is that a nominee [49:30] to be the chief law enforcement [49:32] in our country [49:32] should be able [49:33] to condemn [49:34] the actions taken [49:35] in that case. [49:39] Upholding the independence [49:40] of the Justice Department [49:42] is vital [49:43] to its legitimacy. [49:44] I know this firsthand. [49:48] Before I was elected [49:48] to the Senate, [49:49] I served for eight years [49:51] as a chief prosecutor [49:52] for the largest prosecutor's office [49:54] in Minnesota. [49:56] I led teams [49:57] of hundreds of line attorneys [49:58] and professional staff. [50:00] And like acting attorney [50:03] General Blanche, [50:04] I would sometimes receive calls [50:06] from powerful people [50:08] about cases, [50:10] trying to influence [50:11] the outcome, [50:13] trying to get a plea, [50:14] trying to get us [50:16] to dismiss a case. [50:19] But no matter who it was, [50:21] I made clear [50:22] to the people [50:23] who worked for me [50:23] that we weren't [50:25] playing that game. [50:27] I made clear [50:28] that investigations [50:30] and charging decisions [50:31] were based on the facts [50:32] and the law. [50:34] Not once did I cross that line. [50:36] Because as I told Todd Blanche, [50:38] once you cross that line, [50:39] it's hard to go back. [50:40] Because the minute [50:41] you cross the line [50:43] and allow anyone else [50:45] to influence [50:45] a prosecutor's decision, [50:48] whether that call [50:48] is a friend [50:49] or a lobbyist [50:51] or the president [50:52] of the United States, [50:53] you can never go back. [50:56] And I think [50:56] Todd Blanche knows this. [50:58] Before his confirmation [50:59] as deputy attorney general, [51:01] he told me [51:01] he understood [51:02] that his clients [51:03] are the people [51:04] of the United States, [51:06] not the president. [51:08] To quote [51:08] Senator Adam Schiff, [51:10] what happened [51:11] to that Todd Blanche? [51:12] Since then, however, [51:16] acting Attorney General Blanche [51:17] has said [51:18] of the Justice Department's [51:19] investigations into people [51:21] the president has had issues [51:23] with in the past. [51:25] Blanche said [51:26] that is his right [51:27] and indeed [51:27] it is his duty to do that. [51:30] In fact, [51:30] the president [51:31] has repeatedly directed [51:32] the Justice Department [51:33] to engage [51:34] in political prosecutions [51:36] related to his personal grievances. [51:39] FBI Director Comey, [51:41] former Cyber Office Director [51:43] Chris Krebs, [51:45] Jerome Powell, [51:46] the former chair [51:47] of the Federal Reserve, [51:48] the New York Attorney General, [51:50] civil rights organizations, [51:52] journalists, [51:53] and yes, [51:53] even sitting U.S. senators. [51:56] And while acting [51:57] Attorney General Blanche [51:58] told me [51:59] that he believes [52:00] all decisions [52:00] have been made, [52:01] in his words, [52:02] solely based on [52:03] the facts and law, [52:06] it's not credible. [52:07] We've seen [52:08] the president's [52:08] social media posts. [52:11] We've heard [52:11] from career prosecutors. [52:13] We've seen [52:14] the judges [52:14] appointed by presidents [52:15] of both parties [52:16] throwing out [52:17] meritless cases [52:18] and subpoenas. [52:21] Mr. Chairman, [52:22] if the president [52:23] can direct prosecutors [52:25] to go after people [52:26] like Jim Comey [52:27] and Jerome Powell, [52:29] he can go after [52:30] any American. [52:31] That is not equal justice [52:33] under the law. [52:36] We've all seen [52:37] the department [52:37] can be used also [52:39] to reward [52:40] the president's friend. [52:41] Under acting [52:42] Attorney General Blanche, [52:43] the department [52:44] moved to vacate [52:45] convictions of leaders [52:46] of the Oath Keepers [52:47] and Proud Boys [52:48] who participated [52:49] in January 6th. [52:52] And a matter [52:53] of less public note, [52:55] but incredibly important [52:56] to our economy, [52:58] is antitrust. [53:00] It is devastating [53:01] to our economy [53:03] if the Justice Department [53:04] stands back [53:05] and lets the big [53:06] get bigger [53:07] and the small [53:08] get crushed. [53:09] And that is exactly [53:10] what's happening [53:11] right now. [53:11] As a former [53:14] top Trump administration [53:16] antitrust official [53:17] said, [53:19] antitrust cases [53:20] in this last year, [53:22] quote, [53:22] were being resolved [53:23] based on political [53:24] connections, [53:25] not the legal merits, [53:27] end quote. [53:28] As just one example, [53:30] after ousting [53:31] Gail Slater, [53:32] the former [53:33] and well-respected [53:34] head of the [53:34] antitrust division, [53:36] who 20 of the 22 senators [53:39] on this committee [53:40] voted for, [53:41] the department [53:42] abandoned the case [53:44] against Live Nation [53:45] after the president [53:47] met with the company's [53:48] CEO and discussed [53:49] the litigation. [53:50] And we know [53:51] how that story ended [53:52] with the state's [53:53] attorney generals, [53:54] Democrat and Republican, [53:56] continuing that cases [53:58] and winning in a big way. [54:00] And now we await [54:01] the remedies, [54:02] not from the Justice Department [54:04] sellout settlement, [54:06] but from the attorney generals [54:07] of this country. [54:09] Finally, [54:10] I have great concerns [54:11] about acting Attorney General [54:13] Blanche's willingness [54:14] to uphold the department's [54:16] independence [54:16] as the president tries [54:18] to use the department [54:19] to undermine our democracy [54:21] ahead of the midterms. [54:24] We know that under [54:25] Todd Blanche's leadership, [54:26] the Justice Department [54:27] has already tried [54:29] to coerce states, [54:31] including Minnesota, [54:32] on the very day [54:33] Alex Preddy was killed [54:35] to turn over voters' [54:37] sensitive information. [54:38] In fact, [54:40] they tried to tie that [54:41] to the ICE presence. [54:46] Give us that, [54:47] we'll change that. [54:49] Nineteen federal courts [54:51] in opinions issued [54:52] by the judges [54:53] appointed by both [54:55] Republicans and Democrats [54:57] have now found [54:59] this effort [54:59] to be unlawful. [55:01] The president [55:01] has also floated [55:03] the unconstitutional idea [55:05] of ending mail-in voting. [55:07] And the Justice Department [55:08] is defending his direction [55:10] to the Postal Service [55:12] to not deliver [55:13] certain ballots. [55:14] And according to [55:15] state election officials, [55:16] including Minnesota's [55:17] Secretary of State, [55:18] Steve Simon, [55:19] the Justice Department [55:21] has stopped providing [55:22] the briefings and trainings [55:23] that have long been standard [55:25] to ensure that states [55:26] are prepared [55:28] to prevent and respond [55:29] to emerging election threats. [55:32] And when I pressed him, [55:33] Todd Blanche would not [55:34] even definitively say [55:36] that he will not deploy [55:37] armed agents [55:38] to polling locations. [55:41] Whether it is not [55:42] answering these questions, [55:44] not providing transparency [55:45] and accountability, [55:46] or repeatedly failing [55:48] to enforce our nation's [55:50] civil and voting rights laws, [55:52] reproductive rights, [55:53] or consumer laws, [55:54] I have grave concerns [55:55] with Todd Blanche's leadership [55:58] at the department. [55:59] What we need [56:00] at the Department of Justice [56:01] is the courage to stand up [56:03] for the rule of law, [56:05] like we saw from Tom Calhoun-Lopez, [56:08] as an Army veteran [56:09] and prosecutor [56:11] at the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office [56:13] during Operation Metro Surge. [56:15] He said that what the Justice Department [56:17] told his office to do [56:19] was, quote, [56:21] antithetical [56:22] to the principles [56:24] of law enforcement. [56:26] Hagan Scotten [56:27] decorated a Rock War veteran [56:29] who clerked for Justices [56:31] Roberts and Kavanaugh [56:32] and the lead prosecutor [56:34] in the Mayor Adams case, [56:36] who resigned instead of carrying out [56:38] politicized orders, [56:40] wrote this. [56:41] I expect you eventually find someone [56:44] who is enough of a fool [56:46] or enough of a coward [56:48] to file your motion, [56:50] but it was never going to be me. [56:53] When I think about the countless [56:55] Justice Department officials [56:57] who have stood up for the rule of law [56:59] over the last 18 months, [57:01] it is clear [57:02] that the president's lawyer, [57:05] Todd Blanche, [57:06] is not the right person [57:07] to be chief law enforcement officer [57:10] of the United States. [57:12] Unlike the public servants [57:14] I just mentioned, [57:15] he has shown [57:16] that he sees his role [57:17] to serve Donald Trump [57:19] and not the American people [57:21] and not the rule of law. [57:23] I oppose his nomination. [57:25] Senator Cohen. [57:26] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [57:27] and thank you for the opportunity [57:29] to speak before we take this vote. [57:31] Considering who should serve [57:33] as the next Attorney General [57:34] is one of the most important things [57:36] we will do as a committee. [57:38] And I think it's important [57:39] that the American people [57:40] understand the reasoning [57:41] of each of us [57:42] who are about to take this vote. [57:44] I've been consistent in saying [57:46] there's three factors I consider [57:47] for every Cabinet nominee, [57:49] and I have worked well [57:50] with Attorneys General [57:51] of both parties [57:52] and for