Trump AG has FULL COLLAPSE at SENATE HEARING

[0:00] Trump's acting Attorney General Todd Blanche just had a disastrous appearance before the United [0:05] States Senate where he was testifying. He appeared to repeatedly lie under oath. I want to show you [0:10] when Democratic Senator Van Hollen cross-examined him and said, do you realize that it's a crime to [0:16] lie to Congress? Watch what went down here. Let's play this clip. Can you point to a single [0:21] telegraph? I have a last question for you. Do you know that it is a criminal offense to lie [0:30] to Congress? I am very well aware of that. I'm glad to hear that. Thank you. [0:35] More cross-examination from Democratic Senator Van Hollen, which clearly appeared to get under [0:40] the skin of Todd Blanche, who started to shout, don't say that I'm the president's former lawyer. [0:46] I'm the acting Attorney General. Damn it. Watch this moment. Let's play this clip. [0:51] You're not going to submit this proposal to any federal judge or independent. [0:55] There is no judge. Any independent authority? [0:58] An independent? What does that mean, an independent authority? [1:00] It means not somebody who's getting to pick five of the members who is the president's [1:04] former personal attorney. That would be somebody who would be independent. [1:08] I'm the acting Attorney General. Okay. The fact that I used to be President Trump's lawyer [1:12] is just a fact, but I'm the acting Attorney General. So don't say the president's former [1:16] personal lawyer will do something. The acting Attorney General will do something. [1:19] Mr. Attorney General, you are acting today like the president's personal attorney. And that's [1:24] the whole problem. You've got his whole, you have a whole banner of his face hanging over [1:29] the Department of Justice and you and everybody else walks under it. And you are acting like you're [1:34] his current personal attorney. Chairman, I have no further questions. [1:38] Now, before Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had this nervous breakdown, had this complete [1:44] meltdown on live TV, Senator Van Hollen was cross-examining him about the slush fund that he and [1:50] Donald Trump were creating after Donald Trump in his personal capacity sued the federal government [1:56] for $10 billion, stating that during Trump's first term in 2019, his tax returns were leaked by a Trump [2:02] IRS worker and Trump sued for $10 billion, then entered into a settlement, but didn't tell the [2:07] federal judge that there was a settlement and then created a slush fund for $1,776 billion that he's [2:17] going to be handing out to January 6th insurrectionists and watch as Van Hollen cross-examines [2:22] bland. So are you going to give this money to people who assaulted Capitol police officers like [2:27] Oath Keepers? Is that what you're going to do? Here, play this clip. [2:30] Simple question. Will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for [2:36] this fund? Well, as it makes plain, anybody is- Just let me know if they're eligible for the fund. [2:42] As, as, as was made plain yesterday, anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe [2:49] they were victim weaponization. Mr. Attorney General, let me ask you this. Are there going [2:53] to be rules that say that if you've assaulted a Capitol Hill police officer or committed a violent [2:59] crime, you will not be eligible? Why not make that a rule? I expect that the, well, because I'm not one [3:04] of the commissioners setting up the rules, I expect- You're appointing four of the five members, [3:08] aren't you, Mr. Attorney General? Pardon me? You're appointing four of the five members. [3:11] I am appointing- You can finally set up the rules. I would hope you make a rule that anyone convicted [3:16] of assaulting a police officer or a violent crime is simply not eligible. They should not apply. [3:20] Next, we heard from Democratic Senator Reid, who said, let's talk about when you were meeting with [3:26] Ghislaine Maxwell, and then she was moved from this, you know, high, uh, this, this highly guarded [3:32] facility to this club fed. Can we talk about that? And then Todd Blanche is like, what, you think, [3:38] uh, Donald Trump called me and told me to meet with her? Yeah, that's what we all think. Here, [3:42] play this clip. [3:43] This is a travesty of the law in the United States and the constitution. Uh, you had an opportunity to [3:52] go down and talk to Ghislaine Maxwell. And then a few days later, she was transferred from a high [4:00] security prison to a, um, very comfortable, very