Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Todd Blanche Faces Confirmation Hearing. Aired 10:30a-11a ET

Aired July 15, 2026 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): I have concerns about -- and I've heard this from several law enforcement and domestic violence groups -- about the DOJ plan to consolidate the Pops with Cops program, HIDTA program, Office and Violence Against Women.

And why do you think this will be helpful? Because we believe that they have very different functions.

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I agree with you. That's not what we're doing. There will still be three separate functions.

What we're doing is consolidating above them to one group, so that the application process is smoother and easier for grantees to do their work, and also so that internally some of the bureaucracy that was involved in having three separate bureaucratic streams doing the same work, even though, you're right, the underlying programs serve different functions, was not efficient.

So we're making that efficient.

KLOBUCHAR: And I will follow up with you with some of the domestic violence grants. And I also just want to mention the continued enforcement under the TAKE IT DOWN Act that Senator Cruz and I passed, and how important that is going forward.

BLANCHE: Thank you, Senator, yes.

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA): Before I go to Senator Kennedy, I'd like to...

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right, we're going to take a quick break, a very quick break, resume our special coverage of this very important Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, who's now up before the committee potentially to become the permanent attorney general if confirmed by the committee and then the full Senate.

We will stay at top of this story. Much more right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:35:48]

BLITZER: The questioning is continuing right now of the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, who's before the committee because the president wants him to become the permanent new attorney general of the United States.

Let's listen in.

BLANCHE: It's because of the Epstein Transparency Act. There are federal laws that prohibit the release of case files.

And the Epstein Transparency Act was very explicit and specific about what could be and should be released.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Other than to himself -- well, first, we can agree, can we not, that Mr. Epstein was a pig?

BLANCHE: Yes.

KENNEDY: Other than to himself, who, if anyone else, did Mr. Epstein traffic young women to?

BLANCHE: 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, we did not identify evidence.

And by we, I mean career prosecutors, not me, not my leadership, but career prosecutors in New York and career prosecutors in Florida who worked this case hard did identify other participants, some of whom, as has been discussed, were also victims themselves of Mr. Epstein.

But we did not have evidence as of now of other men who were -- that were trafficked -- 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 that the FBI gathered and that the Department of Justice gathered, and that's the body of work that we have to work with, which is why I said earlier, if there's anybody out there, a victim or otherwise, that has information, I beg them to come forward.

KENNEDY: OK.

Did Jack Smith read my e-mails?

BLANCHE: I'm not sure, Senator. I don't know.

KENNEDY: Would you check for me?

BLANCHE: We will check, Senator, yes.

KENNEDY: I think he read Senator Grassley's e-mails. How did he -- how can someone at the Department of Justice get Senator Grassley's e- mails without probable cause?

BLANCHE: There are checks in place that should make it extraordinarily difficult for a prosecutor to collect and review a senator's e-mails or a congressman's e-mails or a lawyer's e-mails, or are other folks that have privilege protections associated with their communications, and those checks and balances should always be used. KENNEDY: But Mr. Smith just ignored them?

BLANCHE: I cannot speak for Mr. Smith, Senator.

KENNEDY: Would you check for me first if he read my e-mails?

BLANCHE: We will check.

KENNEDY: And, number two, how he got them. And, number three, I don't mean to single out my friend Senator Grassley, but what e-mails did he get of Senator Grassley?

And, I mean, were they -- what were they limited to, if at all? Did he get e-mails from Senator Grassley talking about his corn harvest and all that? And who did he share them with? Do you know if Mr. Smith shared my e-mails with Attorney General Garland?

BLANCHE: I do not know.

KENNEDY: Can you check for me?

BLANCHE: We are investigating that, Senator, yes.

KENNEDY: Yes, I'd kind of like to know all that.

Now, Mayor Lori Lightfoot sent us, she sent the world a letter suggesting that we should not confirm you as attorney general. Who is Mayor Lori Lightfoot, just for the record?

[10:40:00]

BLANCHE: So she's the former mayor of Chicago. I believe she had a brief stint in the Department of Justice prior to her political life.

KENNEDY: Right.

And you had some conflicts with her.

BLANCHE: I do not believe she supports our administration's efforts making America safe again.

KENNEDY: OK,right. She thinks cops are a bigger problem than criminals. Would that be fair assessment?

BLANCHE: She definitely -- her public rhetoric is not something that either myself or this administration supports, which is to always back our law enforcement.

KENNEDY: She thinks, if a cop shoots a criminal, it's automatically the cop's fault, but if a criminal shoots a cop, it's automatically the gun's fault. Would that be a fair assessment of the mayor's position?

BLANCHE: Her public statement suggests that.

KENNEDY: OK. Would you put her even in charge of a ham sandwich?

BLANCHE: I don't believe she should be any part of this administration.

KENNEDY: Well, the people in Chicago apparently agreed, I think. She ran for re-election and got 16 percent of the vote. Is that right? Do you recall?

BLANCHE: I'm not sure what percentage she got, Senator.

KENNEDY: OK.

Tell me a little bit. One of the things that, under your authority, the Department has concentrated on, which I agree with, in addition to prosecuting crime, is the prosecuting prosecution of white-collar crime, fraud.

Tell me a little bit about that.

BLANCHE: We -- it's incredible since COVID the absolute thievery that's happened from the fisc by people in this country. And so we have focused tremendous amount of efforts, not only in the new division, but at every U.S. attorney's office, with every inspector general and their offices, the FBI, DHS, and HSI, to just root out this fraud.

