Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Senate Panel to Grill Blanche; Live Coverage of Todd Blanche's Hearing; Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) is Interviewed about Iran; Live Coverage of Todd Blanche's Hearing. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired July 15, 2026 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:00:00]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Evan Perez is on Capitol Hill this morning watching all of this unfold.

But this could be a big, big day for the DOJ because watching this, I think, we're going to get a lot of questions and perhaps some answers to many things that Americans are very concerned about, including Epstein, the 1776 fund, and going after Trump's enemies.

What are you learning?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, absolutely. This is going to be the make or break day for the acting attorney general. Sara, we know that he is going to face some very tough questions about the measures of independence that we traditionally see from the Justice Department and which, you know, critics would say is missing under his -- under his leadership right now. We know, of course, that the president and Stephen Miller, for instance, are very, very much involved in helping to push the direction of the Justice Department. I think his work here today is to try to explain that, you know, he is still in charge, that he is very much in -- behind all of these things that have drawn so much controversy.

Of course, the Epstein issue is looming very large. We expect to see some survivors here in the room behind Todd Blanche. He is actually -- has a big group of family members here, including his granddaughter, who's going to be sitting right behind him. So, a lot of tough questions for the acting attorney general.

I can't see exactly whether we're about to get started. It looks like we -- Chuck Grassley is about to get started. And I'll let it go on from here.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): We consider Todd Blanche as our next --

SIDNER: All right, we are listening -- we are listening to the committee right now announce that he is sitting there. And we're seeing him, Todd Blanche, sitting there waiting to be questioned at this hour. We will bring some of that to you in a bit.

Evan Perez, thank you so much. Do appreciate it.

John. JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, as we await hearing from Todd

Blanche there and as he faces questions, I want to talk to CNN's senior legal analyst, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Elie Honig.

Elie, as we're looking at Todd Blanche there, you know him. You worked with him for several years. Talk to me about how you anticipate he will answer these questions. He's a pretty skillful interrogator. How do you think he'll be at answering questions?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: He is skillful, John, and he knows what he's doing. And it's sort of surreal, I'll tell you, to see Todd Blanche sitting there on the cusp of becoming the nation's attorney general when I knew him his first day at the Southern District of New York in 2006. We started right around the same time. And he's been through quite a career arc since then.

I think the main things that Todd Blanche is going to have to do, first of all, is talk about and explain in a way that's specific and compelling and credible about his involvement in some of the bigger scandals of the last year. The Epstein files, the creation of this slush fund, the subpoena recently of "New York Times" journalists.

And I think the bigger challenge for Todd Blanche is going to be convincing the senators on that Judiciary Committee that he actually is capable and willing of running a DOJ with some level of independence. Thus far, he has not shown that by his actions. Thus far, he has willingly allowed DOJ to be used for the president's political ends. And I think he needs to reassure the skeptical senators on both sides of the aisle that he can restore some measure of independence to DOJ.

BERMAN: I mean there's no shortage of questions, Elie, and for those following the news, this federal judge really just admonished both the president's personal lawyers and the Justice Department for their role in this deal. What kind of new questions does that raise?

HONIG: Yes, the federal judge basically said that the lawsuit that led to the creation of this $1.776 billion slush fund and this immunity agreement for Donald Trump from the IRS, that that whole thing was essentially a sham, that it was collusive, that Donald Trump essentially was operating both on the plaintiff side and the defense side of that case.

I think one of the big questions for Todd Blanche is, even if there's no slush fund, and I know some senators are going to try to pin him down on, we will not bring back this slush fund. But even in the absence of the slush fund, people can still be paid out if they claim they were wronged by the government. So, I would like to see some senator ask him, slush fund or no, are you open to the idea of paying out damages claims on January 6th rioters who committed violent acts of police? Will you take that off the table here today?

BERMAN: Elie Honig, senior legal analyst for us. Counselor, always great to see you. I know you'll be watching this hearing along with the rest of us. Thank you. Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, we're going to keep an eye very close on that. We're going to go back to that hearing shortly.

But also breaking this morning, U.S. Central Command announced a new wave of strikes just this morning on Iran. This round comes after a fourth consecutive night of strikes by the U.S. as well, and the U.S. reimposing the blockade on Iranian ports.

