Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Blanche Attorney General Confirmation Hearing Underway; Blanche Pressed on Epstein Files, Trump Taxes, Jan. 6 Pardons; . Aired 10- 10:30a ET

Aired July 15, 2026 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): -- numbers of House members and Senate members voted for it on a bipartisan basis because the administration would not voluntarily produce these documents.

I've--

BLANCHE: That's not true.

DURBIN: Well, what part of it isn't true?

BLANCHE: We were prohibited by law from producing those documents. You're -- this is the Judiciary Committee. There are laws that did not allow us to produce those documents, which we made plain in numerous court filings.

So when -- and President Trump had said from day one to release the files, even when he was running.

DURBIN: Yes.

BLANCHE: And so, yes, he signed it into law and we complied with it.

DURBIN: I remember, and everyone in the audience remembers, the links that the administration went through to --

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. Pamela Brown is off today. You're in The Situation Room.

The acting attorney general, keyword acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, is up on Capitol Hill right now trying to convince some skeptical U.S. senators on the Judiciary Committee that he should have the job full-time.

Right now, he's taking questions from the committee chairman, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. Let's listen in to this hearing. It's important.

DURBIN: -- to speak to anyone in the department or FBI, though they've asked repeatedly. So, can I get your word under oath that within the next 30 days you will personally sit down with these ten victims and hear their case in terms of what needs to be done by the Department of Justice?

BLANCHE: I -- Chairman, I appreciate them being here today. I also have somebody from my office who's spent her entire career working on cases like Mr. Epstein's. She's in charge of our task force investigating human trafficking.

She's available to talk to them since (ph) today.

DURBIN: She can sit right next to you -- she can sit right next to you when you meet with these survivors.

BLANCHE: I am -- I have never said I will not meet with survivors. I am-- so--

DURBIN: Will you meet with these 10 survivors? I'm asking you on the record.

BLANCHE: If they have lawyers, as you know, I'm prohibited from meeting directly with them. I have met with counsel for survivors, as has many people in the Department of Justice...

DURBIN: So you...

(MULTIPLE SPEAKERS)

BLANCHE: ...over 30. But if they are represented by counsel, we will work with their counsel. If they don't have a lawyer, I will certainly make arrangements to make sure the right people at the Department of Justice meet with them.

DURBIN: Will you get it done--

BLANCHE: Absolutely.

DURBIN: Will you get it done within the next 30 days that each of these survivors--

BLANCHE: I will get it done today, if that's necessary.

My point is there's somebody here who can meet with them today, get their information, arranged to meet with them. Absolutely.

DURBIN: I think you ought to be in the room.

BLANCHE: Pardon me?

DURBIN: I think you ought to be in the room because you ought to hear this. You've had singular responsibility for these files. There is a delay in meeting the statutory requirement of disclosure. You were involved in that. I think you ought to be part of this and...

(MULTIPLE SPEAKERS)

BLANCHE: I am definitely part of it, and I have been from day one.

DURBIN: And it will be done within the next 30 days? BLANCHE: I have -- I can keep on repeating myself, but I said it could get done as soon as today. It could have gotten done last week. We remain available to meet with any victim or their representative at any time.

DURBIN: Will you notify the committee when you've done this?

BLANCHE: That would be prohibited by law if they're talking about an ongoing investigation.

DURBIN: I'm asking you if you'll notify the committee that you met with the survivors--

BLANCHE: It depends on what they said. I'm not sure I'm allowed to notify you if there's an ongoing investigation.

DURBIN: Well, you're dancing on the head of a pin here.

(MULTIPLE SPEAKERS)

BLANCHE: I'm not dancing on any pin at all.

DURBIN: You have these survivors who have the courage to come before this committee. They have the courage to tell their terrible stories how they were exploited. Don't you think it's important that we have a prompt response by our government to these survivors?

BLANCHE: Absolutely. And there will be a prompt response. I--

(MULTIPLE SPEAKERS)

BLANCHE: My heart breaks for every survivor...

DURBIN: Well--

BLANCHE: ...every victim of Mr. Epstein. Absolutely. And I would love to prosecute anybody that did any harm to these victims. So, absolutely.

DURBIN: Will you meet with them within the next 30 days? It's the last time I asked a question. You can say yes or no.

BLANCHE: I can keep on answering it the same way. I can meet with them. My staff will meet with them. We have a staff member here today who specializes--

DURBIN: If you can meet with them, will you meet with them?

