Transcription
Todd Blanch just wrapped up his confirmation hearing for the attorney general position. It was an absolute disaster. Let me show you what went down as he stormed out of the hearing. You can see him walk away. Midas touch Washington DC bureau chief Scott McFarland had a question for him as he stormed out here. Play this clip.
>> Mr. Attorney General, you going to meet with the Epstein survivors while you're here, sir?
>> Mr. Blanch, any interest in meeting with the Epstein survivors down the hall?
How do you think it went? Let me show you what went down inside of the hearing. Democratic Senator Schiff was cross-examining Blanch. Let's play this.
>> Well, it's in the plain language of your agreement. Did you write this language?
>> You have to use the facts, though. He hasn't filed taxes yet. So when he files taxes, there's no protection based upon this agreement.
>> Did Did you write this language?
>> Did I write the Did I type it up myself?
>> Did you write this language?
>> No.
>> Well, you put your name to it.
>> I did.
>> So, who wrote this?
>> Some I don't know the person that actually typed it. I don't know who it is on.
>> Was it one of the president's lawyers or was it someone from the Justice Department or IRS?
>> This document would have been somebody within the Department of Justice.
>> Well, you have no idea who that is. I I don't know the name of the person that took.
>> And did you debate with them the statute of limitations which clearly would preclude the president's claim this $10 billion lawsuit?
>> We had extensive discussions internally about the underlying litigation.
>> And you did you reject the statute of limitations defense?
>> I I'm not a judge. which I don't reject,
>> but you signed an agreement for the US discussion around the
>> You signed an agreement for the US basically uh indicating that the Justice Department's position that the statute of limitations applies doesn't matter.
>> I I did that's not what I
More cross-examination here from Senator Schiff cross-examining Todd Blanch. Let's play this.
>> It's that Let me ask you this. Does this tax agreement this addendum you signed also hold him harmless from any audit or tax liability with respect to the billions in crypto money he made in his first year as president?
>> It's it's not forwardlooking. So to the extent there are taxes filed by the president or his sons or the Trump organization after the date of that agreement, there's no protection.
>> Well, but before that agreement, so any filed taxes yet for money he made last year, right? So yes, so um if he file if he filed tax returns this year for money he earned last year that his sons earned that is world liberty financial all those people earned and defrauded taxpayers on it. He faces no liability under this sign.
>> There's no evidence taxpayers were defrauded and he
>> but there is there's evidence in this agreement that you've absolved him of any liability over
>> No, I just said he's not absolved. So the question
>> So this agreement doesn't apply to to a tax return filed last year or filed this year
>> to tax returns filed after the date of the agreement. No,
>> no, before the agreement. A tax return filed in in uh this calendar year before this agreement.
>> Before the agreement, it applies not after.
>> Okay. So for a tax return filed this year for last year for the billions he made, there is no tax liability. Even if he cheats on his taxes or his kids do or his business do, he has absolved of that further potential liability.
>> No. Well, it's in the plain language of your agreement. Did you write this language?
>> You have to use the facts, though. He hasn't filed taxes yet. So, when he files taxes, there's no protection based upon this agreement.
And we heard from Democratic Senator White House. Let's take a listen to this cross-examination.
>> Senator White House.
>> Morning, Mr. Blanch. Morning. Why won't you tell us what became of the $50,000 in confidential money that the FBI reported that it gave to Tom Hman?
>> I'm I'm not aware of what you're speaking about. To the extent that there have been public reporting about um an investigation, I know nothing about it.
>> Well, the public reporting is that the FBI reported giving $50,000 in the nature of a bribe to Tom H. woman and there's been no report of what became of that $50,000. Will you answer that question?
>> Not now, but will you answer that question? Cuz we've been asking for a long time now. Your department certainly knows what's happening. I'm I'm not aware that that's true.
>> Well, take a look at it and it's publicly reported and the FBI reported it and you should answer the question.
Then we heard from Democratic Senator Coons. Let's take a listen.
>> answer a question by a colleague about input that you gave uh to the president. Did you ever say no to the president on the slush fund, the anti-weaponization fund? Did you advise him against this? Um I am not will not talk about communications I have with the president. I served as his lawyer for a couple years before he was elected. I'm the deputy attorney general and the acting attorney general. So I'm not going to talk about communications um that that I have with him. But Senator, I will say that um President Trump trusts me to give him counsel. Um counsel does not mean and yes, man. And and so that's and that's true in my case like it should be in any attorney's general case.