comfortable. It's just not true. She was not in a [4:09] high security prison. She was transferred from a low security prison to a low security prison. I mean, [4:13] you're looking at me like that's, uh, that's verifiable. Well, uh, I don't think at the other [4:19] prison, she had her own room. She had access to a private shower. She could have pet therapy. And- [4:28] I don't know if any of that is true. I'm not disagreeing with you. It is true. And you should [4:31] know it, Mr. Turner. I should know that? You should know. Whether an inmate has access to her own [4:36] shower? No, no. Uh, this is a person of extra special interest to the president of the United [4:41] States. He's known her. Why did he send you down to talk to her? He didn't send me. I went. [4:49] But what do you mean? Do you think President Trump called and asked me to go interview a witness in [4:53] federal prison? Honestly? Yes, I do, frankly. Because you know why? Well, I didn't. Because the deal was in. [4:58] He needed somebody to rely upon to talk to her and say, what would she say if she was asked about [5:05] Jeffrey Epstein? And you were the perfect choice. And you went down there and suddenly, shazam, [5:10] she's out of what is a more confining situation into a much more relaxed federal prison. [5:20] Every word that I asked her is recorded and available to you to review. If there's criticisms [5:26] of the question that I asked her, go ahead and make them. But he did, the president did not have [5:31] anything to do with my choice to go interview Ms. Maxwell. If I wouldn't have went and a career [5:35] would have went, you would have said, why didn't you go yourself? Just like you expect me to know [5:39] whether she has access to her own shower. So I did go. You should. Everyone in the United States [5:43] who reads the newspapers know that. I guess you don't, you know, read things like that. You know, [5:49] this whole hearing, I think, is exposing something, which is, to me, very frightening. [5:54] You're a very gifted lawyer. But from my perspective, you have very little faith to the [6:02] Constitution and the people of America. And you're the president's consigliore. [6:07] Your perspective is completely wrong, Senator. Respectfully. [6:10] I think the facts will prove me right. Thank you. Thank you. [6:16] More cross-examination here, this time from Senator Merkley, asking Todd Blanche, [6:21] is the Epstein investigation closed or open? Watch what Blanche says. Let's play this clip. [6:26] I want to go on to the Epstein investigation. Is it closed or open? [6:31] When you say the Epstein investigation, what are you referring to, Senator? [6:34] Well, the FBI said in last year, in July, that it had closed the Epstein investigation. So I'm just [6:40] using their words. Is it open or closed? I don't believe the FBI said that. [6:46] Well, if you're referring to your head of the Department of Justice, is the Epstein investigation [6:50] open or closed? But I guess I don't understand what Epstein investigation means. The investigation [6:54] of Jeffrey Epstein himself. Yes, he's dead. Back to Democratic Senator Van Hollen here, [6:59] who said that a lot of the Epstein survivors are very frustrated that you and the DOJ refuse to meet [7:05] with them, to which Todd Blanche appears to lie and commit perjury here and say, I've met with them. [7:10] What are you talking about? We've met with the survivors. We've met with their lawyers. [7:14] Watch what goes down. Play this clip. Let me ask you this about the Epstein case, [7:19] because as we speak, many Epstein survivors are in New York. They're reading portions of the Epstein [7:26] files about the abuse that they suffered. Otherwise, they might have been here with us today. At a house [7:32] hearing, your predecessor refused to acknowledge the pain experienced by some of those victims when the [7:39] administration improperly released their names in identifying information. So I want to know [7:44] where you stand. I spoke to the representatives of some of the Epstein survivors yesterday. They are [7:51] extremely frustrated that you keep calling for people to come forward with more evidence, but you [7:57] have not met with them to hear their stories. So simple question. If I connect you with these [8:04] survivors, will you meet with them? Absolutely. And what you just said is false. I have met with [8:10] them. I've met with many, many of the lawyers for the survivors of victims, as did Attorney General [8:14] Bondi. So whoever told you that unfortunately gave you bad information. I would encourage them. I would [8:20] encourage