Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Blanche Pressed on DOJ Independence, Epstein, Trump Retribution; Blanche Pressed on Trump's $1.8B "Anti-Weaponization" Fund; John Cornyn: I'm Still Undecided on Blanche's Nomination; Senate Panel Grills Trump's Attorney General Pick Todd Blanche; Senator Thom Tillis Questions Blanche on Jan 6, Trump's Pardons. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired July 15, 2026 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: -- has done since January 20th, and that's why I think that's why we're seeing the success that we're seeing. And we're not slowing down. HSTFs are up and running full speed ahead. And I hope that we continue to still see the results that we've seen over the past 10 months or so.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you for your commitment to that and all the work that you've done. I'll take a brief moment. Our distinguished and late colleague, Senator Graham, was excited about your nomination. He was passionate about many things, which we saw here in this Committee, just in amazing ways.

One of the things that he was a champion of was the unborn, and that is a deeply held conviction that we both have. And I want to talk to you and address the issue of the chemical abortion drug that we have seen just spread coast to coast. As you know, pursuant to a Biden-era administration -- administrative action, the FDA there is no longer an in-person dispensing requirement in place for the drug for Mifepristone.

It allows it to literally be dispersed across state lines, all across the country, we are losing children, and we are putting women in harm's way. Look, it has no oversight, no safeguard. I got to hear the story of Johnna Holder (ph), who's here with us today, and I am so grateful for her willingness to be here.

But I got to hear it firsthand yesterday. I know many people have read her story in recent news articles about her then boyfriend, now ex- boyfriend, a doctor no less, actually forcing a crushed abortion pill into her mouth in the middle of the night, then taking her keys, holding her hostage so that she could not go get help.

This is sick and twisted and must stop. He used his ex-wife's information to buy those drugs online, to kill his own child, and to endanger Joanna's life. And sadly, her story is one of many. And so, can you commit to me today that this administration and DOJ will prioritize taking meaningful and thoughtful action to address the dangers that occurred in the current status quo to women all over this country. BLANCHE: Absolutely, Senator. And it's not only what the Department of Justice can do, but it's what the FDA is doing right now for the first time in a decade. Actually, doing real studies about the safety and the appropriateness of these drugs.

And you know, I've seen video myself of what appears to be pills coming even from overseas to young women, and doesn't matter who applies for it, anybody can get it. There's no instructions; they just come dumped out of a little plastic bag. And it's wrong. And I very much commit our resources to stopping this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you very much. I want to turn to an issue that I also raised with Former Attorney General Bondi, and that's illegal offshore gaming and the concern in the rise of illegal gaming amongst minors. In 2024, a study found that individuals who began gambling before the age of 18 are 50 percent more likely to develop an addiction to gambling.

This has become a major issue among America's youth, and particular America's young men. Just last year, in the Northern District of Alabama, we saw a case where 10 men pleaded guilty to managing a sports betting operation and accepted over $2 billion in wagers via an offshore server located in Costa Rica.

Senator Blumenthal and I have worked together on this issue and recently introduced the Game Act, which would prohibit social media companies and advertising websites from targeting minors with sports betting advertising online. We also sent a letter to DOJ encouraging the department to use its existing statutory authorities to pursue injunctive relief and to block illegal offshore gaming operations.

I want to tell you how much I appreciate the response. It was very substantive that I got to that letter. But can you also commit to me today that you're going to make this issue a priority and take robust action to combat the reach of illegal gaming operations within the United States, and then, in particular, the targeting of minors through this.

BLANCHE: Yes, Senator, absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. The U.S. Census Bureau reported over a decade between 2010 and 2020 that the over 65 population in the United States experienced the largest ever 10-year numeric gain and percentage point increase in terms of share of the overall population.

[12:05:00]

In its annual report to Congress last December, the FTC noted that total fraud losses by older Americans defined as age of 60 and older increased almost fourfold from 2020 to 2024, shooting up from 600 million in 2020 to 2.4 billion in 2024.

As our society ages and we can, it will continue to be a problem that we must take robust action to address, particularly given technological advances and other ways that this fraud is occurring, I introduced the GARD Act with Senator Gillibrand, and it would allow state and local law enforcement agencies and to use certain federal grant funding to utilize blockchain for investigating financial fraud.

It also permit federal law enforcement to assist state and local law enforcement with tracing tools for blockchain technology. I'm thrilled it was reported out of this committee by voice vote earlier this year. I know that DOJ has programs in place like Elder Justice Initiative.