>> Let me just for a minute bear down on the anti-weaponization fund.
This was an interesting part where MAGA Republican Senator Kennedy asked a question that was supposed to be a softball for Todd Blanch. Are you and President Trump friends? to which Todd Blanch responded, "I am his lawyer. I mean, was his lawyer." Yeah. You've turned the DOJ into a racketeering enterprise engaged in crimes and basically serving as not just Donald Trump's criminal defense attorney, but as Donald Trump's uh criminal partner. Here, play this clip.
>> Um, are you and President Trump?
>> I'm his lawyer. was his lawyer and now I'm the deputy attorney general. So, I met him as his criminal defense attorney. I'm not sure there's very many people who have ever had a criminal defense attorney who calls that person their friend. Um, I now have a
>> Well, let me put it this way. Are you enemies?
>> No, we're not enemies at all. No.
>> Have you
More from Democratic Senator White House right here. Let's play it.
>> Explain explain how it is active continued litigation in the District of Florida.
>> Well, there's been several indications that the parties of I never entered notice of appearance, but that the parties intend to um appeal the judge's Monday 56-page decision.
>> Well, it'll be interesting. Do you intend to appeal the Department of Justice?
>> We weren't really even part of that decision. So to the extent there's something that we we can't appeal, I I very vigorously will encourage the department to do so.
>> Well, here's the tell. In that case, the Department of Justice filed no answer, filed no agreement with respect to the extension of time, filed no response to the case or controversy. Emiled nothing related to the withdrawal of the complaint. filed no settlement and filed no response to the fraud on the court inquiry. To me, as a one-time litigator, that looks like really weird behavior. And when for the first time in history, there's an inquiry into fraud upon the court committed by the Department of Justice, the silence from the department in response to that is deafening, Mr. Blanch. Deafening. And it strikes me that the strategem here was to file no pleadings to try to keep the department out of the authority of the court when what the department knew to be a collusive and false enterprise was blown up in that court. Now, it didn't work because the court found collusion and it takes two to collude. And they also went on and made the other adverse findings about the department's conduct. And the problem here, Mr. Blanch, is that it's not just that one occasion between judges appointed by every president harshly criticizing the department's work in your tenure, grand juries rejecting indictments, judicial findings of outright misconduct, capable lawyers fleeing the stinking ship. This seems to be the most troubled Department of Justice in history. Here are some of the misconduct findings against your US attorneys. And so I haven't put it up yet. Here's a word cloud of the commentary by federal judges about the conduct of your DOJ. These are red flag words that when I was a US attorney would have provoked at minimum, an internal conversation about what the hell went wrong and very likely a conversation with OPR and maybe OPR pursuit. Words like pretext.
Then we heard more cross-examination. This time it was from Republican Senator Cornin. Uh here was his cross-examination of Todd Blanch regarding the weaponization fund.
>> you know, the uh deal that Donald Trump entered into with the government after suing the government for $10 billion uh this year. And uh one of the I thought it was a good line of questioning by Cornin that he says, you know, the settlement agreement says it can only be modified if there is a writing. Isn't that why you don't want to put anything in writing? Because the agreement only gets modified if it's in writing. That's why you don't want to put it down in writing before any courts or anything like that's your trick in order to keep Donald Trump super pardoned so Trump never gets audited for all of his tax evasion and any tax fraud and any tax crimes that he may have committed and that this is how you keep the weaponization fund alive by not putting it in writing here. Play this clip.
>> Um but let's talk a little bit about the set about the settlement agreement and the release. Um, first of all, I believe you have said that the weaponization fund is a moot issue. Is that your position?
>> Yes, it is a moot issue, meaning there is no weaponization fund. The weaponation fund is dead. It's not moving forward.
>> Well, I would refer you to the U settlement agreement. Do you have a copy of that in front of you?
>> I I do not.
>> Okay. Well, you probably know what's what's in it.
>> I'm familiar with it. Yes,
>> I'm sure you are. On page four, this settlement agreement can be modifi may be modified only upon the written agreement of the parties. Has there been a written agreement of the parties to modify the settlement fund?