And the much lauded ceasefire still very much in tatters, if not in the trash at this point. President Trump is now lashing out in a new way as negotiations with Iran are stalled, threatening to bomb civilian infrastructure again, like power plants and bridges next week, he says, and suggesting now that he is open to sending in ground troops.

Joining me right now is Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. She's a top Democrat on Senate Foreign Relations.

[09:05:02]

Senator, thank you for being here.

The president said about Iran's bridges and power plants, "we're going to knock out all their power plants. We're going to knock out all their bridges unless they get to the table and negotiate."

Do you think that will work, the threat or the action, or do you think that amounts to a war crime?

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH): I think, sadly, from the very beginning, the president has not had a strategy for how to conduct this war. Here we are, several months in, and he hasn't accomplished any of the goals he set out to do. We've seen a more hard line regime take over. We still have done nothing about their enriched uranium. No plan to address their nuclear program. And now the Strait of Hormuz is still closed most of the time. And the president's done everything from talk about tolling to get the Strait open, and now he's talking about putting boots on the ground in Iran. I don't think that's an option that makes sense. And I hope that he and our military leadership will have a strategy for how to get people -- get the Iranians back to the table to negotiate, because that's what we need. We need another ceasefire, and we need a negotiated settlement of this war.

BOLDUAN: Because that's clearly what the president is getting at when he's not ruling out ground troops now, saying, "sometimes you need a ground campaign."

Because if a nightly bombing campaign, as we've been seeing over these days, hasn't worked -- isn't working, hasn't worked, if a blockade hasn't worked to bring Iran truly to the table, if targeting them along the Strait hasn't worked, does any part of you think that this might actually be necessary, some level of ground troops, to gain advantage over Iran in this war, to get back to a negotiated settlement? SHAHEEN: You know, this war is overwhelmingly unpopular with the

American people. And I think putting troops on the ground in Iran or in Kharg Island or in the region in a way that's going to endanger more lives is not something that the American people will support. And I think the president needs to come up with a different strategy.

Again, this is the problem because he's had no strategy for this war from the very beginning. It's been a failed effort. And he needs to -- he needs to figure out how to get them back to the negotiating table.

BOLDUAN: Senator, you and a group of fellow senators have just unveiled an updated version of the Russian -- Russia sanctions bill that's long been spearheaded, was spearheaded by Senators Graham and Blumenthal over the war in Ukraine. It targets Russia's energy sector, which is a big source of how Russia funds its war in Ukraine. It puts penalties on other countries who want -- who buy energy from Russia. But this version, as I'm understanding it, is not as broad as the original, applying these penalties to only kind of the top purchasers of Russian energy, not any and all. Why?

SHAHEEN: Well, this is an effort to narrow the focus and to really get at those countries that are helping to fund this war in Ukraine and fund Russia's war machine. China is number one on the list, both in terms of those sanctions evaders who continue to buy Russian oil through the shadow fleet and their use of Russian oil and gas. So, we're trying to go after those countries that are really making a difference. Also, sanctioning, again, financial entities in Russia, oligarchs, those people who are helping to fund this war.

Right now the momentum is on Ukraine's side. Russia is losing over 30,000 casualties a month. Just think about that, 30,000 a month. And they're -- they've lost territory in Ukraine. Their economy is in trouble. And what we need to do is put as much pressure on Putin as possible to get him to the negotiating table to end this war.

BOLDUAN: And the question is, will you get a vote on it? Senator Graham, Senator Blumenthal, they -- Senator Graham, before his passing, he suggested that the White House had given the green light. The president was finally on board. And it's a big question of what happens next. But a big moment to have the sanctions bill unveiled, for sure, Senator.

I did also want to ask you, with what we're seeing with ICE -- with -- going on with ICE agents now in Maine and in Texas, Tom Homan is speaking out, blaming Democrats and the government shutdown for the slow pace of distributing body cameras to ICE officers in light of these shootings.

You were one of the groups -- small group of Democrats that kind of broke from the majority of Democrats early on to push to end the shutdown and not hold out to overhaul ICE. Do you think that how that shutdown played out over the course of a couple months --

SHAHEEN: No, that's not -- that's not correct. I'm sorry, but, Kate, that's not correct. I was never one of those people who pushed to end the shutdown on ICE. [09:10:01]

We needed to reform ICE. I voted consistently to try and do that. And there's -- this is just an excuse that Tom Homan and the administration is using for why they haven't reformed ICE and gotten those body cameras out on everybody. They've had plenty of money. They should have done this months ago.