presidents of both parties. [57:55] I review their qualifications, [57:57] their experience, [57:57] their capacity to do the job, [57:59] but also their policy views [58:01] and their character [58:02] and independence, [58:03] their ability to do the job [58:05] with integrity. [58:06] Today I'm going to focus [58:07] on that third part, [58:08] character, independence, [58:09] and integrity. [58:10] Throughout the decades [58:11] since the Watergate crisis, [58:13] both parties have consistently [58:14] recognized the importance [58:16] of an Attorney General [58:17] who can and will stand up [58:19] to the president [58:19] and say no [58:21] and serve as an Attorney General [58:23] in defense of the Constitution, [58:25] not just the agenda [58:26] of any one president. [58:27] Will Acting Attorney General Blanche [58:30] meet that standard? [58:31] We have clear evidence [58:32] he will not. [58:33] You can literally take it [58:34] from his words [58:35] before this committee, [58:36] saying the department [58:37] is not independent [58:38] from President Trump [58:39] and shouldn't be. [58:41] And frankly, [58:41] among many things [58:42] that have been articulated [58:43] in great detail [58:44] by Senators Whitehouse [58:46] and Klobuchar, [58:47] I think the Anti-Weaponization Fund [58:49] as a proposal [58:50] and a concept, [58:52] along with the sweeping [58:53] liability release order [58:54] that Mr. Blanche signed, [58:56] might well be [58:57] the most brazenly corrupt [58:58] and unethical thing [59:00] this administration [59:00] has attempted. [59:02] It's bad enough [59:03] that for weeks [59:03] he resisted [59:04] the simple requests [59:05] of my Republican colleagues [59:07] to just say in writing [59:08] that this fund and order [59:09] are revoked, [59:10] finished, dead, [59:11] but that he is still refusing [59:13] to make it [59:14] a binding guarantee [59:15] and a sworn statement [59:16] submitted before a judge. [59:19] Is this because [59:19] once confirmed [59:20] he will simply revoke [59:22] this new order [59:22] as he did once before it? [59:24] Nothing would stop him [59:26] from doing just that. [59:28] I have enjoyed serving [59:29] with Senator Cornyn [59:30] as co-chair [59:31] of the Law Enforcement Caucus [59:32] with Senator Tillis [59:33] on important intellectual [59:35] property issues, [59:36] but we will vote [59:37] in opposite ways today [59:38] and so I thought [59:39] it was important [59:40] to lay out why. [59:42] In my view, [59:43] we never should have [59:43] gotten to this place. [59:45] As Acting Attorney General, [59:46] when asked by the President [59:48] to do something [59:49] plainly unethical [59:50] and corrupt, [59:51] Mr. Blanche [59:51] should have simply said no. [59:53] He did not do that [59:55] and I pressed him [59:56] in his confirmation hearing [59:57] whether he even tried [59:58] to talk President Trump [1:00:00] out of this widely rejected plan [1:00:03] and he refused to answer. [1:00:04] So let's just talk briefly [1:00:06] about transparency. [1:00:07] They've called themselves [1:00:08] the most transparent [1:00:08] administration [1:00:10] and Department of Justice [1:00:11] in our history, [1:00:12] but in fact, [1:00:13] they're as transparent [1:00:13] as the wall behind us [1:00:15] whether in Mr. Blanche's [1:00:16] refusal to answer questions [1:00:18] about the Anti-Weaponization Fund, [1:00:20] refusal to advocate [1:00:22] for victims [1:00:23] rather than perpetrators [1:00:24] in the Epstein matter [1:00:25] or his willingness [1:00:27] to answer my request [1:00:29] for transparency [1:00:30] on a FISA court ruling [1:00:31] that both the chair [1:00:33] and ranking [1:00:33] of the Intelligence Committee [1:00:35] have requested [1:00:35] be released [1:00:36] or the OLC opinion [1:00:38] underlying ongoing [1:00:40] boat strikes [1:00:40] in the Caribbean. [1:00:42] I met with Mr. Blanche [1:00:43] last week. [1:00:44] I raised these issues [1:00:45] with him [1:00:46] and I await his replies. [1:00:47] Our citizens want [1:00:49] and truly deserve [1:00:50] an independent [1:00:51] and transparent [1:00:52] Department of Justice. [1:00:53] I don't think Mr. Blanche [1:00:54] can or even wants [1:00:56] to deliver on that goal. [1:00:58] So I ask my colleagues [1:00:59] to put yourselves [1:01:00] in our shoes. [1:01:01] If four years ago [1:01:02] we were considering [1:01:03] the nomination [1:01:03] of an AG [1:01:04] nominated by the previous [1:01:06] president who had said [1:01:07] and done these exact things, [1:01:08] what would you have done? [1:01:10] And I urge my colleagues [1:01:11] to vote against [1:01:12] this nomination. [1:01:13] I will be voting [1:01:14] against Mr. Blanche [1:01:15] and it's my hope [1:01:16] that he will surprise me [1:01:17] and exceed my expectations [1:01:19] but with a heavy heart [1:01:20] I am fairly certain [1:01:21] he will not. [1:01:23] Senator Bromenthal. [1:01:29] Thank you, Mr. Chairman [1:01:30] and I want to join in [1:01:32] thanking you [1:01:32] for allowing us [1:01:34] to speak before the vote. [1:01:38] Quote, [1:01:39] I'm his lawyer. [1:01:42] End quote. [1:01:46] That's what Mr. Blanche [1:01:48] told us he was. [1:01:51] I'm his lawyer. [1:01:52] Namely, [1:01:53] Donald Trump's lawyer. [1:01:56] Maya Angelou famously said, [1:01:59] when someone shows you [1:02:00] who they are [1:02:01] believe them [1:02:02] the first time. [1:02:06] Todd Blanche [1:02:07] is Donald Trump's lawyer. [1:02:10] He will say anything, [1:02:12] do anything, [1:02:13] conceal anything [1:02:14] for his boss. [1:02:17] Much as in organized crime, [1:02:20] the consigliere [1:02:21] would do anything, [1:02:23] say anything [1:02:23] and conceal anything [1:02:26] for his boss. [1:02:27] That is why [1:02:29] Mr. Blanche [1:02:32] was held by a judge [1:02:36] in Florida [1:02:38] to have committed [1:02:39] a fraud on the court. [1:02:42] Todd Blanche [1:02:42] is now in effect [1:02:44] committing a fraud [1:02:45] on Congress. [1:02:47] The documents [1:02:49] that he has submitted [1:02:51] and I will hold them up here [1:02:54] that purport [1:02:58] to change some agreement [1:03:00] are in effect [1:03:04] a nullity. [1:03:06] They are meaningless. [1:03:08] They have no effect. [1:03:10] They are non-enforceable. [1:03:13] In just a few weeks, [1:03:16] thousands of young [1:03:17] law school students [1:03:18] will begin [1:03:19] a contracts course. [1:03:22] What they will learn [1:03:23] is that [1:03:24] a contract [1:03:25] can't be modified [1:03:27] or changed [1:03:27] by some outside party [1:03:29] when there is [1:03:30] a meeting [1:03:31] of the minds [1:03:32] and there was [1:03:33] in effect [1:03:34] an agreement, [1:03:35] a meeting of the minds [1:03:36] between Donald Trump [1:03:37] and the United States [1:03:38] of America [1:03:38] to settle his case. [1:03:40] Now, [1:03:41] Todd Blanche [1:03:41] purports [1:03:43] to change it. [1:03:46] This document [1:03:46] is a sham. [1:03:50] It is a sham [1:03:51] and a fraud [1:03:52] on the Congress [1:03:53] insofar [1:03:54] as it [1:03:55] seeks to change [1:03:57] our minds [1:03:58] by representing [1:03:59] something that [1:04:00] is patently false. [1:04:03] Commentators [1:04:03] have talked [1:04:04] about loopholes. [1:04:06] There are no loopholes here. [1:04:09] This document [1:04:10] itself [1:04:10] is a sham. [1:04:13] In fact, [1:04:16] one of its statements [1:04:18] is that it [1:04:19] incorporates [1:04:21] all of [1:04:22] Todd Blanche's [1:04:24] testimony [1:04:24] before this committee. [1:04:27] I want to hold up [1:04:28] one part [1:04:29] of that testimony. [1:04:34] Todd Blanche [1:04:35] himself [1:04:36] says [1:04:37] that that agreement [1:04:39] is an enforceable document. [1:04:43] So I suppose [1:04:43] if President Trump's [1:04:45] counsel [1:04:45] sought to enforce it, [1:04:47] potentially they could. [1:04:49] Of course they could. [1:04:50] Tomorrow, [1:04:52] Donald Trump's [1:04:53] counsel [1:04:54] can go to court [1:04:55] and seek to establish [1:04:57] that trust fund, [1:04:58] that thug fund, [1:05:01] Senator Tillis [1:05:01] called it [1:05:02] a payout [1:05:02] to punks fund, [1:05:05] if he chooses [1:05:07] to do so. [1:05:09] It is an enforceable [1:05:11] agreement [1:05:11] no matter what [1:05:12] Todd Blanche [1:05:14] says about it. [1:05:17] And if you [1:05:18] don't believe me, [1:05:19] you can [1:05:20] listen to [1:05:21] one of [1:05:24] the most ardent advocates [1:05:25] of that anti-weaponization fund [1:05:27] who said [1:05:28] the quiet part [1:05:29] out loud [1:05:30] on Twitter [1:05:31] just recently. [1:05:32] Mike Howell, [1:05:34] who Chairman Grassley [1:05:35] called as a witness [1:05:36] before this committee [1:05:37] last year, [1:05:38] retweeted [1:05:39] Mr. Blanche's [1:05:40] announcement [1:05:41] with his own commentary, [1:05:43] quote, [1:05:44] can be undone [1:05:45] after Tuesday. [1:05:48] The anti-weaponization [1:05:49] fund is great. [1:05:52] The President [1:05:53] of the United States [1:05:53] yesterday [1:05:54] in the Oval Office [1:05:55] repeated his commitment [1:05:57] to the anti-weaponization fund. [1:06:01] We don't need [1:06:02] to say [1:06:03] the quiet part [1:06:04] out loud. [1:06:05] The President [1:06:07] is shouting it. [1:06:11] The position [1:06:12] of United States [1:06:14] Attorney General [1:06:15] is a position [1:06:17] of supreme trust. [1:06:19] Any of us [1:06:20] who have worked [1:06:21] in the Department [1:06:22] of Justice, [1:06:22] I was the United States [1:06:23] Attorney for Connecticut, [1:06:25] knows that [1:06:26] the Attorney General [1:06:28] of the United States, [1:06:29] like every lawyer [1:06:31] who represents [1:06:32] the United States, [1:06:33] has a trust [1:06:35] in going to court, [1:06:37] in making representation. [1:06:41] There is a presumption [1:06:43] of regularity [1:06:44] when a government lawyer [1:06:46] appears before the court. [1:06:48] That's the sacred trust [1:06:50] that a government lawyer bears. [1:06:55] Todd Blanche [1:06:55] has betrayed that trust [1:06:56] and his betrayal [1:07:01] of that trust [1:07:03] is disqualifying [1:07:05] for his nomination. [1:07:12] Todd Blanche showed us [1:07:13] who he was also [1:07:14] when he, [1:07:19] during this hearing, [1:07:20] referred to [1:07:21] the attack [1:07:23] on the United States [1:07:24] Capitol [1:07:24] on January 6th [1:07:26] as events. [1:07:29] They are not events. [1:07:30] They were a riot, [1:07:32] an insurrection, [1:07:32] an attack [1:07:33] on the Capitol. [1:07:36] We were there. [1:07:38] We know what it was. [1:07:40] It was a violent, [1:07:41] unlawful attack [1:07:42] on our nation's Capitol [1:07:43] that cost [1:07:44] brave members [1:07:45] of law enforcement [1:07:47] their lives. [1:07:48] He purports to stand [1:07:50] for law enforcement [1:07:50] and yet he is [1:07:52] in favor [1:07:53] of a slush fund [1:07:56] that in effect [1:07:57] rewards [1:07:58] those individuals [1:08:00] who attack [1:08:00] Capitol Police [1:08:01] in that insurrection [1:08:04] and riot [1:08:04] and he refuses [1:08:06] to see it [1:08:08] for what it was [1:08:09] and describe it [1:08:10] to the American people [1:08:11] accurately [1:08:12] and truthfully. [1:08:14] His prescribed, [1:08:17] rehearsed lines [1:08:18] prepared by [1:08:19] the White House [1:08:20] legal team [1:08:21] are meant [1:08:22] to protect [1:08:23] the president's [1:08:24] feelings. [1:08:29] They demonstrate [1:08:29] an unwavering loyalty [1:08:30] to the president. [1:08:32] That is the through line. [1:08:34] He is the president's [1:08:35] lawyer. [1:08:38] He showed us [1:08:39] who he was as well [1:08:40] when he was talking [1:08:42] about reproductive rights. [1:08:44] In a private call [1:08:45] last week, [1:08:46] Mr. Blanche [1:08:46] again said [1:08:48] the quiet part [1:08:49] out loud. [1:08:50] In fact, [1:08:51] he shouted it. [1:08:53] He said to [1:08:54] the participants [1:08:55] on that call [1:08:55] that he would [1:08:56] work to restrict [1:08:57] abortion [1:08:59] in every single state. [1:09:01] That's not enforcing [1:09:02] the law. [1:09:04] That is a zealot, [1:09:07] a warrior [1:09:08] seeking to advocate [1:09:10] the president's [1:09:11] position [1:09:12] against reproductive rights. [1:09:14] He wants to block [1:09:14] states enacting [1:09:15] their own policies [1:09:17] and laws. [1:09:18] He wants to make [1:09:19] abortion access [1:09:20] follow the laws [1:09:21] of abortion [1:09:22] ban states. [1:09:24] In short, [1:09:24] he wants to strip [1:09:25] Americans [1:09:26] of their right [1:09:28] to choose [1:09:28] and strip states [1:09:29] of their right [1:09:31] to govern. [1:09:32] The part [1:09:34] of this agreement [1:09:35] that purports [1:09:39] to limit [1:09:39] the immunity [1:09:40] under our tax laws [1:09:43] and protect [1:09:44] the president [1:09:45] against audits [1:09:46] is, in fact, [1:09:47] no limitation. [1:09:49] It preserves [1:09:50] all of the president's [1:09:51] rights [1:09:51] to be above the law. [1:09:54] No person [1:09:55] is above the law, [1:09:56] but Todd Blanche [1:09:57] is agreeing [1:09:59] to put the president [1:10:00] above the law. [1:10:03] There are [1:10:03] more than 400,000 [1:10:06] other Americans [1:10:08] who suffered [1:10:09] the same harm [1:10:10] as Donald Trump [1:10:11] when their [1:10:12] private tax [1:10:14] information [1:10:14] was taken [1:10:16] and released. [1:10:19] We have [1:10:19] in this country [1:10:20] a principle [1:10:21] of equal protection [1:10:22] of the laws. [1:10:24] Presumably, [1:10:24] if Donald Trump [1:10:25] gets this deal, [1:10:28] they would be [1:10:28] eligible to assert [1:10:31] their claims [1:10:31] for the same rights. [1:10:33] If Donald Trump [1:10:35] is protected [1:10:36] against paying [1:10:37] hundreds of millions [1:10:38] of dollars [1:10:39] in taxes [1:10:40] by this deal, [1:10:43] perhaps so should they [1:10:44] in claims they may file. [1:10:48] The cost [1:10:48] to the government [1:10:49] is staggering [1:10:51] if this deal [1:10:53] is approved [1:10:55] as Todd Blanche [1:10:56] purports to do. [1:10:58] And that deal [1:10:59] is still in effect [1:11:00] as a result [1:11:01] of these documents. [1:11:04] Mr. Blanche [1:11:05] showed us [1:11:05] who he was [1:11:06] when he ducked [1:11:07] and dodged [1:11:08] my question [1:11:09] about deep-sixing [1:11:13] and killing [1:11:13] an investigation [1:11:14] into the possible [1:11:15] pay-to-play [1:11:16] commutation [1:11:17] of an individual [1:11:20] who was pardoned, [1:11:21] David Gentile. [1:11:22] David Gentile [1:11:23] reportedly paid [1:11:24] $2.5 million [1:11:26] to a broker [1:11:27] to obtain clemency, [1:11:29] clemency which [1:11:29] robbed his witnesses, [1:11:32] his victims, [1:11:33] of nearly $16 million [1:11:34] in restitution. [1:11:37] When a United States [1:11:38] attorney tried [1:11:39] to investigate, [1:11:40] Mr. Blanche [1:11:40] reportedly [1:11:41] killed [1:11:42] the probe. [1:11:44] That is not [1:11:44] the behavior [1:11:45] of an attorney general [1:11:47] who upholds [1:11:49] the trust [1:11:50] of this position. [1:11:52] That's the behavior [1:11:52] of Donald Trump's [1:11:54] personal lawyer. [1:11:58] Finally, [1:12:02] the most sacred right [1:12:02] we have [1:12:03] in a democracy [1:12:04] is the right to vote, [1:12:05] freely and fairly. [1:12:09] My fear is [1:12:09] Todd Blanche [1:12:10] will be [1:12:11] Donald Trump's lawyer [1:12:12] in suppressing the vote [1:12:14] and distorting the count. [1:12:18] He will defend [1:12:18] Donald Trump [1:12:19] if the president [1:12:21] sends militia [1:12:23] or ICE agents [1:12:24] or the National Guard [1:12:25] to the polls [1:12:26] to disrupt [1:12:27] the elections. [1:12:29] He will defend [1:12:30] Donald Trump [1:12:31] if he seeks [1:12:32] to distort the count [1:12:34] after the election. [1:12:36] My fear is [1:12:37] that Todd Blanche [1:12:39] will represent [1:12:40] Donald Trump. [1:12:41] He will be [1:12:41] his consigliary [1:12:43] and he will [1:12:44] put Donald Trump [1:12:46] ahead of the [1:12:47] American people [1:12:48] and the right [1:12:49] to vote. [1:12:50] I cannot support him. [1:12:53] I regret that [1:12:54] this committee [1:12:55] will in effect [1:12:57] betray its trust [1:12:58] in the party line [1:13:00] vote that is [1:13:01] to follow [1:13:02] and approve [1:13:03] Todd Blanche [1:13:04] as Attorney General [1:13:07] of the United States. [1:13:09] And I will be [1:13:09] introducing a resolution [1:13:10] today [1:13:11] rejecting [1:13:13] this tax immunity [1:13:14] deal as [1:13:15] possible precedent, [1:13:17] seeking to stop [1:13:18] it from [1:13:19] becoming [1:13:20] a means [1:13:21] of others, [1:13:24] seeking [1:13:24] the same kind [1:13:25] of illegal privilege [1:13:27] that Donald Trump [1:13:28] will have [1:13:28] as a result [1:13:28] of this deal. [1:13:30] Thank you, [1:13:30] Mr. Chairman. [1:13:31] Senator Ronald. [1:13:33] Thank you, [1:13:33] Mr. Chairman. [1:13:34] I think it's [1:13:35] very important [1:13:36] to hear from members [1:13:37] before this vote [1:13:38] is taken. [1:13:39] I asked Mr. Blanche [1:13:41] questions [1:13:41] in three broad areas [1:13:43] during his hearing [1:13:44] two weeks ago. [1:13:45] First, [1:13:46] I asked him [1:13:46] about the Epstein files. [1:13:49] Specifically, [1:13:50] I asked whether [1:13:50] he would cooperate [1:13:51] with the New Mexico [1:13:52] Department of Justice's [1:13:54] investigation [1:13:55] into Epstein's [1:13:56] Zorro ranch. [1:13:58] And I asked [1:13:59] if he would help [1:14:01] state law enforcement [1:14:02] get the information [1:14:04] that it was seeking [1:14:05] from the Epstein files. [1:14:08] At the hearing, [1:14:09] he said DOJ [1:14:10] would cooperate. [1:14:11] But in follow-up [1:14:12] questions for the record, [1:14:14] he dodged. [1:14:16] And I understand [1:14:17] that DOJ [1:14:18] is actually stonewalling, [1:14:21] stonewalling [1:14:22] the New Mexico [1:14:23] Department of Justice [1:14:24] in its request [1:14:25] for information [1:14:26] and its investigation. [1:14:30] This public show [1:14:31] of concern [1:14:31] contrasted [1:14:33] with private [1:14:33] dismissiveness [1:14:34] is how he treated [1:14:36] the survivors [1:14:37] who met with him, [1:14:39] the survivors [1:14:39] of Jeffrey Epstein. [1:14:43] I asked one [1:14:44] of those survivors [1:14:45] about the meeting [1:14:46] that he finally had [1:14:47] with the survivors. [1:14:48] and this survivor [1:14:52] said, quote, [1:14:53] we walked away [1:14:54] with a feeling [1:14:56] of demoralization [1:14:57] because he did not [1:14:59] come into that meeting [1:15:01] looking to work [1:15:02] with us [1:15:02] in good faith, [1:15:04] end quote. [1:15:05] I thank and commend [1:15:07] the survivors [1:15:08] for their courage [1:15:09] in fighting [1:15:11] for justice. [1:15:13] The second category [1:15:14] of questions [1:15:15] I asked Mr. Blanche [1:15:16] two weeks ago [1:15:16] centered on [1:15:17] DOJ's independence. [1:15:19] I asked him [1:15:20] the simple question, [1:15:22] do you believe [1:15:24] it is the president's [1:15:26] right and