BLANCHE: I'm not sure what you're looking for me to say. As I said...

DURBIN: Yes...

(MULTIPLE SPEAKERS)

BLANCHE: ...there are -- there are -- there are -- if they're represented by counsel, I'm not allowed to meet with them directly. As you know -- I assure you, the FBI, who are experts in this space, prosecutors who are experts in this space, and me, if necessary, will absolutely meet with them. I promise you this.

DURBIN: I think it's necessary.

BLANCHE: I will say updated and know everything that's happening with any victim that has information about any of -- any other people that work with Epstein that committed any crimes with Epstein. Absolutely.

DURBIN: Well, if you're truly committed to extraordinary transparency and you're willing to meet with these victims, I hope you will do it immediately or we're going to hold you to it.

I want to ask you about the immunity provisions that you signed relative to the responsibility and liability of the President and his family and their businesses when it comes to tax audits.

Would you like to explain how we can give to the President and his family and businesses exemptions from complying with the tax laws of the United States?

[10:05:00]

BLANCHE: It's not an exemption to comply with the tax laws of the United States. As part of the settlement, it was an agreement that any past audits would be -- would end.

DURBIN: The United States -- your signature. The United States releases, waves, acquits, and forever discharges each of the plaintiffs when it comes to tax liability. That's how it reads. It's pretty sweeping. You don't believe that is a discharge forever from liability?

BLANCHE: Of past -- of any past filings. Yes.

DURBIN: All right. It is. How do you explain that to -- the American people, everyone in this room, all of us on this side, we have to follow the tax laws of the United States, and if we don't, we can held -- be held responsible for it to the point of even criminal prosecution.

Why did you decide that President Trump and his family and their businesses should be exempt from that same responsibility?

BLANCHE: As part of the settlement between the IRS and President Trump and some of his family, two of his sons and his organization, as is typical when there's a settlement between plaintiffs and the IRS, part of the settlement included release of any past audits.

It does not give any protection to the President, his family, or his organizations for any taxes they file, if they filed it the day after I -- the day of that I signed that agreement or the day after, they have no protection.

DURBIN: No matter what their liability, no matter what their violation of tax law, you signed a document that forever discharged them from any legal responsibility.

BLANCHE: As part of the settlement that we entered into, any past audits were...

(MULTIPLE SPEAKERS)

DURBIN: How often -- how often do you think that's been done in the history of the United States?

BLANCHE: Involving the President of the United States? I'm not sure it's ever been done. But this type of settlement is done regularly.

DURBIN: So you're saying that, when it comes to the President of the United States, his family and businesses have no responsibility under the tax laws for any wrongdoing prior to the signing of this document?

BLANCHE: No, I mean, I didn't say that at all. What I'm saying is that I think President Trump and his family are the first president that had their tax returns illegally taken -- illegally made available to the public. So that is unique to President Trump. Yes. But this type of settlement is not unique to the Department of Justice or the IRS.

DURBIN: It's hard to explain to the American people that no one is above the law when that type of document was signed by you, forever discharging that family and that President from any liability for violating the tax laws.

BLANCHE: Nobody is above the law. And when we enter into settlements like that, we do it with all kinds of people. It's not just President Trump. It doesn't make any of those individuals above the law.

DURBIN: So, let me ask you, since you don't believe anyone should be above the law, about the January 6th rioters pardoned. We've taken a look at some of the people that the President pardoned on his first day in office, the ones who attacked this Capitol. And I'll use the word attack because I was here and I saw what happened. Anyone looking at the videos knows what happened on that day.

Among those who were pardoned by the President are individuals who have gone on to commit serious crimes against innocent victims across the United States. Do you think that blanket pardoned by the President of January 6th rioters was the right thing to do?

BLANCHE: I think that this -- the Constitution gives the President the full power to pardon anybody for any reason he wants. And so, I don't question President Trump's authority or his decision to do so on...

DURBIN: You don't--

BLANCHE: ...January 20th.

DURBIN: You don't question his decision?

BLANCHE: As I said, President Trump, under our Constitution, just like President Biden, has the authority to pardon anybody for any federal crime. And that's something that every president -- that's a privilege every president's afforded and -- including President Biden and President Trump.

DURBIN: Well, I can tell you, he may have had the authority to do it, but I think someone should have grabbed him by the arm and said stop. You can't release all of those rioters.

