Trump lawyer FLOPS defending slush fund at Senate hearing

[0:00] Today, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche struggled to defend the administration's [0:04] unparalleled $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded apparent payout scheme, slush fund, [0:10] whatever you want to call it, when he was questioned by senators. Just watch this. [0:14] This is an outrageous, unprecedented slush fund that you set up. Simple question. Will [0:22] individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund? [0:27] Well, as it makes plain, anybody is... Just let me know if they're eligible for the fund. [0:33] As was made plain yesterday, anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe [0:40] they are victim of weaponization. Mr. Attorney General, you're not going to submit this proposal [0:44] to any federal judge or independent... There is no judge. Any independent authority? [0:48] An independent... What does that mean, an independent authority? What does that mean? [0:51] It means not somebody who's getting to pick five of the members who was the president's [0:54] former personal attorney? That would be somebody who would be independent... [0:58] I'm the acting attorney general, okay? The fact that I used to be President Trump's lawyer [1:02] is just a fact, but I'm the acting attorney general. So don't say the president's former [1:06] personal lawyer will do something. The acting attorney general will do something. [1:09] Mr. Attorney General, you are acting today like the president's personal attorney. [1:14] Now, Todd Blanche can scowl and demand and meltdown as he just did and tell everybody that [1:22] they have to call him the acting attorney general. But as Senator Van Hollen pointed out there, [1:27] his actions certainly appear to be those of a personal attorney. Blanche basically did his best [1:32] there to defend what amounts to a payout fund for MAGA allies, which Trump himself began to tease as a [1:37] possibility last year. But I guess there was some good news for Blanche today. His appearance, [1:42] or shall I say performance, before a very skeptical Senate subcommittee came hours after and not before [1:49] the release of his signed one-page addendum, making the whole payout fund thing look even worse. [1:54] The addendum, of course, broadens the deal between the government and Trump, including [1:59] forever barring and precluding the IRS from pursuing past tax investigations or audits of Trump, [2:06] his family, or his businesses. Joining me now is Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. [2:11] He's a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He is one of my favorite people to watch [2:15] question people. I almost get nervous for them when I'm watching. But you did a heck of a job [2:20] today questioning him. Let me ask you, I mean, it is quite the timing that this Blanche signed [2:27] addendum came out hours after he testified before the Senate, and you and others asked him some very [2:32] good questions. What was your reaction when you found out about that? And what would you have asked [2:36] Todd Blanche if you had this information before today's hearing? [2:39] Well, Jen, he clearly had trouble defending the slush fund that they announced just last night. [2:49] So they clearly intentionally did not disclose this other part of the deal, which is essentially [2:56] to give Trump and the Trump organization a get-out-of-free card for any back taxes they may [3:03] owe because they cheated on their taxes in the past. So clearly I would have drilled in on this piece of [3:11] it as well. And what it just exposes is what I said, that everything Todd Blanche is doing [3:18] as acting attorney general is acting like the president's personal attorney. This is exactly [3:24] what the president's personal attorney would be pushing for. And that's, of course, the job that [3:29] Todd Blanche used to have. And he's still essentially doing that job now. [3:33] I mean, his personal attorney would also be pushing for him to have a slush fund to pay out to his [3:38] political allies, which is where we're at. Let me ask you, I mean, going back to this $1.8 billion [3:44] fund, he seemed to also get quite flustered when you were asking him about who was evaluating who [3:49] would be getting these payouts. And there is also, there's so many details here that are so problematic [3:56] and should be shocking to anyone. There is a panel of five people. Trump can fire anyone at any point [4:01] in time. The other question is, is there any mechanism to your understanding of how we will [4:07] even know who gets these payouts and how much the payouts are? [4:13] So, no, we won't know. He gave a lot of sort of gobbledygook answers when he was questioned about [4:20] whether or not they would make all this transparent. The bottom line was that they are not going to [4:27] promise that they will do that. And, you know, from their perspective, it makes sense because part [4:33] of the purpose of this fund, Jen, is to pay off people who committed crimes at Donald Trump's [4:39] urging that were rioters at the Capitol that beat up Capitol Police. Those are the people who've been [4:45] advocating for these payouts. And they want to set up a system where they can make those payouts [4:50] without the public knowing. And they want a system where it will be a rubber stamp. So four [4:56] of the five members will be picked by, guess who? Todd Blanche, the president's former personal [5:03] attorney. And the other one will be picked by the Republican majority in the Congress. And so [5:08] it's a complete rubber stamp to do what they want to do. And I think the American people are going to [5:14] see this for the corrupt pay to play scheme that it really is. It's hard to imagine the more people [5:21] hear about it, that they wouldn't see it that way. I mean, we've been spending, we spent the show [5:27] talking a lot about the elections today. Obviously, there was an endorsement of Ken Paxton in Texas. [5:32] That seems potentially good for James Tallarico's chances. In Georgia, there's a runoff on the [5:37] Republican side. But my point is this, Democrats could very well be in the majority after November's [5:41] midterm elections. There's a long way to go here. It seems hard to imagine that there wouldn't be [5:46] efforts to claw back this deal. I mean, if Democrats are in control of the House and Senate, [5:51] what could they do? And I know how much you've been able to think about this, [5:54] to say, prevent the IRS from saying we'll never audit the Trump family or allowing this slush fund [6:00] to have no transparency. What is possible? So we can claw it back. Obviously, we need the votes [6:08] to do it. I will be offering an amendment in the coming days in the Senate to at least say [6:16] that people who have committed violent crimes, including people who assaulted Capitol Police [6:22] officers, including the person the president pardoned who went on to be convicted of child [6:28] molestation, that these people will not be eligible for this fund. And we'll see what Republican [6:37] senators say about whether they want taxpayer money to be going to people who beat up police officers [6:44] and molested kids. That seems like a no-brainer to me. But I'm not surprised anymore by where [6:52] people vote. Let me ask you one more thing about your questioning today. I mean, before the break, [6:57] I played that piece of your questioning when you asked Todd Blanch today if he knew it was a criminal [7:01] offense to lie to Congress. What were you getting at with that question with him? [7:08] So, Jen, he had suggested that one of the questions I asked him was based on a lie, untrue information. [7:17] And it wasn't. And so I wanted him to understand that he was getting very close to crossing the line [7:24] because I was asking him about this affidavit that I had from a sheriff's department in Florida [7:32] where the person who was ultimately convicted of child molestation [7:37] was saying to the kids that he abused [7:41] that he would provide them with some of the payout [7:44] that he was expecting if they shut up. In other words, [7:49] it was hush money. And when I posed that question to Todd Blanch, he said, well, [7:53] that can't be true. But in the affidavit signed by a sheriff, it's very clear that this person [8:01] who Trump pardoned was expecting to get this payout and was going to use it for hush money. [8:08] So I was warning the attorney general that he was very close to crossing a line [8:13] and lying to Congress when he implied that this affidavit [8:19] that I ultimately told him about was untrue, essentially. [8:25] Senator Chris Van Hollen, never a dull moment. [8:27] Thank you so much for being here with us tonight.