duty [1:15:27] to order the investigation [1:15:28] or prosecution [1:15:29] of his perceived enemies? [1:15:32] Pretty simple question. [1:15:36] Mr. Blanche responded, [1:15:38] quote, [1:15:38] I can't answer that [1:15:39] yes or no, [1:15:40] end quote. [1:15:41] He might as well [1:15:43] have just said yes. [1:15:45] In follow-up questions, [1:15:47] for the record, [1:15:48] I asked him [1:15:49] the simple question, [1:15:50] if confirmed, [1:15:52] will your highest duty [1:15:53] be to the Constitution [1:15:55] of the United States [1:15:56] or to the President [1:15:58] of the United States? [1:16:00] He left the answer [1:16:03] to that question [1:16:04] blank, blank. [1:16:08] When he is sworn in [1:16:09] as Attorney General, [1:16:11] he will have to swear [1:16:12] to uphold, [1:16:15] support, [1:16:15] and defend [1:16:16] the Constitution. [1:16:17] But we know [1:16:18] that oath [1:16:19] will take a backseat [1:16:20] to his loyalty [1:16:22] to the President. [1:16:24] The third category [1:16:25] of questions [1:16:26] I asked him [1:16:26] was related [1:16:27] to the slush fund. [1:16:29] At his hearing, [1:16:30] I asked him [1:16:30] whether he had rescinded [1:16:32] the order [1:16:34] dated May 18, [1:16:35] 2026, [1:16:36] setting out parameters [1:16:38] for the so-called [1:16:40] anti-wiponization fund. [1:16:42] He testified [1:16:43] that he had rescinded it. [1:16:45] And questions [1:16:46] for the record, [1:16:47] I asked him, [1:16:48] give me the date [1:16:49] of when you rescinded [1:16:51] this order [1:16:52] and this fund. [1:16:53] He did not answer [1:16:55] the question [1:16:56] with a date. [1:16:58] He refused [1:16:59] to end this fund [1:17:01] in writing [1:17:02] until he was forced [1:17:04] into it [1:17:05] in order to secure [1:17:06] needed votes [1:17:07] from my Republican [1:17:09] colleagues. [1:17:11] And how can we trust [1:17:12] that this so-called [1:17:14] death [1:17:14] will be lasting [1:17:16] when he has shown [1:17:17] that his words [1:17:18] to us [1:17:18] at the hearing [1:17:19] do not matter. [1:17:22] He was under oath [1:17:23] at the hearing, [1:17:24] but he's hardly [1:17:26] going to prosecute [1:17:27] himself [1:17:27] for lying to Congress, [1:17:29] which he did. [1:17:31] Mr. Chairman, [1:17:31] I intend to judge [1:17:33] Mr. Blanche [1:17:33] not by his words, [1:17:35] but by his actions. [1:17:37] Even though he said [1:17:38] he would cooperate [1:17:39] with the New Mexico [1:17:41] office, [1:17:42] Attorney General's office, [1:17:43] in their obscene [1:17:45] investigation, [1:17:46] it seems he will not [1:17:47] actually do so. [1:17:49] Even though he claims [1:17:51] to follow the Constitution [1:17:52] and the law, [1:17:54] he acts as the [1:17:55] president's lawyer, [1:17:56] catering to the [1:17:57] president's whims [1:17:58] and protecting [1:17:59] the president. [1:18:01] And even though [1:18:02] he said repeatedly [1:18:03] that the anti-weaponization [1:18:05] fund is dead, [1:18:06] he had to be forced, [1:18:09] literally kicking [1:18:09] and screaming [1:18:10] to memorialize [1:18:12] that death [1:18:13] in writing. [1:18:14] And that non-binding [1:18:15] writing will mean [1:18:16] little when the [1:18:18] president wants [1:18:20] the fund. [1:18:21] And believe me, [1:18:22] the president [1:18:23] is loudly saying [1:18:24] he wants that fund. [1:18:26] Who do you think [1:18:27] Mr. Blanche [1:18:28] will side with? [1:18:31] Is he going to [1:18:31] uphold this [1:18:32] so-called [1:18:33] non-binding statement [1:18:35] to me to secure [1:18:37] today's vote [1:18:38] from some of my [1:18:39] Republican colleagues [1:18:40] or the wishes [1:18:41] of the president [1:18:42] to whom he is loyal [1:18:44] above all? [1:18:47] At a time [1:18:47] when the Department [1:18:48] of Justice [1:18:49] has lost thousands, [1:18:51] thousands of career [1:18:52] attorneys with [1:18:53] millennia of [1:18:54] combined experience [1:18:56] and when the OJ's [1:18:57] independence from [1:18:58] politics is no longer [1:19:00] in existence, [1:19:02] I cannot vote in favor [1:19:03] of someone whose [1:19:04] actions so clearly [1:19:06] make him ineligible [1:19:08] to serve as attorney [1:19:10] general, [1:19:11] even of a department [1:19:12] as compromised [1:19:13] as this Department [1:19:15] of Justice, [1:19:16] which basically [1:19:17] is a department [1:19:18] of retribution [1:19:19] and revenge. [1:19:23] I urge my colleagues [1:19:24] to vote no [1:19:24] as well. [1:19:26] Thank you, [1:19:27] Mr. Chairman. [1:19:28] Senator Booker. [1:19:30] Mr. Chairman, [1:19:31] I am shocked. [1:19:32] I think I've been [1:19:34] here 14 years. [1:19:35] I have not seen [1:19:35] something as farcical [1:19:36] as what I've witnessed [1:19:38] over the last few weeks. [1:19:39] We have a nominee [1:19:40] that it seemed like [1:19:42] some of my colleagues [1:19:43] in a noble way [1:19:44] were saying [1:19:45] is unqualified [1:19:46] unless he gives [1:19:47] some kind of guarantee [1:19:48] that what we now know [1:19:51] on both sides [1:19:52] of the aisle [1:19:52] Americans think [1:19:53] is absolutely outrageous. [1:19:55] A slush fund [1:19:56] had been created [1:19:56] for the president [1:19:58] to dole out to people [1:19:59] who've done [1:19:59] the most awful things, [1:20:01] literally people [1:20:02] that stormed the Capitol [1:20:03] and beat police officers [1:20:05] in this building [1:20:07] would not get taxpayer dollars [1:20:09] as some kind of reward. [1:20:12] universal disagreement [1:20:15] on that [1:20:16] and the fact [1:20:17] that a president [1:20:18] of the United States [1:20:19] is not above the law [1:20:20] and shouldn't be able [1:20:20] to cheat on their taxes. [1:20:23] And so I've sat back [1:20:24] for days now [1:20:25] looking forward to us [1:20:27] at least [1:20:28] of all the things [1:20:29] that Todd Blanche [1:20:30] has done [1:20:30] that is disqualifying [1:20:31] for this job, [1:20:33] I thought at least [1:20:34] we were going [1:20:35] to be able [1:20:37] to get [1:20:38] an end [1:20:39] to that nightmare. [1:20:41] And here's the thing, [1:20:43] Mr. Chairman. [1:20:43] Here's the thing, [1:20:50] Mr. Chairman. [1:20:50] You even have conservatives [1:20:54] coming out [1:20:55] and saying [1:20:56] these things are not worth [1:20:58] the paper they're drawn on. [1:21:01] I have a lot of respect [1:21:03] for my colleagues, [1:21:04] love the state of Texas, [1:21:05] but I'm going to say [1:21:06] it very clear. [1:21:07] This is all hat [1:21:08] and no cattle. [1:21:10] It's hard for me [1:21:10] to say this [1:21:11] as a plant-based guy, [1:21:12] but where's the beef? [1:21:14] Where's the beef? [1:21:16] This is ridiculous. [1:21:18] We got nothing, [1:21:20] no guarantees whatsoever [1:21:22] that this slush fund [1:21:23] still can't go forward. [1:21:25] We got nothing [1:21:26] that the President [1:21:28] of the United States [1:21:28] can't cheat on his taxes [1:21:30] and have no accountability. [1:21:33] Dear God, folks, [1:21:35] it's not like we're talking [1:21:36] about a president [1:21:37] who is a saint. [1:21:40] No president [1:21:41] in the history [1:21:41] of this country [1:21:42] has been caught [1:21:42] in tax cheating [1:21:43] more than this one. [1:21:46] A Pulitzer Prize [1:21:47] winning documentation [1:21:49] of his tax cheating [1:21:50] came out in 2018. [1:21:53] Pulitzer Prize! [1:21:55] Donald Trump said, [1:21:56] I'm going to sue you, [1:21:57] it's all wrong. [1:21:57] That suit was thrown out [1:22:00] because the president [1:22:01] is a tax cheat. [1:22:03] But it didn't stop with that. [1:22:05] He was a tax cheat [1:22:06] with his nonprofit as well. [1:22:08] He created a so-called charity, [1:22:10] but what did he do [1:22:11] with that charity? [1:22:12] It was cited [1:22:13] by the state of New York [1:22:14] for self-dealing, [1:22:16] for tax cheating, [1:22:18] and was shut down. [1:22:20] We have a known arsonist, [1:22:23] and we have just [1:22:24] in this committee [1:22:24] given him [1:22:26] a whole barrel full [1:22:27] of gasoline [1:22:28] to light on fire [1:22:30] our tax laws [1:22:31] and have no accountability [1:22:33] for the conflagration. [1:22:35] This is so ridiculous [1:22:37] that we are sitting back here [1:22:39] and allowing this to happen. [1:22:42] A president that we know [1:22:44] is a tax cheat. [1:22:45] That is a fact. [1:22:47] That is a fact. [1:22:49] We have now just given him [1:22:51] an immunity [1:22:51] to his tax cheating. [1:22:53] Now, here's an admission [1:22:54] I'm going to make [1:22:55] to my colleagues [1:22:56] on the other side. [1:22:58] We've had presidents [1:22:59] that have done things [1:23:00] that to me [1:23:01] do not pass the smell test [1:23:03] and do not pass [1:23:04] the appearance of impropriety. [1:23:06] I think this committee [1:23:07] should pass a law [1:23:09] that no children of presidents [1:23:10] should be able to grift off [1:23:12] their parents' office. [1:23:15] To me, it is ridiculous [1:23:16] the corruption [1:23:16] that we have normalized [1:23:17] in America. [1:23:19] That president's children [1:23:20] can go out [1:23:21] and sit on boards [1:23:23] and make money. [1:23:25] That is wrong [1:23:26] and that is corrupting. [1:23:29] But they have become [1:23:29] so obsessed [1:23:30] obsessed with the billions, [1:23:32] the millions [1:23:32] that the Bidens have made [1:23:34] that they have ignored [1:23:36] completely [1:23:37] the billions of dollars [1:23:40] that the Trump family [1:23:41] is making. [1:23:42] That is like being obsessed [1:23:44] and