them to reach out to the Department of Justice because like we do every single day, [8:25] we absolutely care for victims and we absolutely want to hear from them and their lawyers. [8:30] Well, I've been told directly from the representatives they've not had a chance, [8:37] at least this group, to meet with you. So I'm glad to hear that. [8:40] Did they represent they asked for a meeting? [8:42] Immediately thereafter, the Epstein survivors blast Todd Blanche for lying and suggesting he met with [8:47] them or their lawyers. The Epstein survivors who all signed this letter, dozens of them write, [8:54] Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has not met with any of us. Now back to the hearing before the United [8:59] States Senate, Todd Blanche started to whine and say, Senator, you're putting words into my mouth. [9:05] And Senator Van Hollen's like, I'm reading the transcript of your own words. Here, play this [9:10] clip. I'm going to ask you one last time. You keep comparing this case to the Keep Eagle case. In that [9:16] case, as you've admitted, a judge ultimately signed off. I'm asking you before you proceed with this fund, [9:22] will you have a federal judge sign off on it? I didn't compare the cases. What I said is the [9:27] commission that we set up yesterday is nearly identical to the commission that was set up [9:31] during Keeps Eagle. So please, you repeatedly put words in my mouth. And then you say, oh, [9:36] I'm playing words. Words matter. Mr. Chairman, they do matter. You said there were, I got, [9:41] look, the transcript will speak for us. It will. But you, but you compared in your own release, [9:46] in the Department of Justice's own release, you compared it to this case. And in this case, [9:50] a judge signed, my final question. I am comparing. Will you agree, [9:53] as they did in that case, that before you proceed with this fund, a federal judge will sign off and [9:59] approve it? Will you agree to that? There is no federal judge. So there's no mechanism. [10:02] Actually, there is a federal judge presiding over this case. The case was dismissed. The case was [10:06] dismissed by the judge last night. Yeah, because you moved to create this fund. I didn't move. I did [10:11] not move. The settlement result, Mr. Attorney General, come on. So let me, let me, so you're not going to, [10:17] you're not going to submit this proposal to any federal judge or independent. There is no judge. [10:23] Any independent authority that. An independent, what does that mean? An independent authority. [10:26] More from this exchange between Blanche and Van Hollen. Let's play it. Well, Mr. Attorney General, [10:31] you are in a bubble because the reality. Because I don't read the Washington Post? No, no, no. [10:37] Obviously you should be in touch with some of these, these folks because, um, I asked you [10:42] specifically about an individual who had molested kids and been convicted about his anticipation of [10:51] getting a payment. And you said that couldn't be true. In fact, that was a lie. I want to read you. [10:55] I didn't say that. I got the transcript right. Good. You said it was obvious. I'm obviously lying [11:02] to the question because there's no way the person committed to that because the slush fund did not [11:06] exist. That's what you said. I'm going to read from you, Mr. Attorney General, an affidavit from the [11:12] Hernando County, Florida sheriff's office. And I want you to listen carefully to what [11:17] this police officer said about this criminal, criminal named Andrew pardoned by the president [11:25] now being charged for child molestation. He says, Andrew also told that since he was pardoned for [11:33] storming the Capitol on January 6th, 2021, and he was being awarded $10 million as a result of being [11:41] a January 6th. Andrew did tell that he would be putting him in his will, referring to one of the [11:48] victims of his molestation. He would be putting him in his will to take any money he had left over. [11:54] This tactic was believed to be used to keep from exposing what Andrew had done to him, [12:00] signed under penalty of perjury by someone in the sheriff's office. And you're telling me, [12:06] you don't know about all these people who have been signaled by the president of the United States and [12:11] others that they're going to get payments. I think that that's what you just read is [12:14] disgusting. I'm very horrible that that happened, but that's not what I said. I mean, you can say [12:20] you're telling me and then make up something that I'm not saying, or you can let me