But can you speak specifically to DOJ's efforts with respect to elder financial fraud and the extent to which we will work to continue to make this a priority under your leadership, and the importance of collaboration with state and local law enforcement officers as we work to bring justice to these people who have been abused?

BLANCHE: Yes, Senator. We are very focused not only at Maine Justice but at every U.S. Attorney's office on protecting our elderly who are absolutely victims of scams of any sort. And many of the scams are coming from overseas, from Burma and from of these literally entire buildings filled with individuals cold calling our senior citizens, trying to get them to give them money or send them money, and so we are.

We've charged I think over 300 this year alone. We will keep on doing that. And it is a -- it has been a priority as it should be, and it will remain a priority of the department to target these criminals again, many of whom are not even in this country going after our senior citizens.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you so much for your service, and I look forward to supporting your nomination.

BLANCHE: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): Before I call on Senator Rona (ph), I have another letter for the nominee supporting Mr. Blanche from the American United for Life, a pro-life organization. I quote: Mr. Blanch's commitment to respecting human life is evident in his actions as acting attorney general. We at Americans United for Life are confident in Mr. Blanche's commitment to a fair and even.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: OK, we're going to continue to monitor this the explosive hearing for the nominee to be the Attorney General, Todd Blanche. Welcome to "Inside Politics". I'm Dana Bash in Washington. And you've been watching the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearing for the president's pick for Attorney General.

It's been more than three hours, and Todd Blanche, who's currently the Acting AG has defended some of the DOJ's most controversial decisions. Senators pressed him on the Epstein files, where he acknowledged mistakes were made, did not say that he would or commit to under oath meeting with Epstein survivors.

He did say that the nearly $1.8 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund is defunct, but again, wouldn't say that he would put that in writing. There are two Republicans who may still vote against him. One is Thom Tillis. We're waiting to hear from him. The other is John Cornyn. His Q&A has already happened, and Cornyn pressed Blanche on that fund, he wants assurances that it is dead. I want to bring in Manu Raju on Capitol Hill. Manu, I know you spoke

to Senator Cornyn after his exchange with Todd Blanche. Before you tell us what he said, I want our viewers to see what that Q&A was like.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): First of all, I believe you have said that the weaponization fund is a moot issue. Is that your position?

BLANCHE: Yes, it is a moot issue, meaning there is no weaponization fund. The weaponization fund is dead. It's not moving forward.

CORNYN: Well, I would refer you to the settlement agreement. Do you have a copy of that in front of you?

BLANCHE: I do not.

CORNYN: OK. Well, you probably know what's in it?

BLANCHE: I'm familiar with it. Yes.

CORNYN: I'm sure you are. On page four, this settlement agreement can be modified -- 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?

BLANCHE: 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.

[12:10:00]

CORNYN: Well, so the settlement agreement remains as it was originally. But I hear what you're saying. Is it? Is the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties?

BLANCHE: Well, yes, it's an enforceable document. So, I suppose if President Trump's Counsel sought to enforce it, that they potentially could.

CORNYN: Including the weaponization fund?

BLANCHE: Well, they could try to enforce 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 not aware that they're planning on doing that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Now, I just want to underscore: John Cornyn's vote is vital. Without it, this nomination could die in Committee. Manu, what did Senator Cornyn tell you? MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: He's not satisfied, Dana. In fact, I asked him about those specific comments, whether it would be enough to alleviate his concerns? Cornyn had major concerns about this coming into this hearing.

And the comments by Todd Blanche did not resolve those concerns. And he made very clear to me he is truly undecided on his vote at this moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Did Todd Blanche satisfy your concerns about the weaponization fund?

CORNYN: Well, basically confirm that it's not dead. It can't be changed without written consent of the parties. According to the settlement agreement, there is no written consent of the parties, and he agreed that it could be enforced as a matter of contract.

RAJU: Does that concern you?

CORNYN: Yeah, I continue to have some concerns, but I'm not going to make any decisions at this point. I'm going to wait until we actually vote on the confirmation in a week or so.

RAJU: So, you're truly undecided right now?

CORNYN: Yeah.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, I went on to ask him about what would it take for him to get to yes? And he was less than clear about that. He said he had additional questions that had to be asked and was truly uncertain about how to proceed here. So that is a warning sign for Todd Blanche and for the Trump Administration.

They need to get John Cornyn on board. Of course, Cornyn now very much a free agent now that he lost his primary in Texas and the opposite, in large part because of the opposition of Donald Trump, who supported his primary challenger, and now Cornyn has come back.