using a magnifying glass [1:23:46] to study the stain [1:23:48] on the living room carpet [1:23:49] when behind you [1:23:51] is a mountain [1:23:52] of excrement [1:23:53] covering the living room [1:23:55] couch and coffee table. [1:23:57] This is so outrageous, [1:24:00] the lack of proportionality [1:24:01] going on [1:24:02] of my colleagues. [1:24:03] It is laughable. [1:24:05] This is absolutely insane [1:24:07] that we have a president [1:24:08] of the United States [1:24:09] that has now made [1:24:11] $2 billion. [1:24:12] Doing what? [1:24:13] Wow, he's such [1:24:14] a shrewd businessman. [1:24:15] Let me create [1:24:16] my own crypto coin [1:24:17] and have foreign nations [1:24:19] invest in it. [1:24:20] Oh, and by the way, [1:24:21] if you are a corporation [1:24:22] in America, [1:24:23] put my children [1:24:24] on the board [1:24:25] and they'll get [1:24:25] no-bid contracts. [1:24:28] We are, [1:24:29] this is the Judiciary Committee. [1:24:32] We're supposed to be [1:24:33] checking [1:24:34] and balancing [1:24:35] this nation. [1:24:37] Why have people [1:24:38] on both sides of the aisle [1:24:39] given up [1:24:40] on any trust in government? [1:24:42] It's because we're surrendering [1:24:44] any shred of integrity left. [1:24:47] And now we're letting [1:24:48] an attorney general [1:24:50] become the highest [1:24:51] law enforcement officer [1:24:52] in the land [1:24:54] and putting no holds [1:24:55] whatsoever. [1:24:56] I had hoped for two weeks [1:24:59] that we would get something. [1:25:01] Two weeks [1:25:02] that we would have [1:25:03] something substantive [1:25:03] to stop the world's greatest [1:25:05] presidential tax cheat [1:25:07] from cheating. [1:25:09] And we've done nothing. [1:25:11] And this man is going [1:25:12] to now sail to the floor [1:25:13] and history is going [1:25:15] to show it. [1:25:17] I know what's going [1:25:18] to come out in history [1:25:19] on this president. [1:25:20] And I know what's going [1:25:21] to come out on Todd Blanche. [1:25:24] And the simplest way [1:25:25] that should outrage [1:25:26] any shred of decency [1:25:27] my colleagues have. [1:25:29] Because this isn't [1:25:30] left or right. [1:25:31] This isn't presidential [1:25:32] enrichment. [1:25:34] This is the deepest, [1:25:36] most sacred urgency [1:25:39] of this committee. [1:25:40] And I know colleagues [1:25:41] on both sides care about it. [1:25:43] Victims of crime [1:25:45] should have justice. [1:25:48] And here in the United [1:25:52] States of America, [1:25:53] one of the greatest [1:25:55] sex trafficking rings [1:25:57] we've ever seen, [1:26:00] when only two people, [1:26:01] over a thousand women, [1:26:03] sexually assaulted and raped, [1:26:06] only two people have been [1:26:07] held accountable. [1:26:08] There are other criminals [1:26:11] out there that haven't [1:26:12] been found. [1:26:13] And what did the man [1:26:14] that we're talking about [1:26:16] becoming the Attorney General [1:26:17] of the United States, [1:26:17] what did he do? [1:26:19] Well, he joined in the [1:26:20] Situation Room [1:26:21] in the White House. [1:26:23] Y'all know what [1:26:24] the Situation Room is, [1:26:25] right? [1:26:26] This is where we go [1:26:27] to deal with the greatest [1:26:28] national security threats [1:26:29] in a classified room [1:26:32] to deal with the safety [1:26:34] of our nation. [1:26:36] And yet this administration [1:26:37] in the Situation Room [1:26:39] calls an emergency meeting [1:26:41] at which Todd Blanche [1:26:42] was there to say, [1:26:44] what are we going to do? [1:26:45] Because the president [1:26:46] appears in the Epstein files [1:26:48] hundreds of times. [1:26:51] They didn't get together [1:26:52] to say, this is really bad. [1:26:54] This is eroding trust [1:26:56] in the justice system. [1:26:57] This is eroding trust [1:26:58] in the rule of law. [1:26:59] We have to find a way [1:27:00] to hold powerful people [1:27:02] accountable. [1:27:02] No, they came together [1:27:04] with Todd Blanche [1:27:04] in the room. [1:27:05] How do we protect [1:27:06] the president? [1:27:08] And what happened [1:27:09] after that? [1:27:10] One of the most unusual [1:27:11] things in the history [1:27:13] of our country [1:27:14] happened after that. [1:27:16] Todd Blanche, [1:27:17] at the highest heights [1:27:18] of our Justice Department, [1:27:21] ran to the prison [1:27:22] of Ghislaine Maxwell. [1:27:24] This is unprecedented. [1:27:27] This is, lawyers tell me, [1:27:28] untoward. [1:27:29] This is corrupting. [1:27:31] He didn't study [1:27:31] the case files. [1:27:33] He didn't talk [1:27:33] to the prosecutors. [1:27:35] No, he ran to the jail cell [1:27:36] and met with her [1:27:37] for two days, [1:27:39] insulting every single [1:27:41] Epstein victim [1:27:42] that had been asking [1:27:43] for a meeting for years. [1:27:47] And after two days [1:27:48] of meetings, [1:27:49] did we get information [1:27:52] that led to an indictment? [1:27:54] No. [1:27:54] Did we get information [1:27:55] that led to new opens [1:27:57] of investigations? [1:27:58] No. [1:27:59] Did we get one more conviction? [1:28:01] No. [1:28:02] What did we get? [1:28:04] That a convicted sex offender [1:28:06] was able to leave [1:28:07] her confinement [1:28:08] and go to the cushiest [1:28:10] prison in our land [1:28:13] that by Bureau of Prison Law, [1:28:17] by DOJ Law, [1:28:18] is a violation [1:28:21] of their principles. [1:28:24] So Ghislaine Maxwell [1:28:25] is sitting in the lowest [1:28:28] possible confinement [1:28:30] after giving no information [1:28:32] that helped us get [1:28:33] one more investigation started [1:28:36] and has been silent [1:28:38] and the man responsible [1:28:41] for that. [1:28:42] We are about to make [1:28:44] the Attorney General [1:28:45] of the United States [1:28:47] of America. [1:28:49] This man is not [1:28:50] our lawyer. [1:28:52] He is not America's lawyer. [1:28:55] He is about to become [1:28:56] Trump's sword [1:28:58] against his adversaries [1:28:59] and shield [1:29:01] against any scrutiny. [1:29:03] The shield is going to shield him [1:29:04] from tax cheating. [1:29:05] The shield is going to shield him [1:29:07] from investigation [1:29:08] for any involvement [1:29:09] he may have had [1:29:10] in Epstein's deeds. [1:29:13] And the sword, [1:29:14] I've seen it, [1:29:16] unprecedented [1:29:16] that the Attorney General [1:29:18] should investigate [1:29:19] colleagues here [1:29:20] on this committee. [1:29:24] This is farcical. [1:29:26] It would be literally, [1:29:28] laughably funny [1:29:28] if it wasn't so dangerous. [1:29:32] We are about to put a person [1:29:33] in one of the most powerful [1:29:34] positions in the land, [1:29:37] vital for not only enforcing [1:29:39] the law, protecting national security, [1:29:42] but also vital [1:29:43] for upholding our democracy. [1:29:46] And my Republican colleagues [1:29:48] sound like Jan Brady, [1:29:51] Marsha, Marsha, Marsha, [1:29:52] Biden, Biden, Biden. [1:29:55] You are worried [1:29:56] about a pickpocket, [1:29:58] a pickpocket [1:29:59] when it comes to [1:30:01] grand theft larceny. [1:30:03] When it comes to our democracy, [1:30:06] you're worried about [1:30:07] someone who is doing petty theft [1:30:09] while there is the murder [1:30:11] of our democratic traditions [1:30:13] going on before our eyes. [1:30:16] We are in dangerous waters, folks. [1:30:18] We are in dangerous waters. [1:30:20] We are turning the ideals [1:30:22] of justice [1:30:22] and this committee [1:30:23] into a mockery [1:30:25] by letting the least qualified person, [1:30:28] a person proven [1:30:29] to do Donald Trump's will [1:30:31] over the law. [1:30:32] He is about Trump [1:30:33] and not truth. [1:30:35] He is about corruption [1:30:35] and not the Constitution. [1:30:37] He's about being [1:30:38] Donald Trump's lawyer [1:30:39] and not the people's lawyer. [1:30:41] This is so deeply wrong. [1:30:44] We will rue the day [1:30:45] that we let this man [1:30:46] have this much power [1:30:48] under such a corrupt president. [1:30:50] Thank you. [1:30:51] Senator Padilla. [1:30:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:30:55] Colleagues and members [1:30:57] of the public, [1:30:57] we've been hearing a lot [1:30:58] about this tax immunity deal. [1:31:01] We've heard about [1:31:02] Todd Blanch's mismanagement [1:31:03] of the Epstein case and files, [1:31:07] the evidence of Todd Blanch [1:31:10] carrying out Trump's political agenda [1:31:13] of vindictiveness. [1:31:15] And I'll have my comments [1:31:17] on that as well, [1:31:18] but I want to bring us back [1:31:19] to what it is [1:31:20] that's before us today. [1:31:23] 150 years ago, [1:31:24] Congress created [1:31:25] the Department of Justice [1:31:27] and entrusted [1:31:28] the Attorney General [1:31:30] with the simple [1:31:31] but profound responsibility [1:31:33] to serve [1:31:35] as the nation's [1:31:36] chief law enforcement officer. [1:31:39] Let me repeat that, [1:31:40] to serve as the nation's [1:31:42] chief law enforcement officer, [1:31:45] not the president's lawyer, [1:31:48] the American people's lawyer. [1:31:50] And even today, [1:31:52] go to the department's website. [1:31:54] Its own mission statement [1:31:55] lists, quote, [1:31:57] independence and impartiality [1:32:00] as its first core value. [1:32:02] It says the department [1:32:05] must follow, quote, [1:32:07] the facts and the law [1:32:09] wherever they may lead [1:32:11] without prejudice [1:32:13] or improper influence. [1:32:16] 150 years ago, [1:32:17] we decreed the Department of Justice. [1:32:20] It exists today [1:32:21] with these mission