>> No, the settlement fund is just not moving forward. There's no there's no modification. It's just it never started. No money went from the treasury to any other account. There's no commissioners. It's not moving forward.
>> Well, the so the settlement agreement remains as it was originally. Um, but you're I hear what you're saying. Um, is it in is the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties?
>> Well, yes, it's an enforceable document. So, I suppose if if President Trump's council sought to enforce it um they potentially could um
>> including including the weaponization fund.
>> Well, they could try to enforce the the contract. They can't force the Department of Justice to move forward with the weaponization fund. They could potentially say that I suppose that we breached by not moving forward. They haven't done that and I'm I'm not aware that they're planning on doing that. Like I said, Senator, what and and Senator Durban talked about this, but I have talked extensively with with you and and other colleagues about potentially um um codifying so there's no weaponization fund, which is certainly something that could be done. And I wasn't meaning to insult the this body, but just in response to questions from senators about whether that could be done, we very much are okay with that.
>> But just to be clear, the president of the United States, who was a plaintiff in this lawsuit, uh has not agreed in writing uh to delete the weaponization fund, and there's no guarantee that he or one of the other plaintiffs might raise that issue by way of a lawsuit and uh a breach of contract lawsuit in the future.
>> Well, Senator, the the plaintiffs have no power over the fund. The fund was administered solely by the um by by the five commissioners and through the Department of Justice. So, no, they don't have any power with respect to the fund at all. I suppose they could bring a lawsuit um and then we would litigate it. But even if we were litigating it, there's no fund. So, the results of such litigation, whatever it would be, wouldn't be a revival of the fund.
>> I want to ask you about the rel. And then Cornin says it also talks about you releasing something called lawfare or weaponization in your settlement agreement with Donald Trump. Tell us what does that mean so we all know what it is that the United States is uh releasing Donald Trump from as part of this super pardon that you've given him while being his lawyer here. Play this clip.
>> Finally, let me just go back to the uh in the 50 seconds I have go back to this release. This purports to release lawfare or weaponization andor weaponization. Those aren't legal terms of art, are they?
>> I think they are just legal terms of art. They're not There's not any
>> Have they been defined in any case or any statute?
>> Not that I'm aware of. No. So they're not a legal term of art.
>> Well, I think that they they the terms have been um used by the legal community and by people within government, but no, I don't I'm not sure that they're in Black's law dictionary,
>> but we don't know what that covers.
>> Well, I think it depends on the circumstances of the facts presented as to whether it covers
>> as to what it covers. Sorry.
>> Thank you. My time's up. Globe,
Let me interrupt for a moment with a new story that you need to hear. So just recently the Trump administration bragged about the PJM power grid. It's the largest in the country moving away from renewables. Energy Secretary Chris Wright posted a chart showing coal gas and other non-renewable sources making up over 91% of generation and renewables under 6%. He was bragging about this. His advice in a time of strain during the summer heat was to keep your air conditioners blasting. His words. One day later, PJM had to declare emergency actions following an alert by the federal government. the Trump administration telling utilities to cut electricity use as outages, overloaded transmission lines, and extreme heat push the system towards blackouts. Now, Trump loves to say in his speeches like all the time, that only unsuccessful countries use wind, that only disasters run on renewables. He said that China doesn't use wind power, but that's not true even in the slightest bit. China is the number one wind producer on Earth. It's not even close, and they keep on expanding it. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is bragging about cutting renewables while the grid nearly buckles. Listen, this isn't about politics. It's facts and common sense. Renewables aren't just good for the environment. They're good for lower costs and a stronger, more reliable grid, and they make the country stronger and more competitive as a whole. So, now I want to hear from you. What do you think about how the administration is handling climate and renewable energy? Do you want to see more investment? Let us know all your thoughts right now in the comments. I want to hear from you. Okay, Ben, back to you.
Then we heard from MAGA Republican Senator Kennedy and he asked Todd Blanch, "Other than to himself, was there anybody who Epstein traffked young women to?" To which Todd Blanch says, "We have no evidence of other men." You're saying in the Epstein files, you have no evidence of Epstein trafficking women to other men and girls to other men. Here, play this clip.
>> Yes. Um, other than to himself, who, if anyone else, did Mr. Epstein traffic young women to?