BOLDUAN: I wasn't trying to misstate your position. You were a member of a group of Democrats that were working to end -- find a way to end the shutdown. But on blaming the shutdown for slowing the pace of the rollout of the body cameras, you say that is not true.

SHAHEEN: That is not true. That's just a red herring. They're trying to divert who's responsible. The administration is responsible for what's happened here. They're the ones who have reduced training requirements for ICE agents, who hired people who clearly were not -- should not have been hired to do these difficult jobs. Law enforcement in every community across this country understands how to handle traffic stops, understands -- has body cameras and understands how to de-escalate a situation. And what we're seeing from ICE continues to be escalation rather than de-escalation. And the fact that they admit that they are killing people who they are not even targeting, who are -- who are here, in the case of the man from Biddeford, Maine, he had a work permit. He was legally allowed to be in this country. For the ICE agents to kill Americans on the street is just not acceptable. And the administration needs to stop it now.

BOLDUAN: Senator Shaheen, thank you so much for coming in. I really appreciate your time.

We're going to transition. We're going to go back to Capitol Hill. A different part of Capitol Hill. Todd Blanche and his confirmation hearing to be potentially the next attorney general of the United States.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): End of my quote of last January.

So, here we are again, just like clockwork, the Democrats and their media allies and activist networks have launched the expected crusade against your nomination. To be clear, there are fair questions for Mr. Blanche. I don't agree with how Mr. Blanche or the Justice Department handled every matter, and I've demanded answers and will continue to do so. But many of the criticisms aired in recent days just completely miss the mark. And I'll give one example.

We've seen a coordinated campaign from former Justice Department employees opposing Mr. Blanche's nomination. My Democratic colleagues and the partizan media have publicized their letter framing the signatories as a group of non-partisan, quote/unquote, "career civil servants." Of course, they fail to mention in that letter was coordinated by the same group that engaged in partizan and misleading campaigns opposing Judge Bovas' (ph) nomination. They also don't mention that the letter's signatories include a who's who of partizan activists, including former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Jack Smith's partizan prosecutors, J.P. Cooney, Molly Gaston and David Rody. And they certainly don't mention that Mr. Blanche has received letters of support from organizations representing more than 600,000 law enforcement officers, 23 state attorneys general and scores of former Justice Department officials.

So, from my vantage point, if the people who engaged in the worst partisan lawfare this country has ever seen have a problem with Todd Blanche, that's a good thing in my book.

As sure as sunrise, today some of my Democratic colleagues will tell us that Mr. Blanche has unique -- uniquely terrible nominee. Before they do so, however, I urge them to remember the boy who cried wolf and take a long look in the mirror before lecturing anyone about partisanship at the Justice Department.

So, I have one more subject. I'd like to discuss developments in my and Senator Johnson's Jack Smith investigation. Smith's team subpoenaed the National Archives June 2023. That subpoena sought text messages from cell phones connected to Trump's White House staffers.

[09:15:00]

The date range for the records was October 1, 2020, to January 20, 2021. The Archives' then general counsel, Gary Stern, emailed Thomas Windom, one of Smith's deputies, on August 21, 2023, at 12:19 p.m. That email said responsive records were ready.

On August 21st, the same day, 2023, just 20 seconds later, Windom had already downloaded the texts. And shortly after that, other DOJ and FBI personnel involved in the case did as well. Whistleblowers told my office that Smith didn't pass these records through a filter team, and you can see in 20 minutes there wasn't time to go to a filter team. That filter team was already in place. The Justice Department has confirmed that fact in a letter to the committee, quote, "the special counsel's investigative team apparently bypassed the filter team and directly accessed these text messages," end quote.

The DOJ letter to the committee also said, quote, "the special counsel's office had previously been made aware of the risks that records relating to members," meaning members of Congress, "communications could raise constitutional questions and might be privileged under the speech and debate clause," end of quote. That speech and debate clause is a constitutional issue.

Even if Smith's team had been instructed to look for congressional or other privileged information, it wouldn't matter because, in this example, it appears the filter team was entirely bypassed.