statements [1:32:24] and core values. [1:32:26] That's the standard. [1:32:28] And by that standard, [1:32:31] Todd Blanch fails. [1:32:34] During the confirmation hearing, [1:32:35] Mr. Blanch was asked [1:32:36] whether he and Donald Trump [1:32:38] were friends. [1:32:39] Remember his response? [1:32:43] He said, [1:32:43] I'm his lawyer. [1:32:46] And then he tried [1:32:47] to correct himself [1:32:48] by saying, [1:32:48] he was his lawyer. [1:32:51] That's a remarkable slip [1:32:53] for someone seeking [1:32:56] to become attorney general [1:32:57] of the United States. [1:32:59] And colleagues, [1:32:59] we know he spent hours [1:33:00] and hours over the course [1:33:02] of days preparing [1:33:03] for the hearing. [1:33:05] And yet the first words [1:33:06] out of his mouth [1:33:06] when asked that question [1:33:07] was, I'm his lawyer. [1:33:14] The attorney general [1:33:15] isn't supposed to be [1:33:16] the president's lawyer. [1:33:18] The attorney general [1:33:19] is supposed to be [1:33:20] the country's lawyer. [1:33:24] And if you recall, [1:33:25] when I asked Mr. Blanch [1:33:26] whether the Department [1:33:27] of Justice has an obligation [1:33:29] to remain independent [1:33:31] from improper political influence, [1:33:36] including influence [1:33:37] by the president, [1:33:38] he refused to say yes. [1:33:41] He tried to justify [1:33:42] the department's part [1:33:43] of the executive branch [1:33:44] and he's a member [1:33:45] of the cabinet [1:33:45] and the president's agenda. [1:33:49] The president's fixations [1:33:50] and obsessions [1:33:51] is what he follows. [1:33:55] It suggests he sees [1:33:59] no problem [1:33:59] with the president [1:34:00] directing federal law enforcement [1:34:03] to investigate [1:34:03] and prosecute [1:34:05] his perceived political enemies. [1:34:07] It's not hypothetical. [1:34:12] We've seen investigations [1:34:13] into former FBI director [1:34:15] James Comey, [1:34:16] into New York attorney general [1:34:18] Letitia James, [1:34:19] into former CIA director [1:34:21] John Brennan, [1:34:23] into our colleagues, [1:34:25] both on committee, [1:34:26] Senator Schiff, [1:34:27] and a lot of this committee, [1:34:29] Senator Kelly, [1:34:31] and more. [1:34:35] At the same time, [1:34:36] Mr. Blanch has shown [1:34:36] little interest [1:34:37] in ensuring [1:34:38] that federal officials [1:34:39] themselves [1:34:41] are held accountable [1:34:42] when they violate the law, [1:34:45] including but not limited [1:34:47] to the Department [1:34:47] of Homeland Security. [1:34:50] He basically stated [1:34:51] that his belief [1:34:52] is that the department [1:34:53] should investigate [1:34:54] and police themselves. [1:34:58] Remember, [1:34:58] I asked him about this. [1:35:01] They're clearly incapable [1:35:02] of doing so. [1:35:05] Federal agents [1:35:06] shooting innocent civilians, [1:35:08] killing United States citizens [1:35:11] on the streets of our country, [1:35:15] detainees dying in record numbers, [1:35:18] in detention centers [1:35:19] that are violating the standards [1:35:21] that they're supposed to maintain. [1:35:25] So it's clear [1:35:26] that under Todd Blanch, [1:35:29] the primary job [1:35:30] of the Justice Department [1:35:31] will be to do things like [1:35:34] defend all options [1:35:36] to reward January 6 rioters [1:35:38] who attacked the United States Capitol [1:35:40] and violently assaulted police officers, [1:35:43] to ensure immunity [1:35:44] for the president and his family [1:35:45] for tax crimes. [1:35:50] And no, [1:35:50] even with this so-called deal, [1:35:52] that hasn't changed. [1:35:55] Under the supposed deal, [1:35:58] Mr. Blanch isn't prevented [1:36:00] from creating a new [1:36:01] anti-weaponization fund tomorrow [1:36:04] by some other name. [1:36:06] It does not prevent [1:36:07] Mr. Blanch [1:36:07] from using taxpayer funds [1:36:09] to reward January 6 rioters. [1:36:12] It does not prohibit [1:36:13] Donald Trump [1:36:14] and his sons [1:36:15] from receiving immunity [1:36:17] for their tax crimes. [1:36:22] To me, [1:36:24] this doesn't seem [1:36:25] like a deal at all. [1:36:26] But ultimately, [1:36:28] it does nothing [1:36:29] to address [1:36:30] the real fundamental [1:36:32] root problem. [1:36:36] The Department of Justice [1:36:37] with no independence, [1:36:40] a department [1:36:41] that enables corruption, [1:36:44] corruption [1:36:44] that it should be prosecuting, [1:36:49] a department [1:36:50] that rewards [1:36:52] people who violently [1:36:54] stormed the Capitol [1:36:55] and assaulted law enforcement. [1:36:58] What message does that send [1:36:59] to supporters [1:37:03] of the president [1:37:04] after the next presidential election [1:37:06] when we try to certify [1:37:07] future results? [1:37:09] All this while the administration [1:37:11] is ignoring the true plight [1:37:12] of working families [1:37:13] across the country [1:37:15] who feel not just burdened [1:37:19] but buried [1:37:19] by the increased costs. [1:37:23] What does that say [1:37:24] to crime victims [1:37:27] across the country, [1:37:30] survivors of sex trafficking? [1:37:33] What does that say [1:37:34] to the families, [1:37:35] those who have lost their lives [1:37:36] at the hands [1:37:37] of federal agents [1:37:38] and agents face [1:37:41] no accountability? [1:37:42] This is not equal justice [1:37:44] under the law. [1:37:46] This is not [1:37:46] the Department of Justice [1:37:47] the way it's supposed to be. [1:37:49] This is not [1:37:49] an attorney general [1:37:51] that the American people deserve. [1:37:56] Our country deserves better. [1:37:58] Todd Blanche is not fit. [1:38:00] And I urge my colleagues [1:38:02] to oppose this nomination. [1:38:05] Tell our Republican members [1:38:07] that we have two speakers left [1:38:09] and to get over here [1:38:11] so we can vote [1:38:12] after Senator Schiff's [1:38:13] done speaking. [1:38:14] Senator Welch. [1:38:17] Thank you very much. [1:38:18] Mr. Chairman, [1:38:20] this is a story [1:38:21] about how a young [1:38:22] and talented [1:38:23] and idealistic man [1:38:25] committed to public service, [1:38:27] a prosecutor's prosecutor, [1:38:30] became a new person [1:38:31] in service [1:38:33] of a corrupt president. [1:38:36] It's a story [1:38:37] of ambition and loyalty [1:38:38] and political calculation [1:38:40] eroding resistance [1:38:44] and idealism. [1:38:48] Mr. Blanche has used [1:38:49] his considerable talents [1:38:51] to accommodate [1:38:52] the corrupt goals [1:38:54] of a corrupt president. [1:38:57] And by the way, [1:38:58] Mr. Chairman, [1:38:59] if we rejected Todd Blanche, [1:39:01] that corrupt president [1:39:02] would find a new Todd Blanche. [1:39:04] But Blanche is also [1:39:08] a story about how [1:39:10] a once great institution [1:39:11] is relinquishing [1:39:13] its own power [1:39:14] and capitulating [1:39:16] to a corrupt president. [1:39:19] Is there no line [1:39:20] that the U.S. Senate [1:39:22] will not allow [1:39:23] this president to cross? [1:39:25] The Senate confirmed [1:39:28] Bondi, [1:39:29] Hegseth, [1:39:29] Patel, [1:39:30] Noam, [1:39:31] and is about to confirm Blanche. [1:39:33] The president [1:39:35] is abusing his authority [1:39:37] every day [1:39:39] in every way. [1:39:41] Shame on him. [1:39:42] But the United States Senate [1:39:45] is failing to use [1:39:46] its power [1:39:47] any day [1:39:49] in any way [1:39:51] to protect [1:39:52] the American people. [1:39:54] Should not [1:39:55] the U.S. Senate [1:39:56] use its advice [1:39:57] and consent authority [1:39:58] to demand [1:39:59] competence [1:40:00] and integrity? [1:40:02] Do we do that [1:40:03] with Bondi, [1:40:04] with Noam, [1:40:04] with Hegseth, [1:40:05] with Patel, [1:40:05] and now Blanche? [1:40:07] Should not [1:40:08] the U.S. Senate [1:40:09] use its taxing authority [1:40:11] to stop Trump's tariffs [1:40:12] that we basically [1:40:13] all oppose [1:40:14] and are doing [1:40:15] so much damage [1:40:16] to small businesses [1:40:17] and individuals [1:40:18] in Vermont [1:40:19] and in all our states? [1:40:21] Should not [1:40:22] the U.S. Senate [1:40:23] use its constitutional [1:40:24] power of the purse [1:40:25] to stop the invasion [1:40:26] by President Trump, [1:40:28] the executive, [1:40:29] into the power of the purse? [1:40:31] And should not [1:40:32] the U.S. Senate [1:40:33] use its constitutional authority [1:40:36] to declare war, [1:40:38] to stop this illegal [1:40:40] war in Iran, [1:40:42] or at least [1:40:43] even debate it, [1:40:45] a war [1:40:46] that President Trump [1:40:47] is losing. [1:40:50] Mr. Chairman, [1:40:51] the President [1:40:52] is abusing [1:40:53] his authority, [1:40:54] but we are failing [1:40:57] as a U.S. Senate [1:40:58] to use our authority. [1:41:01] And when we fail [1:41:02] to use our authority, [1:41:03] we fail to meet [1:41:05] our responsibility [1:41:05] to the people [1:41:06] of this country. [1:41:07] We can stop [1:41:09] capitulating today [1:41:11] by doing our job [1:41:13] and rejecting [1:41:14] a completely [1:41:16] unqualified [1:41:17] man [1:41:18] to be the top [1:41:19] law enforcement [1:41:20] official [1:41:21] in this country. [1:41:22] I will vote no. [1:41:25] Senator Schiff. [1:41:32] Thank you, [1:41:33] Mr. Chairman. [1:41:36] I speak in opposition [1:41:36] to the nomination [1:41:38] of Todd Blanche [1:41:38] to be Attorney General. [1:41:40] He should be rejected [1:41:41] for five [1:41:42] broad reasons. [1:41:45] The first is [1:41:46] he has used [1:41:46] the Department of Justice [1:41:47] to enrich [1:41:49] the President [1:41:49] of the