>> There's there's from what we learned, from what we know. So, when we know, I mean, what's in the FBI files and what's in the DOJ files, um, we did not identify evidence. And by we, I mean career prosecutors, not not me, not my leadership, but career prosecutors in New York and career prosecutors in Florida who worked this case hard. Um did identify other participants, some of whom, as has been discussed, um were also victims themselves of Mr. Epstein, but we did not have evidence um as of now of other men um who were um that that were trafficked um that Epstein helped traffic. That is does not mean it didn't happen. And I want to be clear about that. It just means that we have evidence um that the FBI gathered and that the Department of Justice gathered and that's the body of of work that that we have to work with. which is why I said earlier if there's anybody out there, victim or otherwise, that has information, I beg them to come forward.
And then Blanch says that he did a great job with the Epstein files that was so transparent and that everybody loves what they did with the Epstein files. Here, play this clip.
>> and redact those names. Then the other thing that we did chairman is we made unredacted versions of the entire database available to everybody in this body and we did that because of transparency. Remember for four years there wasn't a peep about Jeffrey Epstein. Um the Biden administration did nothing to be transparent about the Epstein case. We have been extraordinarily transparent in not only producing the records but letting unredacted versions be available to anybody in this body. And if after reviewing unredacted materials, a member had concerns about why something was redacted, they brought them to to the department's attention and and and we address that. So I I um I want to make sure the American people know that this administration when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein has been more transparent um than any past administration, than Biden was or anybody else. And what we did is we we complied with the law. And if we learn a new material, we will most certainly um review it and make it available. When it comes to the the the victims of this
Todd Blanch then refuses to agree with Democratic Senator Blumenthal that ICE agents shouldn't fire into cars. Let's play it.
>> One last question. Would you agree with me that agents of the United States should not fire into cars unless there fire their weapons into cars unless there is an imminent threat? Give a short answer to that.
>> there's a wellestablished standard as to when an agent um can discharge their firearm and I think that that's that's something that's that that should be followed in every case
>> and that includes not firing weapons into cars.
>> Mr. Chair,
>> before I
>> Well, do you want to respond to
>> I mean there's not really a response. It it requires federal agents to um follow the rules.
Then let's move on before I call on
>> We then heard from Senator Booker. Let's play it.
>> Well, just one week after your me meeting, Miss Maxwell was transferred from a lowsecurity federal institution to a minimum security prison camp. Were you involved with that transfer?
>> When, as I've talked about before, um, in the time leading up to me going down to meet with her, um, we learned that she was receiving um, threats. The It turned out
>> I'm going to interrupt you for a matter of time because
>> Okay. Well, it's not a a question I can answer apparently in the you're giving me. I'm going to tell you this because I deal with issues of criminal justice. When people are under threats in a bureau prison facility, they're put into solitary confinement or protective. They're not moved to a camp.
>> That's not always true.
>> It is. Well, what is what is true is someone that is accused of child sex trafficking under the Bureau of Prison's own policies is not put in a facility like this, that seems clearly like a reward.
More from Booker. Let's play it.
>> I'll close it.
>> Let me tell you why ethics laws that bind you about the appearance of impropriy are so so damning in this case. On the same day that Paramount shareholders voted to approve the merger, David Ellison, the head of the acquiring company, hosted a dinner that you attended honoring the president of the United States. While you were at that dinner, the DOJ was still investigating a merger. Did you speak with Mr. Ellison on that evening?
>> Uh, no.
>> Did you discuss with anyone involved in that organization that evening the department's ongoing investigations?
>> No.
>> Well, 6 weeks later after that dinner, that investigation was closed that you're stating you have no idea if the attorneys in charge even finish their investigation.
>> That's not what I said.
>> What did you say?
>> You asked me a question about whether the attorneys um recommended that the investigation be closed, and I said I wasn't sure. That's different than the what you just threw back.
>> It it it you you do you believe that that creates an appearance of impropriety that you were at a dinner?
>> No.
>> Okay. The Justice Department ethics rules are very clear about approve about about avoiding the appearance of impropriy in a case like this. I don't think that's appearance of impropriety. I think that's improper.
>> Have the elected that the connected and the powerful are getting a chance to rub shoulders. It would seem appropriate that you avoid those kind of appearances in dinners like that.
>> Every appearance or dinner or speech that I give are cleared by ethics officials.