speak. [12:24] Mr. Attorney General, I'm reading from the statement here. I got a transcript of what we [12:28] are exchanged earlier. And you essentially said, well, you're obviously lying in your question, [12:32] because there's no way this person committed to that because the slush fund of which you called it [12:36] did not exist. Just as you suggested. Right. And it's true that even the affidavit that you just [12:42] read said that he would be awarded this criminal suggested he be awarded $10 million. Now you're [12:47] playing absolute word games. I am not playing a word game. Of course you are, because people [12:51] And also words matter. Words matter. So if you're going to quote me, quote me accurately. [12:55] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put in the record, January 6th rioter pardoned by Trump was sentenced to life in [13:01] prison for child abuse. Pardoned Capitol Hill rioter tried to bribe child sex victim with promise [13:06] of January 6th payout. And I will close with this, Mr. Attorney General. You can't tell us today that [13:13] this individual would not be eligible for a payout from this fund. I find that obscene. And I'm going [13:20] to. Next, I want to share with you what Senator Murray was asking Blanche more lies from Blanche. And [13:26] he's like, what you're saying is just not true. Watch what goes down. Let's play this clip. [13:30] I will. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Senator Fisher. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize the [13:35] vice chair of the full committee, Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Acting attorney general [13:40] right now, families are paying four or five, even six or seven dollars for gas. Inflation is at its [13:47] highest level in years because of the president's policies. But instead of helping Americans get by, [13:53] President Trump is literally using their tax dollars to set up a slush fund to enrich [14:01] his own friends. On Monday, your department settled the president's lawsuit by setting up a fund with [14:07] $1.8 billion. And you and the president will pick the handful of people who decide how that money gets [14:16] doled out. So let's be clear. What we're talking about is nothing short of the sitting president of [14:22] the United States, looting from the treasury for his own gain. Do you seriously think this arrangement [14:29] is appropriate? The president telling the federal government to settle a case and let him pay [14:35] billions to the people that he chooses? What you just described wouldn't be appropriate. And that's [14:40] absolutely not what happened. And that's not what's happening now. So you just set up a series of facts, [14:44] most of which were not true to say, no, it's not. The president has set up a slush fund, [14:51] however you want to say that it got set up. And he literally will get to choose through his handpicked [14:57] appointees who gets paid that fund. That is absurd. The president did not set up this fund. It's not a [15:04] slush fund. It's been done many times. We have lots of funds. I heard your response earlier to Senator [15:10] Van Hollen. This is not comparable to the case that you cited. A judge was not involved. This is the [15:16] president versus himself setting up a fund. The judge wasn't involved in the distribution in the [15:22] Keeps Eagle case at all. It just wasn't. There was a single commissioner that was set up, not five. [15:29] The judge signed off on that case. Yes, it was a much later point in litigation. That's my point. [15:35] That is all of our point. And I just have to tell you, this is corruption that has never been more [15:40] blatant or more right-spent. What is happening is you write the check, Trump and his corny's cash it, [15:47] American taxpayers who are already being whacked with high prices are going to foot the bill. [15:52] That's what we are seeing today. And that is what many of us are really, really angry about. [15:58] So let me move to another topic. More from Democratic Senator Merkley right here. Let's play this clip. [16:03] Thank you. To follow up, you noted that it would be up to the five commissioners that you appoint [16:10] to determine whether there are any guidelines. Will you encourage the folks that you select [16:16] to ensure that folks who were convicted of violent acts against police officers do not get compensation [16:23] from this fund? Well, I expect they will. They don't have the option of establishing guidelines. [16:29] The commissioners will establish guidelines. And so I feel... Will you encourage them to have a guideline [16:33] that says those who have been convicted of violent acts against police officers are not eligible? [16:39] I will definitely encourage the commissioners to take everything into account when determining who [16:44] should get compensation. But why not this specific issue of violent acts, convicted of violent acts [16:49] against police officers? Do you feel they should get compensation after being convicted of violent acts? [16:54] My feelings don't matter, Senator, in my mind. My mind is not limiting to say, [16:59] yes, I will commit to this or that. What I will commit to is making sure that the commissioners [17:04] are effectively doing their jobs. And that includes setting guidelines like you're describing. [17:10] Okay. I'm disappointed that you feel it's acceptable that those who are convicted violently [17:18] I definitely did not say that. Definitely did not say that. I didn't say I found it acceptable, [17:22] Senator. Will you agree to encourage those commissioners to set a guideline [17:27] that compensation will not go to individuals who are convicted of assaulting police officers? [17:33] I expect... I just... A yes would answer my question. Or a no. [17:37] A yes will not answer that question. I mean, you're asking whether I will encourage. I don't think [17:40] that's a fair word. I don't think it's the Attorney General's job to encourage commissioners [17:44] to do or not do anything. Okay. Is there... Here's the full clip right here of Senator Van Hollen [17:50] cross-examining Todd Blanche, asking if you know it's a criminal offense to lie to Congress. [17:56] Let's play this clip. Of course. Let me go back to this slush fund because there's also an individual [18:06] who, after being pardoned by the president, went on to molest two children. And that person actually [18:15] tried to buy the silence of these children by saying that he would pay them some of the funds [18:21] that he was hoping to get from your slush fund. Can you commit to making the rules so that that person [18:28] is not eligible for a payout under this fund? Well, you're obviously lying in your question [18:34] because there's no way that this person committed to that. The slush fund, as you call it, which is [18:39] not, didn't exist. I am sure... But I can commit... Mr. Attorney General, don't ever do that again. [18:46] I am reporting what he said. He said on the expectation that he hoped to get some of the funds [18:52] from a payout. He's been... You said from the slush fund, Senator, and that didn't exist when he said [18:57] that. This is the fund that the president and all of you have been telegraphing all along that you're [19:03] going to use to help the president's friends. Can you point to a single telegraph? What telegraph [19:09] that... I have a last question for you. Do you know that it is a criminal offense to lie [19:17] to Congress? I am very well aware of that. I'm glad to hear that. Thank you. And we had Senator [19:23] Coons cross-examining Blanche. Let's play this clip. Your announcement said that the fund will [19:30] send you quarterly reports. Will you commit to making these reports fully public so Americans [19:36] know who's getting taxpayer dollars out of the settlement fund? This says they'll be confidential. [19:41] This is Section 4, Part E of the settlement agreement. The reason why I want to be careful in my [19:46] answer is because there's obviously laws that exist around privacy that may prevent some of the [19:51] information that the commission takes in from being fully public. Beyond that, there will be full [19:58] transparency. And I commit to you that beyond the applicable laws that exist around privacy and [20:04] privileges and whatnot. But as far as being transparent and having those quarterly reports [20:08] released, yes. Thank you. Blanche admits that whether an Oathkeeper applies for compensation, [20:15] anybody can apply whether you're an Oathkeeper. And then later he says, Hunter Biden can apply. [20:20] Here, play this clip. During Police Week, I heard from a number of law enforcement friends who found [20:24] it appalling that there was the possibility that folks like the Oathkeepers, the Proud Boys who had [20:32] assaulted Capitol Police officers could receive multi-million dollar payouts from this fund. [20:39] Will you commit that no one who has been convicted of assaulting a police officer will receive a payout [20:44] from this fund? So I shared the concerns that apparently members of the law enforcement gave [20:49] to you last week, although none of this was announced last week. So that's surprising. But [20:53] they have heard rumors there would be a settlement fund. Okay. But anybody can apply. The commission [20:58] will set, the commissioners will set rules, I'm sure. That's not for me to set. That's for the [21:03] commissioners. And whether an individual, an Oathkeeper, as you just mentioned, applies for [21:08] compensation. Anybody in this country can apply. Well, we'll be watching this very closely as this [21:15] goes forward. I don't think the settlement fund should be set up this way or for these purposes. [21:19] I appreciate your answers today. Thank you. More cross-examination from Senator Reid pointing [21:24] out here that the general counsel for the Treasury Department suddenly resigned after the settlement was [21:31] announced. Let's play this clip. The order that you signed yesterday states that the government [21:38] pay this settlement if the Secretary of Treasury has certified the payment. Is that correct? [21:44] Correct. Is it a coincidence that the General Counsel of the Department of Treasury resigned [21:49] yesterday? I don't know if it's a coincidence. Have you looked or checked? Have I checked? Yeah. [21:56] I have not. As to why he resigned? It just seems to be very coincidental that the high-ranking [22:02] member of the Department of Treasury Senate confirmed would resign the day that the Treasury [22:07] Department was required essentially to certify these payments. Well, I believe the IRS signed the [22:16] settlement agreement as well. But yes. But I can't speak to why he resigned, Senator. [22:21] Well, Senator Reid then also pointed out that over 405,000 people were part of this data breach during [22:30] Donald Trump's first term. But it was a Trump IRS that was involved in the data breach. So then Trump, [22:36] in his personal capacity in 2026, is suing the federal government asking for $10 billion of [22:42] taxpayer money because during Trump's first term, there was a data breach within his own IRS. And [22:47] what about all the other 405,000 people who were subject to the data breach? Do they get billions of [22:53] dollars? Here, play this clip. How many taxpayers' returns were leaked by the IRS contractor in the 2020 [23:00] breach? I don't know the exact amount, but a lot. 405,427. One of them was Donald Trump, correct? One of them [23:19] was Donald Trump, correct? It was Donald Trump and his family were others, correct? Right. And Donald Trump was [23:25] president at the time. Correct. So it was his IRS department that allowed this breach of privacy, [23:33] correct? It was a criminal who worked in the IRS, yes. Well, he was hired under Trump's admit. This is [23:40] one of the Trump. Well, there was a criminal breach that led to this, yes. Very good. How many of these [23:48] 400,000 people have received monetary reimbursement for the breach? I don't think any have, including [23:53] the president. No, they haven't. But you've authorized the president. Do you agree the president [23:59] should have a reimbursement, correct? No, he settled the case. No, there's no reimbursement [24:05] to President Trump. Well, that's interesting. So President Trump, you're going to assure us [24:11] President Trump and his family will get no proceeds from this? Correct. He will not. He will not get, [24:18] his family will not get. Correct. And who will direct the disposition of these? Who gets the money? [24:25] From the, from the Victims Fund. Well, there'll be a commission of five individuals that will be set [24:31] up and they will take in requests and claims and decide whether to do anything for mission. [24:36] Who will name the commissioners? I will. The attorney general, whoever the attorney general is. [24:41] The attorney general. Okay. Sorry, just to correct. And one of them will be done in consultation with [24:46] leadership of this body. Consultation. Well, that's good. But, um. Then Todd Blanch finishes off by [24:53] saying, but look guys, Hunter Biden can apply for this fund. Here, let's play this clip. [24:57] And, and otherwise there is no limitation. So, um, whether you're Hunter Biden or whether you're [25:03] another, um, individual who believed they were a victim of, of, of weaponization, they can all apply [25:08] for, um, to this fund. And again, it doesn't mean the commissioners will agree. It doesn't mean that [25:14] they're getting $10 million or whatever was just read a few minutes ago. It just means that you can apply. [25:19] And the decision by the commission. There you have it, everybody. Let me know what you think. [25:24] Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. Thanks for watching.