And has at times broken with the president, Thom Tillis too not running for re-election. Someone himself is a free agent. Someone himself who has been very, very critical of that weaponization fund, and he had told me coming into this hearing that he too wants to talk about that and press Blanche on this.

So, two key Republican votes, if one of them were to break ranks, that could be enough to deadlock this nomination in committee, which means that Todd Blanche still has his work to do, Dana, in order for him to get out of committee and get the job of his attorney general.

BASH: Yeah. Wow, that really great get there with Senator Cornyn. Very, very telling that he is, as you said, not satisfied with the answer that Todd Blanche gave him and not yet committed to voting for his nomination. Appreciate it, Manu.

I'm joined by a terrific group of reporters here. Let's just talk about the politics of this. If you're a president and you make a decision to support the Republican running against somebody who is really important to some of the things you want to get done, not the least of which is making sure that your handpicked attorney general is confirmed. Do you think like oops?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's unlikely that this president thinks oops, but people in the White House certainly do. I mean, this is the unintended consequences. Obviously, no one ever could have imagined that Senator Lindsey Graham, the second-ranking Republican on the Committee, would not be here for the vote.

I mean, he would have almost certainly have been Ted Blanche's biggest champion. They were close, but that was not the case there. But when John Cornyn is telling Manu the weaponization fund is not dead, that's an exact contradiction to what Blanche said. He said it is dead. So clearly, it's not.

But look, we do not know if Senator Cornyn is going to vote against him, but certainly is leaving it wide open here. He, I think, does not want to make a lot of trouble for John Thune, the Majority Leader. I think he would be just fine making some trouble for President Trump.

LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: What's so fascinating is that Cornyn got it exactly right. He forced Todd Blanche should admit to the American public why people don't like lawyers, and I'm a lawyer myself. But the idea of trying to finesse it and say, oh no, it's dead. It's totally dead, hard to put it in writing.

What am I going to put in writing? Well, why? Because you know it's an enforceable contract unless certain criteria is actually made here and confirmed. It has not been. And so, the longer you say well, I suppose theoretically one could try to enforce it, but the other thing behind it.

[12:15:00]

Well, this hypothetical, this administration has been very keen with the Supreme Court, with Federal Courts, and beyond of testing every, I suppose, testing every hypothetical. And they know full well that there is a world where because there is a valid contract, you could force the hand, or at least engage in litigation that would cost the American taxpayer dollars, and also prolong an issue that he has said is dead.

BASH: So, your legal opinion is you agree with Senator Cornyn that the testimony that Todd Blanche gave today means that this anti- weaponization fund is not dead.

COATES: Indeed, and there was a federal judge just earlier in the week who was gave a scathing, scathing rebuke, knowing full well of that very notion that you're going to pursue an action they said that was basically farcical. There was no actual controversy. You have a manufactured crisis of sorts.

Have a settlement that would then result. Immunity would still remain, and of course, settle in -- that settlement fund, and yet there was never actually a problem most litigators have to actually resolve. And in there was in the end, you still have the written document that is still enforceable, and they can change that.

But note what he doesn't do: if he refuses to put it in writing, if he refuses to take the steps that any other litigant would have to do and say this is no longer a thing, and you have to wonder why he is hiding the ball? And Cornyn pinned him down appropriately. And I have real concerns as to whether you're hearing the right answer from actually Todd Blanche or what is hoping to be the answer from President Trump?

EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: And it seems also like step back from the politics. I am not a lawyer. I got as far as taking the LSATs, but that was it. You look at that comment where he's saying, yes, it does say in the document you have to change it in writing, and I'm saying it's changed even though we didn't do it in writing.

Or what he said about the redactions on the Epstein files that, oops, we made some mistakes. It sort of reminds me of that famous clause, the old Van Halen M&M's clause, right? They that they couldn't have brown M&M's backstage, and they put it in there to make sure people were paying attention to everything else in the writer, so that like all the details of their show were done properly.

The Justice Department seems like it needs to be paying very close attention to details, right? And in this document, Blanche is saying, well, there is a detail. We're kind of impatient. Oh, there are details that we screwed up on other things. That's just the way it goes. We try to fix it. There are lots of things that the Justice Department does that he would be trying to run if he is Attorney General that need to not mess up on these details.

BASH: It also speaks to the lack of trust that Senator Cornyn feels politically liberated to articulate in a forum like this. And what other Republicans no doubt feel privately on a lot of issues like this.