Some of them actually physically assaulted policemen in the Capitol. Some of them were guilty of crimes -- serious crimes before that day. And for the President to give a blanket pardon to these individuals is something that I don't think you can explain to the American people. You certainly can't explain it to the policemen who almost lost their lives because of these attackers.

I yield, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: Before I go to Senator Cornyn, I'd like to enter in the record for supporting Mr. Blanche's nomination from former Attorney General John Ashcroft, and this is the quote from the letter.

"This rule of law is the best friend of liberty to safeguard this core value. America needs an attorney general exclusively devoted to the rule of law and will honor his oath to the Constitution. Todd Blanche is the right person for that responsibility. His record and credentials undergird my wholehearted support for his nomination."

[10:10:00]

Without objection, that'll be entered into the record. Senator Cornyn.

CORNYN: Good morning, Mr. Blanche. Congratulations on your nomination.

There's a lot to admire about your record or service to our country, and I respect the fact that you want to continue that service as the attorney general.

As I told you in my office, I think the attorney general has the hardest job in Washington, D.C., because you are, at the same time, a member of the President's cabinet subject to dismissal of whatever the President wants for any reason or no reason at all. But then, you will also have a duty as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. And I think it's a very, very difficult balance.

And I want to ask you a little bit about that, particularly in connection with the settlement of the tax case.

There's so much that's unusual about this. First of all, the fact that the tax returns were leaked by a IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, who was appropriately convicted of a crime for doing that. President Trump and his family were definitely victims of a crime there.

But it happened back in 2020, and the lawsuit wasn't brought until 2026. So, with the two-year statute of limitations, it seems to me that that was something I know that was the subject of pleading in the -- in the complaint and attempt to avoid the two-year statute of limitations, but that struck me as unusual.

But let's talk a little bit about the -- about the settlement agreement and the release.

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 happen to have a copy of that in front of you?

BLANCHE: I do not, Senator.

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 4, this settlement agreement can be -- 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 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.

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. But--

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.

Like I -- Senator, what -- and Senator Durbin talked about this, but I have talked extensively with you and other colleagues about potentially codifying, so there's no weaponization fund, which is certainly something that could be done. And I wasn't meaning to insult this body.

But just in response to questions from Senators about whether that could be done, we very much are OK with that.

CORNYN: But just to be clear, the President of the United States, who was a plaintiff in this lawsuit, has not agreed in writing 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 -- a breach of contract lawsuit in the future.

BLANCHE: Well, Senator, the plaintiffs have no power over the fund. The fund was administered solely by the -- 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, 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.

CORNYN: I want to ask you about the release, and I know I'm guilty of what a lot of lawyers are guilty of and having a chart you can't read. But I know you're familiar with this document, which is the release that you signed on May the 19th, 2026.

[10:15:00]

First of all, does this purport to release parties or people who were not parties to the lawsuit?

BLANCHE: No, Senator.

CORNYN: Well, it says here that claims asserted by defendants or any of the plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals, including without limitation, family or others filing jointly or parties, including trust, parent, sister or related companies, affiliates or subsidiaries. They weren't a party to the lawsuit, were they?

BLANCHE: I didn't hear everything you just said, Senator, but the only parties that were -- that had any release as respect to any potential audits, even if they existed, were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

CORNYN: Did you -- did you talk to the president about the settlement? He originally sued for $10 billion and settled for an apology and this weaponization fund, and then the release of future liability for tax audits. Did you discuss it with him?

BLANCHE: No, I did not. He had outside counsel. I did not discuss it with his outside counsel, either. It was done by other people in the office.

CORNYN: And this lawsuit, this was a lawsuit brought...

BLANCHE: Can I qualify that?

CORNYN: Sure.

BLANCHE: After when we determined not to move forward, as the president has said, that's the only time that he and I had any conversations about this at all was after when it was dead, when we said we're not moving forward.

CORNYN: And this lawsuit was brought against the IRS and Treasury, yet this release purports to apply to defendants or other agencies or departments. So, does this release apply to, let's say, an investigation by the Security and Exchange Commission or some other federal agency?

BLANCHE: No, that's the standard language that we use when we enter into settlements between plaintiffs and the IRS. But no, it doesn't bind. It's issued by me because statutes require and authorize me to do that, as opposed to other cabinet members. And in this case, it binds only the IRS and, by extension, the Treasury.

CORNYN: Well, I hear what you're saying, but I certainly don't read that in the -- in the agreement. But let me turn, since I only have a few minutes left.