Based on the information provided to the committee, Smith's operation cut corners and blew through constitutional stop signs instead of respecting them and have been advised about the constitutional problems. The White House messages obtained and reviewed by Smith's team included communications with many senators and representatives. The communications included messages with members on this committee, including this senator. The subject matter of those members communication included core constitutional responsibilities, such as congressional legislation, resolutions and investigative work. It also included other information irrelevant to Jack Smith's case against then citizen Trump.

Instead of that information being walled off, it was intentionally shared. This is another example of how this misguided investigation wasn't normal and demands further investigation. Jack Smith's operation was a runaway political train that improperly obtained congressional information. I've requested Acting Attorney General Blanche to allow members to review these records.

Senator Durbin.

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Blanche, thank you for coming by my office yesterday. I think we both knew going into that meeting that we had strongly held political beliefs on both sides of the table, and yet we had, I think, a respectful exchange. And I thank you for coming by.

TODD BLANCHE, ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE: Thank you.

DURBIN: I'm glad you brought your staffers with you. My staffers there as well. If there was any misunderstanding, my representation of your remarks, you'll have a chance to correct the record in a few moments. But I'll do my best to stick by what I said and as my staff has backed me up in my memory of it, yours may be different. But thank you for meeting with me yesterday.

I want to acknowledge the obvious empty seat at the dais here, which the chairman -- next to the chairman. The committee is mourning the loss of our friend and colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, former chairman and ranking member of this committee. I served on the committee with Senator Graham since he joined the Senate in 2003. I'm going to cherish my memories of both our fierce partisan battles and our landmark bipartisan agreements. He was a trusted friend. My friends and family back home can't believe it when I say these things. You mean that Lindsey Graham? Yes, I do. He was a good person, a valuable part of the Senate family, and an extremely valuable part of this committee. I'm glad that we're honoring him with this memorial today.

Let me say at the outset that the chairman spent several minutes talking about Jack Smith.

[09:20:04]

I want to make one thing clear about Jack Smith, who was a special counsel.

Months ago, perhaps six months ago, maybe longer, he volunteered to appear before this committee, under oath, and testify about what he did as special counsel. And to answer the questions of the committee. For reasons I cannot explain, the Republican majority does not want to bring Jack Smith before this committee and have him testify under oath. They continue, on a regular basis, to take exception to things that he said or did or allegedly did, but will not bring him before this committee. I don't get it. If they have something they want to raise with Jack Smith, that place is where he should be sitting, under oath, and answering the questions. And he's volunteered to do it. But they turned him down.

Mr. Chairman, we are here today with the awesome responsibility of choosing the next attorney general of the United States of America. We're here because there's a vacancy in the office. The president decided to fire the predecessor of Mr. Blanche after just 14 months on the job, after courts and grand juries blocked her from prosecuting the president's political opponents. Seemingly, President Trump believes you, Mr. Blanche, will be more successful.

When you were first nominated to be deputy attorney general, Democrats raised concerns about the president's personal attorney serving as the top attorney in the Justice Department. The attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America.

Since you were confirmed, the Department of Justice has literally violated dozens of court orders to advance the president's agenda. Last year, you declared that the Justice Department was, quote, "at war" with the federal judiciary. I brought that up to you yesterday. I believe all of us, both sides of the table, need to be more careful with our rhetoric when it comes to the judiciary.

Yesterday, we had the testimony of Justices Kagan and Barrett, and they talked about the impact on them personally and on their families with the threats that have been increasing against them physically. Most of us on this side of the table know what they're talking about. We have a similar experience. But it is a responsibility of all of us, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, in or out of the government, be careful with what we say about the judiciary. They are doing their job. We should never, ever countenance violence against anyone on either side.

One of your first official actions as acting attorney general, Mr. Blanche, was to establish the $2 billion weaponization or slush fund to benefit January 6th cop beaters while immunizing President Trump from IRS liability. You defended the slush fund by claiming, quote, "people hurt police get money -- who hurt police get money all the time," end quote. Despite resounding bipartisan criticism and admitting that it was a mistake, you've refused to rescind the order creating this fund. That order can still be found on the Department of Justice's website today. We talked about this yesterday in office. I didn't quite understand your explanation. I'll give you a chance, of course, to explain it. But you said it was up to Congress to codify the elimination of this fund. This was a creation of the executive branch. It was not a creation of Congress. So, I hope you'll clarify that statement.