I want to talk about another moment. There are many, and we'll get to some more later. But this is a question that a Democrat, Senator Coons asked of Todd Blanche about comments that Blanche made when he was still officially Deputy Attorney General when he went to CPAC, which is the political organization that is has become very far right and is filled certainly in the audience with the president's staunchest supporters, let's listen to that exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): I know you were not serving as Deputy Attorney General when President Trump pardoned those folks, but you said just a few moments ago that you were not celebrating this decision by the president. He was exercising his constitutional power.

But earlier this year, in front of CPAC, a conservative event, I would say from the transcript, you actually trumpeted it as an achievement. And I quote, saying, if you look at what happened to the men and women convicted because of January 6th, by 05:00 p.m. on January 20th, every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted by President Trump.

So, when folks say you've done nothing, I say you have a very short memory. Would you say that you are proud of President Trump's decision to pardon individuals who assaulted law enforcement?

BLANCHE: No, that's not what I was saying there at all, Senator. So, I was responding to inquiries around why more hadn't been done by the Department of Justice with respect to January 6th defendants?

And so, my answer was that they January 6th defendants and some of their lawyers had a short memory because a lot had already been done. Indeed, by the end of the day on January 20th, they had all been pardoned or commuted. So, I wasn't celebrating it. I was merely stating a fact, which is that the January 6th defendants did receive a very generous pardon or commutation from President Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: So, Jasmine, he's saying he wasn't celebrating it. The people in the room certainly took it that way because I remember there was a lot of applause.

JASMINE WRIGHT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NOTUS: Yeah, I mean that was a huge moment a few months ago where people were a little bit shocked at his response because of the way that it was perceived. I mean, I just think quickly.

[12:20:00]

BASH: Jasmine, I'm sorry, Thom Tillis, the other Senator who is retiring, the swing vote on this nomination is speaking. Let's listen.

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): It's almost as if they weren't here when the Biden Administration did the indictments against President Trump. We've already heard it talk about Jack Smith. We haven't talked about the way that they dealt with a family member who was being indicted and Hunter Biden.

I don't remember them saying anything during those days in Judiciary Committee. I don't think I remember them ramping up the freedom of access to clinic entrances and trying to arrest pro-life people from the law that they decided to ratchet up in 1994. A couple of important cases there.

And then the January 6th Capitol riot prosecutions. The fact of the matter is, and I'll get to this in a minute. The part I don't like about it, but hundreds or thousands of people's lives were destroyed because they did something stupid that day. And there's a vast difference between -- difference between doing something stupid and doing something that destroys your career and wars you financially.

And this administration, the Biden Administration, tapped on the emotions of the time to over prosecute and weaponize the DOJ and went after people that I believe deserved a pardon because they weren't the people that attacked police officers. They weren't the people who knowingly destroyed the Capitol.

They weren't the people who proudly went in like the QAnon shaman and pretended like he'd taken the Senate ground. They're the people that get me mad, which is why I'm not going to talk about them anymore. But it's remarkable how it's almost as if that men in black, that device they used to erase their memories.

It's remarkable that these people sat before this committee when all that was going on, and not a whiff. I hate duplicity and I hate situational ethics, and I want to lay the groundwork to say I was against that, and I'm also against some of the decisions of the president. Not you, Mr. Blanche. You work for somebody, and you got to do what you're told to do.

And I hope you stay within the ethical bounds of the law. You have to answer to the bars and everyone else. But it's just jarring to hear people criticize this administration when they can't look in the mirror and ask themselves why they weren't criticizing an administration when they happen to have a blue jersey.

Now, my criticism of the administration with the red jersey. January 6th I have searched heaven and earth, and I haven't found anything except a passing comment at a C-SPAN conference. So, can you tell me definitively that you think that any Capitol police officer who was harmed on January the sixth was a victim of a heinous crime at the hands of the person who did it.

BLANCHE: Yes, and should have been prosecuted and was.

TILLIS: And they were. And so, I just with the members, please, you know, as long as you can prove you've been consistent, use those sound bites, but don't use them when you look the other way. When fundamentally, at the abstract level, President Biden did everything that you're accusing President Trump of doing.

And a part of what we've got to get rid of, Mr. Blanche, is this political physics going on. American people are an exceptional people, and they always like to best each other. And what I've seen happening here is when we have a bad action of one administration, I'll be damned if we don't repeat it with the other one.

I want leadership that says we're going to ratchet things down and not make the heinous mistakes that the Biden Administration did. Let's be better than them, not better at prosecuting people that maybe we shouldn't, or take a little bit more time before we indict them. But let's just be better than them.