Senator Grassley raised the issue of the mifepristone lawsuit. And just to be clear, you understand the difference between the morning- after pill and mifepristone, don't you?

BLANCHE: Yes.

CORNYN: And so, mifepristone is a chemical abortion that can be administered up to 10 weeks of gestation. The length of gestation should be, according to the medical literature, confirmed by ultrasound or clinical assessment by a healthcare provider. And it's generally safe and effective, according to the literature, when used under medical guidance.

But the problem is that President Biden's administration changed the Trump policy and allowed the administration of this abortion, chemical abortion drug, without any medical guidance whatsoever.

And as you know, I've written a letter, Senator Tillis and I sent a letter yesterday. And what I would appreciate, I understand you can't necessarily talk too much about your litigation strategy in the case of Louisiana against FDA, but I would appreciate it if you would respond to this letter for the record about the intentions of the administration.

If President Trump is the most pro-life president, this ought to be a pretty easy call because women are hurt as a result of side effects, heavy bleeding, prolonged potentially infection or sepsis, incomplete abortion, other complications when this is being sold through the mail or through online prescription. Will you do that for me?

BLANCHE: Yes, Senator, I will.

CORNYN: Finally, let me just go back to the, in the 50 seconds I have, go back to this release. This purports to release lawfare or weaponization -- and/or weaponization. Those aren't legal terms of art, are they?

BLANCHE: I think they are just legal terms of art. They're not -- there's not...

CORNYN: Have they been defined in any case or any statute?

BLANCHE: Not that I'm aware of, no.

CORNYN: So, they're not a legal term of art? BLANCHE: Well, I think that they -- the terms have been 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.

[10:20:00]

CORNYN: So, we don't know what that covers?

BLANCHE: Well, I think it depends on the circumstances of the facts presented as to whether it covers. As to what it covers, sorry.

CORNYN: Thank you. My time is up.

GRASSLEY: Senator Klobuchar?

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Blanche, after both the assassination of Melissa Hortman, our former Speaker of the House, and after the Annunciation school shooting in which 20 people were gunned down through stained glass windows, federal law enforcement, as you and I discussed in my office a few weeks ago, worked cooperatively with state and local.

And we also know that they've worked together on the important work going on in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota with regard to fraud and the ongoing fraud investigation. And I know we have your commitment to continue giving resources for that investigation. Is that correct?

BLANCHE: Yes, absolutely. Yes.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. So, we also discussed my concern about the lack of cooperation we saw after the horrific killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, with the federal government refusing to cooperate with state law enforcement for months, blocking Minnesota investigators from accessing the scene of Alex's death, even though they had a judicial warrant.

They also failed to secure, according to news reports, failed to secure and process the scene, failed to process Renee Good's car for evidence.

When we met a few weeks ago at length, I asked you to ensure full cooperation. And I appreciated that the department shared evidence with state investigators early this week. Will you commit to continued information sharing between federal and state investigators in these cases, as well as with regard to the recent shootings in Texas and Maine?

BLANCHE: I expect that these investigations should be run as every investigation of similar kinds. And so that necessarily includes working with state and locals in the appropriate way.

I think that the definition of full cooperation can be disputed, but I very much expect that whether it's the inspector general or the U.S. Attorney's Office or the FBI, or whosoever on the federal side of the investigation, where appropriate to work with state and locals.

I think a lot of the news reporting that you referenced is actually not accurate with what has been happening since the unfortunate events some several months ago.

KLOBUCHAR: OK. But that aside, we've seen these recent shootings in Maine and the reactions of the communities understandably concerned, as well as Texas.

And I think that this is -- people are going to want accountability in these cases. And one of the things that doesn't get as much attention is the non-death cases. The Hmong elder pulled out of his house in Minnesota in his underwear and Crocs in 10 below zero weather.

And as the nation's chief law enforcement official, do you agree that it is unacceptable for federal agents to forcibly enter someone's home without a warrant and drag them onto the street without even checking that they have the right person?

BLANCHE: Well it depends on the circumstances as you just as you know. I mean, yes, obviously, law enforcement agents need a warrant to enter a house except for limited exceptions to that.

So, yes, we very much believe in the constitutional protections afforded American citizens. The same protections are not afforded people who are here illegally, so it's not a black-and-white answer where I can say yes or no. But, yes, I very much expect the law to be followed by our law enforcement agents.

KLOBUCHAR: So, since the Civil War along those lines, federal law has made it clear that the president does not have the authority to deploy armed federal officials to election sites. Will you commit to following clear federal law and not deploying federal agents to polling locations?