United States, [1:41:50] and that is not [1:41:51] the job [1:41:52] of an Attorney General. [1:41:53] Now, how has he [1:41:54] done this? [1:41:56] Well, [1:41:56] let's look [1:41:57] at the IRS settlement. [1:42:00] And bear in mind, [1:42:01] this was a lawsuit [1:42:02] brought by Donald Trump [1:42:04] not as a private citizen. [1:42:06] He had every opportunity [1:42:07] to bring this lawsuit [1:42:08] in between [1:42:09] his first term [1:42:10] and his second term, [1:42:11] but he did not do so. [1:42:14] In fact, [1:42:14] he waited so long [1:42:15] that the statute [1:42:16] of limitations [1:42:17] ran on that [1:42:19] potential claim. [1:42:20] He waited, no. [1:42:21] He waited [1:42:21] until he became [1:42:22] President. [1:42:24] Now, why did he wait [1:42:25] to bring this $10 billion [1:42:26] lawsuit [1:42:27] until he became [1:42:28] President? [1:42:28] He waited [1:42:29] so that he would [1:42:30] have the power [1:42:31] of the presidency [1:42:32] to leverage the IRS [1:42:34] and the Justice Department [1:42:35] to make him more money. [1:42:38] So he waits [1:42:39] until he's President. [1:42:40] He sues the IRS [1:42:42] for $10 billion. [1:42:44] In a stunning [1:42:46] act of self-dealing, [1:42:48] he purports [1:42:49] to settle [1:42:49] with himself. [1:42:51] He's represented [1:42:52] by his personal lawyers [1:42:54] on the one hand [1:42:54] and by his other lawyers [1:42:57] at the Department [1:42:57] of Justice, [1:42:58] on the other hand, [1:43:00] in a collusive use [1:43:02] of the litigation process [1:43:04] that was found [1:43:05] by a judge in Florida [1:43:06] to be a potential fraud [1:43:09] on the court, [1:43:10] to be brought [1:43:11] for an improper purpose [1:43:13] of extracting [1:43:14] some kind [1:43:15] of financial benefit [1:43:16] to the president. [1:43:18] And boy, [1:43:18] was it a benefit [1:43:19] by some estimates [1:43:21] in Forbes, [1:43:22] $600 million [1:43:23] of tax benefit [1:43:25] for the president, [1:43:26] his family, [1:43:27] his sons, [1:43:28] the businesses, [1:43:29] the affiliates, [1:43:29] and all the rest of that. [1:43:31] Now, there was an effort, [1:43:32] and I appreciate my colleagues [1:43:34] from Texas [1:43:35] and North Carolina [1:43:36] making an effort [1:43:37] to try to rein in [1:43:38] this tax settlement, [1:43:40] but what they attempted [1:43:42] to achieve [1:43:42] has not been achieved. [1:43:44] As my colleague [1:43:45] from Texas rightly asked [1:43:46] during his questioning [1:43:47] of Todd Blanche [1:43:48] during the confirmation hearing, [1:43:50] this is purportedly [1:43:52] an agreement [1:43:52] between two parties. [1:43:54] Can you, [1:43:56] representing just one of them [1:43:58] or speaking for just one of them, [1:44:00] bind the other? [1:44:02] And the answer was no. [1:44:05] Blanche acknowledged that no. [1:44:06] His statement alone [1:44:07] couldn't bind the parties. [1:44:09] The president could insist [1:44:10] for his part [1:44:11] on honoring the terms [1:44:13] of the settlement agreement. [1:44:15] Does this unsigned [1:44:18] one pager [1:44:20] somehow change any of that? [1:44:23] And the answer is no. [1:44:24] Look at this statement. [1:44:25] It says that Todd Blanche [1:44:28] incorporates that testimony [1:44:30] by reference, [1:44:31] meaning the testimony [1:44:31] before the Senate, [1:44:33] meaning that when he answered [1:44:34] my colleague from Texas' question [1:44:36] that he could not bind [1:44:37] both parties to the settlement, [1:44:39] he stands by that testimony. [1:44:42] He's telling us again, [1:44:43] reaffirming in writing, [1:44:44] he does not speak [1:44:45] for both parties, [1:44:46] and therefore, [1:44:47] this unsigned statement [1:44:49] that only says [1:44:50] that it's restating [1:44:52] DOJ's interpretation [1:44:54] is meaningless. [1:44:58] And that interpretation, [1:44:59] according to this [1:45:00] unsigned document, [1:45:01] is that the order [1:45:02] only has any effect, [1:45:04] including on any release [1:45:05] of claims on the name parties [1:45:07] in the lawsuit [1:45:07] referenced in the order. [1:45:09] But let's look at [1:45:11] the name parties in this. [1:45:13] The name parties [1:45:14] in this settlement agreement, [1:45:16] which the Attorney General [1:45:20] admitted remains in force, [1:45:22] applies to the plaintiffs, [1:45:24] meaning Trump, [1:45:26] his sons, [1:45:27] and Trump organizations, [1:45:28] or affiliated individuals, [1:45:31] including without limitation, [1:45:33] family or others filing jointly [1:45:35] or parties, [1:45:36] including trusts, [1:45:37] parents, [1:45:38] sister-related companies, [1:45:40] affiliates, [1:45:41] and subsidiaries [1:45:42] by reason of, [1:45:42] respect to, [1:45:43] and connection with, [1:45:44] or which arise out of [1:45:45] any matters that were raised [1:45:47] or could have been raised. [1:45:50] This is so broad, [1:45:52] and nothing [1:45:52] in this supposed clarification [1:45:55] changes that. [1:45:58] So if tomorrow [1:45:59] the president wants to insist, [1:46:00] let's say that tomorrow [1:46:01] the IRS were to audit [1:46:03] the returns of a subsidiary [1:46:06] of one of the companies, [1:46:08] not a party [1:46:09] to the actual litigation. [1:46:12] Do you think for a moment [1:46:13] the president wouldn't assert [1:46:15] that settlement agreement [1:46:16] as a defense? [1:46:17] Do you think for a moment [1:46:18] that a court would find [1:46:19] that an unsigned statement [1:46:23] purporting to restate [1:46:25] some testimony in committee [1:46:28] would bar the president [1:46:30] from using that as a defense? [1:46:33] And so we have this litigation, [1:46:36] president, [1:46:37] sues president, [1:46:38] president settles with president, [1:46:40] president never asserts [1:46:41] the statute of limitations [1:46:42] which would bar the claim, [1:46:44] but no, [1:46:46] this is used to enrich [1:46:47] the president and his family. [1:46:48] That is number one. [1:46:49] We should not confirm [1:46:50] an attorney general [1:46:51] who views his job [1:46:52] as enriching the president [1:46:53] of the United States. [1:46:54] Number two, [1:46:55] we should not confirm [1:46:56] an attorney general [1:46:57] who believes that he has [1:46:58] a right and a duty [1:46:59] the president has a right [1:47:00] and a duty to go [1:47:01] after his political enemies. [1:47:05] Look, [1:47:05] I understand my colleagues [1:47:08] upset that their toll records [1:47:10] were subpoenaed, [1:47:12] but I didn't hear [1:47:13] any of you complain [1:47:13] when my toll records [1:47:14] were subpoenaed [1:47:15] during the first [1:47:16] Trump administration, [1:47:17] but let's set that aside. [1:47:20] Do any of you think [1:47:20] that's equivalent [1:47:21] to the Justice Department [1:47:24] under Todd Blanch [1:47:26] seeking to indict [1:47:28] two of our colleagues [1:47:30] for a video they made [1:47:32] that stated the plain truth [1:47:35] that you can ignore [1:47:36] an illegal order [1:47:37] that you indeed [1:47:38] have a duty to? [1:47:40] I mean, [1:47:40] how can any of us [1:47:41] countenance [1:47:42] an attorney general [1:47:42] who would do such a thing? [1:47:44] Or as my colleague [1:47:45] from North Carolina says, [1:47:47] brings a seashells case. [1:47:49] How absurd is that? [1:47:52] Can there be any doubt [1:47:53] that that was brought [1:47:54] simply because he's [1:47:55] on the president's enemies list? [1:47:57] I know I'm on that list. [1:47:59] The president reiterated [1:48:01] just the other night [1:48:02] that he hates me, [1:48:03] which I could tell you [1:48:05] wounds me deeply. [1:48:08] He's entitled [1:48:09] to his own views [1:48:11] about me or anybody else. [1:48:12] He is not entitled, [1:48:13] however, [1:48:13] to use the Department [1:48:14] of Justice [1:48:15] to go after [1:48:16] his political opponents. [1:48:18] And the day we say [1:48:19] that's okay [1:48:20] and the day we confirm [1:48:21] an attorney general [1:48:22] who says that's okay [1:48:23] is the day [1:48:25] that the rule of law [1:48:26] becomes merely [1:48:28] an unenforceable idea, [1:48:32] a quaint acknowledgement [1:48:33] of a past Justice Department [1:48:36] in which the rule of law [1:48:37] once mattered. [1:48:39] We should not confirm [1:48:41] an attorney general [1:48:41] who believes [1:48:42] the president has a right [1:48:43] and a duty to use him [1:48:45] to go after his enemies. [1:48:47] Number three of the reasons [1:48:48] why we should not confirm [1:48:49] Todd Blanche [1:48:50] is that his efforts [1:48:54] to protect the president [1:48:56] and others [1:48:58] in the Epstein Files investigation [1:49:01] is a scandalous abuse of power. [1:49:05] He withheld documents [1:49:08] implicating the president [1:49:10] to protect the president. [1:49:12] He has never been able [1:49:14] to shed his role [1:49:15] as criminal defense lawyer [1:49:16] for Donald Trump. [1:49:18] He withheld records [1:49:20] only complied [1:49:23] even partially [1:49:24] with the requirement [1:49:25] of the law [1:49:26] that he disclosed them [1:49:27] when he was found out [1:49:29] in that effort [1:49:30] of cover-up and concealment. [1:49:31] And what's more, [1:49:32] his mismanagement [1:49:33] of the release of the files [1:49:35] has victimized the victims [1:49:37] again [1:49:38] by publishing their names, [1:49:40] their likenesses, [1:49:41] their photos, [1:49:41] their addresses. [1:49:43] We should not confirm [1:49:46] anyone so incompetent, [1:49:49] someone so indifferent [1:49:50] to the suffering [1:49:51] of these