>> So you your your attendance at that dinner was cleared by ethics officials.
>> Everything that I do
>> I didn't ask you everything you do was your appearance at that dinner. You can ask the questions, but you cannot control my answers. I'm under oath and I can answer the questions. I choose to answer them.
>> Were you tell when I do things outside of the outside of the department, whether it's a speech, whether it's a dinner, whether it's an event, they are approved by ethics officials.
>> You did not answer whether that attendance was approved.
>> Every time I go out, it's approved. Yes.
Here's more from Senator Booker right here. Let's play it.
>> Department of Justice is also responsible that powerful corporations play by the same rules. Let's take a proposed merger between Paramount, Warner Brothers, and Discovery. This is no ordinary transaction. It was a proposed 111 billion dollar merger involving two of the last remaining legacy Hollywood Studios. As deputy attorney general and later acting attorney general, you o exercised oversight of the antitrust division. You approved the decision to close the department's investigation into that merger. Yes or no?
>> I was part of the decision. I don't know.
>> You were involved in that.
>> Don't let me answer. Man,
>> did you did the career attorneys who investigated that deal recommend closing that investigation?
>> I didn't have a conversation with the career, but as I was saying,
>> I didn't ask you that. I asked you, did the career attorneys who investigated the deal recommend closing the investigation?
>> I have no idea what they were.
>> You were in charge of that department yet you have no idea.
>> Well, this
>> I didn't say I had no idea. I had no idea about the question you asked about whether the what the career attorney's view was.
>> You do not know what the career attorney's view was.
>> I'm not sure what the view was with respect to closing it or not closing it.
>> Let me tell you why.
We then heard from Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, who I thought probably did the best cross-examination of all. This one was on conflicts of interest. Let's play it.
>> Oh, you said to CPAC a couple months ago, the other things that are happening, there was not a single man or woman at the Department of Justice who had anything to do with those prosecutions, meaning the prosecution of the president. She was saying that it's not a conflict of interest for you to be involved in the firing of prosecutors who prosecuted your client, your former client. There's no conflict there. Is that
>> No, there is. I wasn't involved. So at Cpek, you're taking credit for the firing of these Department of Justice lawyers, but you're not willing to take responsibility before this committee. Is that the case?
>> No. Okay. I'm making I There's you bragging about this at CPAC. The firing of these prosecutors, the firing of the FBI agents, the getting rid of everyone who investigated your client. You were proud of that, speaking for the Department of Justice. But you don't think that's a conflict of interest. You move to vacate. I don't think you're going to deny involvement in this. You
More from Senator Schiff right here. Let's play it.
>> What I have also you've also said you've also refused to release volume two of the special counsel's report. That was an investigation into the Maraago Mara Lago documents case. How is that not an abundant conflict of interest? refusing to release to the public an investigative report of an investigation into your client.
>> I am not a judge, a federal judge.
>> No, no, no, no, no. The department's position under you, Mr. Blanch, the department's position under you, Mr. Blanch, was do not release the report.
>> So that position
>> when if you went into court asking them to release it, it would be released by now. So how is that not a patent conflict of interest?
>> What you're saying happens to not be true. I did not do that. to what you're talking about happened before I became the death support the release of
>> I don't want to I don't but I'm recused and had nothing to do with that case like you can't accuse me of violating my ethical rules and then lie about what I did
>> so you had nothing to do with the decision uh to prohibit the release of the report you had nothing to do with the department whether you were in court
>> I'm asking you whether anyone sought your opinion or used your guidance in refusing to release volume two
>> when that litigation was ongoing. I was a private citizen still representing the president of the United States. It was before March um since March to the extent there's been anything in front of that judge.
>> Mr. I asked you in your last confirmation hearing
>> whether you would release the report and your answer was no. Your answer was not I will recuse my answer myself. Your answer was no. I will not release the report. That was your testimony last before this committee. You subsequently were advised by ethics lawyers not to be involved in these matters. But it appears you were involved in these matters. Let me ask you about another matter.
>> I wasn't involved. Appears I was involved.
>> Let me let me ask you about another one. You have your name on the truth has to matter at some point.
>> Yeah, it does matter. We just don't hear much of it from you. But let me
There you have it, folks. Let me know what you think. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. Let me know what you thought about that cross-examination.
Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Philipowski, ad free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.