BLANCHE: I will commit to following the law, Senator. Of course, yes.

KLOBUCHAR: Does that include not deploying federal agents to polling places?

BLANCHE: I will absolutely follow the law no matter what it includes, so yes.

KLOBUCHAR: Do you understand why voters, U.S. citizens, are concerned about armed agents at polling places?

BLANCHE: I'm not aware of armed agents being at polling places.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you.

BLANCHE: So, I don't -- I'm not aware of that concern. But I will tell you we will follow the law, Senator.

KLOBUCHAR: All right. The DOJ has carried out a campaign to push states to turn over voters' sensitive and private data to the administration. Thirty states including Republican-led states like Georgia and West Virginia have refused.

[10:25:00]

In doing so, the West Virginian Republican Secretary of State said, quote, "I will not break the law, give up our state's rights, or compromise the privacy of our citizens."

Fifteen federal courts in decisions from Democratic and Republican- appointed judges have all found that these actions to force the states to turn over this data to -- is unlawful. Could you discuss how cutting off anti-terrorism funding to states that refuse something that 15 federal courts have found to be illegal enhances our national security?

BLANCHE: So, those cases are still being litigated, so I can't talk specifically about the cases that you mentioned. But, overall, what I will say, Senator, is that election integrity is extraordinarily important to this administration. It's important to this body.

And so to the extent that the work that we're doing is to make sure that we have fair and honest elections. That the only people voting are the people who are eligible to vote and that they're only voting once. That's important.

KLOBUCHAR: If secure election is important, how does stopping the long-standing practice of critical information sharing and scenario planning between the DOJ, other federal agencies, and state and local election officials promote election security? Because we have been -- we have heard from our own Secretary of State that Steve Simon, that these standard briefings trainings have not happened.

BLANCHE: We're not doing that. So, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

KLOBUCHAR: OK.

BLANCHE: But I'm happy to follow up with your office about that.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. I appreciate that. Appreciate that. So, you and I talked about some of the antitrust concerns I have, the independence of the department. I was very concerned by the department's week settlement of the monopolization suit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster.

Do you believe that this settlement was good for consumers? And if so, then why didn't -- there was another case, of course, that the state attorney general's brought that it's going to result in much better protections for consumers. Why didn't the DOJ join them, stay in that suit?

BLANCHE: I share your concerns. And, yes, I do believe that settlement was good for consumers. We got a -- the American people got a lot out of that settlement with Live Nation.

And you talk about another case that's separate. That's ongoing litigation that could potentially take years to resolve. And so, when we make a decision as a department to settle a case, we are only thinking about the American consumer, and making sure that we're complying not only with the laws, but with what's right for Americans.

KLOBUCHAR: Did the White House have any involvement in that decision?

BLANCHE: In the decision regarding which case?

KLOBUCHAR: To settle the Ticketmaster case.

BLANCHE: We work at times closely with the White House Counsel on certain issues. I am sure that I wasn't directly part of discussions, so I can't speak to that. But I'm mostly not saying that we're not part of it.

KLOBUCHAR: So, OK. Are you concerned that former Republican Principal, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford, who has appeared before this committee as a Republican witness in the past, has said that in your department antitrust cases are being resolved based on political connections, not the legal merits?

BLANCHE: No. His words don't concern me because they're not true.

KLOBUCHAR: Well, a lot of us disagree on that front. So, I want to turn to some, sort of, number of issues involving security. So, in the wake of the shooting last year, Annunciation Catholic School was approved to receive funding through the Office for Victims of Crime for mental health and other support services.

And I appreciate that the department has worked closely with the Annunciation community on this issue. But the delays in the release of these funds are creating budget concerns. Could you commit to work with me on getting those funds to the school?

BLANCHE: Yes, absolutely.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. The president's most recent budget reduces COPS Office funding by nearly $500 million, eliminates the STOP School Violence Program that I championed with Senator Hatch. He was the lead on it. Are you concerned that cutting this funding will impact school safety?

BLANCHE: No. We have -- we have -- I understand the question. I fully expect that the grants that, ultimately, are included in the budget that's passed will make sure that we're providing appropriate funds to our communities so that they can continue their good work.

KLOBUCHAR: I have concerns about, and I've heard this from several law enforcement and domestic violence groups, about the DOJ plan to consolidate the COPS program, HIDTA program, Office on Violence Against Women.

[10:30:00]