Earlier this week, a federal judge characterized your explanation of the settlement that led to this fund, quote, at best misleading and at worst disingenuous. You told me yesterday that the opinion was, quote, "a hit piece" on you. Another troubling attack on a judge for doing her job.

Then there's the cover up of the Epstein files, which former Attorney General Bondi herself said you were, quote, "in charge of." Under your leadership, more than 1,000 FBI personnel were pulled off of other priorities and directed to flag Epstein records for any mentions of President Trump. When scrutiny of the cover up intensified, you participated in meetings in the White House Situation Room to strategize about how to protect President Trump. Not Epstein survivors, the president.

When Congress forced the administration to release the files, hundreds of survivors' personal information was unredacted victimizing them again. Meanwhile, the names of powerful Epstein allies remained protected in clear violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Your explanation, quote, "it isn't a crime to party with Mr. Epstein."

[09:25:05]

Mr. Blanche, these survivors deserve much better. I want to recognize many of them who are in the audience today. I thank them for their courage in speaking out. Tomorrow we will hear one of them during our outside witness panel. I'd like to enter into the record six letters from Epstein survivors in opposition to the Blanche nomination.

GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered.

DURBIN: I'm asking you, Mr. Blanche, today, before you leave this room, to agree to meet with these Epstein survivors personally and to bring with you professionals from the Department of Justice to hear them out. They have the courage to tell their story. And they should at least hear from their government that they take it seriously.

After your interview with convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, an attempt, I believe, to exonerate President Trump, Miss Maxwell was transferred to a minimum security camp. That is unheard of for offenders like her. You said it was for her own personal safety. I hope you'll explain that today.

You told me yesterday you want to be attorney general because you love the Department of Justice and you love prosecutors. But you have removed from the department some of the most effective prosecutors that have ever served our government. Done that for personal reasons. Purging career law enforcement officials who won't prioritize President Trump's interests over their oath to the Constitution. You fired the career pardon attorney because she wouldn't sign off on restoring gun rights to a convicted domestic abuser, Mel Gibson, personal friend of President Trump.

You fired career immigration litigator Erez Reuveni for refusing to follow unethical orders from your former law partner, Emil Bove, and other senior DOJ officials to lie to a federal court. You bragged about firing career law enforcement professionals simply because they were assigned to investigate the president's criminal misconduct, including FBI agents who specialized in investigating threats from foreign adversaries like Iran.

More than 1,200 former career DOJ employees, who worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations, sent this committee a letter opposing your nomination because you have purged DOJ thousands of experienced law enforcement officials, putting our nation's security at risk.

I would like to enter this letter into the record with unanimous consent.

GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered.

DURBIN: You testified under oath last year that as deputy attorney general you would consult with career ethics officials to avoid conflicts of interest. A significant concern since you received nearly $10 million as a president's personal attorney. But you've gutted the DOJ offices that handle ethics and professional responsibility.

After the department's top career ethics lawyer advised you to recuse yourself from any matters relating to Trump and his personal capacity, that lawyer was fired. Every smarmy, suspect deal in this administration has cryptocurrency behind the curtain. And again, it has happened when it comes to the billion-dollar windfall that went to the president in his first year in office.

Shortly after you were confirmed as deputy attorney general, you issued an order dismantling DOJ's crypto enforcement team and shutting down ongoing criminal investigations of the crypto industry. At the time, you owned at least $159,000 worth of crypto-related assets. While you eventually divested, those assets didn't go far. You simply transferred them to your child -- your children and grandchild. With the crypto enforcement unit out of the way, President Trump brought in $1.4 billion from his family's cryptocurrency business in 2025 alone.

Take that one -- take one example of the dealing in the administration. In April 2024, the founder of the crypto company Binance was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay $50 million fine for a money laundering scheme -- $50 million fine -- he then brokered a deal to channel $2 billion into the Trump family's crypto business, World Liberty Finance, after which President Trump pardoned him. Binance accounts have funneled about $1.7 billion to Iranian entities linked to terrorism. The president's World Liberty Financial continues to partner with Binance, even with these facts that I've spelled out in this statement.

You recently claimed, quote, Mr. Blanche, that there's a ton of evidence that the 2020 election was rigged. You should see what happens in this committee room when judicial nominees of this administration appear before this committee, raise their hands, take the oath, and then field the questions asked by members of the committee.

[09:30:07]

You'll see some of the people who are even judges