victims, [1:49:52] someone who only met [1:49:53] with them [1:49:54] because he was going [1:49:56] to be refused confirmation [1:49:57] for his refusal to do so. [1:50:02] Someone who met [1:50:03] with the prime co-conspirator [1:50:05] of Epstein, [1:50:06] Jussain Maxwell, [1:50:09] and sought exculpatory [1:50:12] statements from her [1:50:12] brought no one [1:50:14] of any experience [1:50:16] with the case. [1:50:17] Who would do that [1:50:17] as an experienced prosecutor? [1:50:19] Go interview someone [1:50:20] in custody [1:50:21] in a high-profile case [1:50:24] without bringing anyone [1:50:25] who worked on that case [1:50:27] who could tell them [1:50:27] the questions to ask, [1:50:29] who could press them [1:50:30] when they dissembled [1:50:31] and lied [1:50:31] as this witness [1:50:32] has a history of doing. [1:50:34] and then oversees [1:50:37] her transfer [1:50:38] to a minimum security prison [1:50:40] and gives us [1:50:41] the false explanation [1:50:42] here in the Senate [1:50:44] that he did so [1:50:45] to protect her [1:50:46] from threats. [1:50:48] Such a person [1:50:48] should not be confirmed [1:50:49] as attorney general. [1:50:51] Number four, [1:50:53] he has sought [1:50:54] to compensate cop beaters [1:50:56] with your money, [1:50:58] with taxpayer funds. [1:51:01] And I have to say again, [1:51:02] nothing in this [1:51:03] new signed document [1:51:06] of the attorney general, [1:51:08] nothing in this [1:51:09] stops the president [1:51:10] from doing it. [1:51:11] And the president [1:51:11] has told us [1:51:12] he fully intends [1:51:13] to do this. [1:51:15] Indeed, [1:51:15] they're already paying off [1:51:16] the president's cronies. [1:51:18] Do you remember Michael Flynn, [1:51:20] the erstwhile [1:51:21] national security advisor [1:51:22] of the president? [1:51:23] He's already been paid [1:51:24] $1.25 million [1:51:26] of your taxpayer money. [1:51:28] This is a guy [1:51:29] who pled guilty twice, [1:51:32] pled guilty twice [1:51:33] to lying to the FBI [1:51:34] about his contacts [1:51:35] with the Russians. [1:51:37] And he's already made [1:51:38] $1.25 million [1:51:40] off your money, [1:51:43] not using this [1:51:45] weaponization slush fund, [1:51:46] but using the DOJ's [1:51:48] victim fund, [1:51:49] the judgment fund, [1:51:50] as a slush fund. [1:51:52] And these cop beaters [1:51:54] are already signaling [1:51:55] their attention [1:51:56] to file claims [1:51:57] under the Federal Tort [1:51:58] Claims Act. [1:51:59] So even if the weaponization [1:52:01] fund doesn't move forward, [1:52:03] they are using [1:52:04] the same mechanism [1:52:06] to pay off [1:52:07] these cop beaters [1:52:09] and cronies [1:52:10] of the president. [1:52:11] And nothing in what [1:52:13] Todd Blanche signed [1:52:14] is going to stop that. [1:52:15] What will stop that [1:52:17] is a statute [1:52:18] passed by this committee [1:52:19] in the Congress [1:52:20] that prevents this, [1:52:22] that prevents taxpayer funding [1:52:23] from going to these cop beaters. [1:52:26] That is the only thing [1:52:27] that will prevent it [1:52:28] and we haven't done it. [1:52:31] Number five, [1:52:33] this is an attorney general [1:52:34] who has violated [1:52:35] the code of ethics. [1:52:36] Now that may seem [1:52:37] like a small thing [1:52:38] given all the other violations, [1:52:40] but it ought to matter to us. [1:52:42] He violated in this IRS [1:52:44] slush fund tax settlement cases [1:52:47] that judge in Florida [1:52:48] found and suspects [1:52:50] and referred him [1:52:52] to the Bar Association [1:52:53] for his conduct [1:52:55] in that collusive settlement. [1:53:00] But more than that, [1:53:01] during his testimony [1:53:02] to this committee, [1:53:04] I asked him about comments [1:53:05] he made to CPAC, [1:53:06] that conservative convention. [1:53:08] Remember those comments [1:53:09] he made bragging about [1:53:10] how there wasn't [1:53:11] a single person left standing [1:53:12] in the Justice Department [1:53:14] or the FBI [1:53:15] who had anything to do [1:53:16] with the cases [1:53:17] against Donald Trump [1:53:18] and how he was applauded [1:53:19] at CPAC for that. [1:53:22] And I asked him, [1:53:22] how is that consistent [1:53:24] with the ethics advice [1:53:27] that you admitted [1:53:28] to this committee [1:53:28] you received [1:53:29] from the Justice Department [1:53:30] that you have said [1:53:31] you followed, [1:53:33] that told you [1:53:33] you must recuse yourself [1:53:35] from involvement [1:53:36] in any case [1:53:36] in which you defended [1:53:37] Donald Trump? [1:53:39] How is that consistent? [1:53:40] And his answer was, [1:53:41] oh, I was just saying [1:53:42] those things to CPAC. [1:53:44] I wasn't saying I did it. [1:53:46] I was just saying [1:53:47] all those people got fired. [1:53:49] But here's the thing. [1:53:50] He did fire people involved [1:53:52] in the cases [1:53:53] against Donald Trump. [1:53:55] In fact, [1:53:56] we are testimony last week [1:53:57] of one of the people [1:53:58] he fired. [1:54:00] And here is his termination notice. [1:54:09] This is Todd Blanche's signature [1:54:11] on a notice of removal [1:54:13] from federal service [1:54:14] for Peter Carr. [1:54:18] Peter Carr was [1:54:19] one of the primary spokespeople [1:54:21] for Jack Smith's investigation. [1:54:22] He was the spokesperson [1:54:24] against the president [1:54:25] in the president's prosecution [1:54:27] for inciting [1:54:28] a violent attack [1:54:29] on the Capitol. [1:54:31] Todd Blanche writes, [1:54:32] this memorandum [1:54:33] serves as official notice [1:54:34] that you are removed [1:54:34] from your position [1:54:35] of public affairs specialist [1:54:37] with the Department of Justice. [1:54:43] Signed by Todd Blanche, [1:54:45] recused from any involvement [1:54:47] in firing anyone [1:54:49] in the cases [1:54:50] in which he defended [1:54:51] the president, [1:54:52] firing someone involved [1:54:54] in the cases [1:54:55] in which he defended [1:54:57] the president. [1:55:04] So this is someone [1:55:05] who has violated [1:55:06] his code of ethics, [1:55:08] blatantly misled [1:55:11] this committee [1:55:11] in testimony, [1:55:14] supported the establishment [1:55:15] of a fund for cop beaters, [1:55:19] concealed and covered up documents [1:55:21] implicating the president [1:55:22] in the Epstein files, [1:55:25] gone after the president's enemies, [1:55:27] and used the DOJ [1:55:28] to enrich the president [1:55:29] in a collusive settlement. [1:55:32] Is this who we're prepared [1:55:33] to confirm [1:55:34] as attorney general? [1:55:35] It appears so. [1:55:42] The fundamental problem [1:55:43] with Todd Blanche [1:55:44] is not that he's inexperienced, [1:55:47] not that he's not capable, [1:55:49] not that he's not intelligent. [1:55:50] The problem [1:55:51] with confirming Todd Blanche [1:55:52] is that he has never been able [1:55:54] to shed his role [1:55:56] as criminal defense lawyer [1:55:58] for Donald Trump. [1:55:59] He just can't do it. [1:56:02] He does not represent [1:56:04] the American people now. [1:56:05] He will never represent [1:56:06] the American people. [1:56:08] He will never do what's best [1:56:09] for the American people. [1:56:10] He will only do what's best [1:56:12] for Donald Trump. [1:56:14] And you cannot leave [1:56:15] someone like that [1:56:16] as the nation's number one [1:56:18] law enforcement official, [1:56:19] not when you have [1:56:21] a corrupt president [1:56:22] engaged in the most [1:56:25] unprecedented, [1:56:27] self-enriching schemes [1:56:28] we have ever seen. [1:56:30] You just can't do it [1:56:32] and hope to have anything left [1:56:34] of the rule of law. [1:56:35] I urge a no vote [1:56:36] on this confirmation, [1:56:38] and I yield back. [1:56:39] We now turn to the nomination [1:56:40] of Todd Blanche [1:56:42] to be attorney general. [1:56:43] The clerk will call the roll. [1:56:45] Aye. [1:56:46] Aye. [1:56:47] No. [1:57:03] No by proxy. [1:57:06] No. [1:57:09] No. [1:57:11] No. [1:57:15] No. [1:57:20] No. [1:57:22] Aye. [1:57:26] The nomination [1:57:27] will be favorably reported. [1:57:29] Before we adjourn, [1:57:30] I have some letters [1:57:31] I want to put in the record [1:57:32] from, well, [1:57:37] I'm not going to bother [1:57:38] to read it. [1:57:39] It's not worth reading [1:57:40] at this point. [1:57:42] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:45] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:46] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:47] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:48] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:49] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:50] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:51] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:52] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:53] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:54] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:55] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:56] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:57] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:58] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:59] The meeting's adjourned. [1:57:59] The meeting's adjourned. [1:58:00] The meeting's adjourned. [1:58:01] The meeting's adjourned. [1:58:02] The meeting's adjourned. [1:58:03] The meeting's adjourned. [1:58:04] The meeting's adjourned. [1:58:05] The meeting's adjourned. [1:58:06] The meeting's adjourned. [1:58:07] The meeting's adjourned. [1:58:08] The meeting's adjourned. [1:58:09] The meeting's adjourned. [1:58:10] The meeting's adjourned.