Let's set an example and stop this spiralling or the next Congress that I will not be a part of will be talking about it again. Or in 2029, if a Democrat President comes in, they're going to up the ante and they're going to go right after the behavior of this administration is an example of why they should, because this administration has done the same thing to justify some of their behavior.

I'm not criticizing you, but I'm trying to just cut through the rhetoric and let people all know that we are at this place today in part because of the actions of the Biden Administration, and the weaponization that I even saw under Garland, who I generally supported. So, let's just be real here, people. If you're going to criticize one administration, look in the mirror before you do it.

Now, Mr. Blanche, I want to stick a fork in this turkey of a 1776 fund. And you've said that it's moot. I've had colleagues here, attorney. I'm not an attorney.

[12:25:00]

I'm a business consultant. I see a problem. I want to solve it. This is a problem. It should never be paid out. You've said it's going to be moot. That it's moot. Others, these smart attorneys that I'm surrounded by, I think that the courts are probably going to deal with it. But why should we waste the court capacity on this issue?

If I could walk to the Senate floor with an agreed-to piece of text coming from the administration that just renders this whole thing dead, gone. I don't need a probe's language. I don't need a statement from the administration. All I need is language to say everybody around here said it's over.

So why can't we agree to language that I can walk down to the Senate floor and get a UC and dare the Democrats to oppose ending this and dare a Republican to if the president supports it? Why is that a bad strategy?

BLANCHE: It's not. I mean, certainly the Department of Justice and the White House has worked with you and your colleagues to come up with language. We do not object that path or including it in some other.

TILLIS: I want to make the distinction though, because I know that Senator Collins and the Appropriations Team are working on this language. But you've already -- I don't know if you've been paying attention to Congress. You've got your own job to do. But we're not necessarily getting along really well right now on the party lines.

The champ -- I mean, Schumer's already threatening a government shutdown. We haven't even had appropriations discussions, you know, except ongoing negotiations. He's already threatening a shutdown, so that language could be in a bill that's dead-on arrival because nobody's going to do it.

My question is, who on earth, who in this Senate Chamber would raise an objection if we were able to put something on the floor that ended this debate? The only reason I think that a Democrat would be opposed to it is they love milk in this thing for what it is. I want to stick a fork in it.

And can I get your commitment to maybe provide us with some technical assistance on what that language would look like?

BLANCHE: Absolutely.

TILLIS: Thank you. Mr. Blanche I did wanted to just echo. And Mr. Chairman, I know I caught him off-guard or if can seek unanimous concerned to put into the record the letter that Senator Cornyn and I sent to Mr. Blanche?

GRASSLEY: Without objection.

TILLIS: So that's the letter on the issue that Senator Britt most recently brought up. I think there's a way to solve that, and I have confidence in your ability to do it, Mr. Blanche. But it is very important.

And I guess for the purposes of back to the pardons, I get pretty emotional about that. I think a better -- we need to do a better job of looking through the pardons process. OK, I've talked about the January 6th pardons, but in this administration, and I'm no fan of Ed Barden. That's exactly why he'll never get confirmed in the U.S. Senate as long as I'm here. That's only 172 days. Maybe he can come back next year.

But I think the pardons process is something else we have to look at. The Democrats are criticizing this administration for pardons. You take a look at the egregious list of pardons in the Biden Administration. Let's not forget that the Biden Administration also had prospective pardons, get out of jail free card.

I heard people criticizing some of the get out of audit arguments for the agreement, 1776 agreement. Have they all forgotten that Biden in the 11th hour gave prospective pardons to people who hadn't even been charged with anything? Again, the point that I'm trying to make, folks, is you're all victims of political physics.

There was no criticism about that then. And now we're trying to criticize this president for pardons that I've criticized. So, the point here, and I do believe that in the Trump Administration, I have talked about the January 6th pardons, but I'm concerned that the Binance CEO got pardoned.

I'm concerned that there was talk about a corporation getting a pardon. So, I'd be very curious if you're confirmed if we could sit down and understand how that process goes? And to what extent we can have visibility into these people getting pardons, starting with a lot of the pardons that came out of the Biden Administration? Can I get your commitment of confirmed to walk through that process?

BLANCHE: Of course, yes, Senator.

TILLIS: Thank you, Mr. Blanche. You've done a great job today.

GRASSLEY: Senator Booker.

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): Good afternoon, Mr. Blanche.

BLANCHE: Good afternoon. BOOKER: Our president has a very well documented history of attempting

to corruptly influence government officials to advance his own personal interest.