You have examples of rampant -- of individuals just stealing, so setting up entire centers for autism when there are no patients, when there is no center, and taking millions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayers' money.

And so we are very focused on that. We have already -- like I said earlier, billions and billions, we have already collected in just the past couple of months. That effort is going to go forward for as long as I am in the position that I am in now, no matter whether I am confirmed or not.

And it's extraordinarily important to every American that this doesn't happen, because we are not talking about whether someone agrees or disagrees with a policy. It's just outright theft by individuals. And, unfortunately, many state governments, if they didn't absolutely know what was happening and just encourage it, they certainly stood idly by while it was happening, which is also a problem.

KENNEDY: OK. Don't forget to check on my e-mails for me.

BLANCHE: Senator, yes.

KENNEDY: Thank you.

GRASSLEY: Senator Whitehouse.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Good morning, Mr. Blanche.

BLANCHE: Good morning. WHITEHOUSE: Why won't you tell us what became of the $50,000 in

confidential money that the FBI reported that it gave to Tom Homan?

BLANCHE: I'm not aware of what you are speaking about. To the extent that there have been public reporting about an investigation, I know nothing about it.

WHITEHOUSE: Well, the public reporting is that the FBI reported giving $50,000 in the nature of a bribe to Tom Homan, 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? Because we have been asking it for a long time now.

Your department certainly knows what is happening.

BLANCHE: I'm not aware that that's true.

WHITEHOUSE: Well, take a look at it, and it's publicly reported, and the FBI reported it, and you should answer the question.

That's not the only one. Here is a list of unanswered questions that I have just asked. I don't know how it is that the chairman thinks that you have cooperated with the committee or that you have been transparent with the committee. That is not my experience.

You said earlier that you welcome our questions. Great. Answer our questions. That's the real point. Where we have failed to get answers to our oversight questions, we have actually had to revert to the Freedom of Information Act, the general law of government transparency, to try to get answers from the Department of Justice.

Here is how we did. Not well.

[10:45:00]

We have this stack of questions that you haven't answered in the nature of oversight. We have this stack of FOIA requests that you haven't answered. And I think it's important for us to believe that you actually take seriously your constitutional oversight responsibilities in order to confirm you, that you actually take seriously your obligations to this committee, irrespective of party, majority or minority, in order to confirm you.

So I will ask before we get to a vote on this that you take a look at these and get us answers. Where we have had answers, Mr. Blanche, they have not been informative. They have been blow-offs.

So let's move on to Trump versus IRS. Our research indicates that senior DOJ officials have never in the history of the Department before faced a judicial inquiry into a fraud on the court participated in by the Department of Justice.

That was the inquiry opened in Florida. The question about fraud on the court committed by the Department of Justice remains open in the judge's decision. Here's what she did find. She found that the Department of Justice colluded with the Trump

plaintiffs, that the Department of Justice violated DOJ policies in that collusion, that department attorneys were derelict in their responsibilities as DOJ attorneys, that the department failed to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States of America, its true client.

And, as I said, the fraud on the court question remains open, an unprecedented allegation about the department. As a result of that, the order was transmitted to the New York State Bar for potential disciplinary proceedings.

I would like to ask, in addition, since this is new news -- the decision was, what, two days ago -- I would like to ask that you say to us that you will be willing to provide all of the documents and communications between the Department of Justice and the Trump plaintiffs in that matter.

BLANCHE: I'm not aware of any communications. I didn't have any. So if you put a request in, we will look at it. I mean, obviously, that's active, continued litigation in the Southern District of Florida. So it depends on...

WHITEHOUSE: Explain how it is active, continued litigation in the district of Florida.

BLANCHE: Well, there's been several indications that the parties of -- I never answered notice of appearance, but that the parties intend to appeal the judge's Monday 56-page decision.

WHITEHOUSE: Well, it'll be interesting. Do you intend to appeal, the Department of Justice?

BLANCHE: We weren't really even part of that decision. So, to the extent there's something that we can appeal, I very vigorously will encourage the department to do so.

WHITEHOUSE: 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 amici, filed 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. Blanche, deafening.

And it strikes me that the stratagem 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. Blanche, 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 sinking ship, this seems to be the most troubled Department of Justice in history.

[10:50:18]

Here are some of the misconduct findings against your U.S. attorneys. And if 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 U.S. 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 mean a lot coming from a judge about a government argument, usually enjoying the presumption of regularity. We need answers. I need you to be able to tell me that this kind of misconduct is going to stop if you're confirmed as attorney general. Can you say that?

BLANCHE: The Department of Justice works hard and the prosecutors work hard every day. And I appreciate the handpicked words that you have behind you right now, but that's not reflective of the 100,000 indictments and informations that have been filed to do the work that I talked about earlier today.

And so while cherry-picking a few isolated words from district court or magistrate judges in certain districts is something that you are entitled to do, it's absolutely false to suggest that this Department of Justice is not executing as we should in doing the right thing every single day.

WHITEHOUSE: I will tell you that you are wrong, that, in the history of the Department, this kind of criticism by federal judges is unprecedented, and it comes from judges of every different political persuasion.

Let me ask about the FBI. How long do you intend to put up with that Kash Patel character? Are you good with his airplane jaunts? Are you confident he's not drinking on the job? Are you sure none of his travel is a pretext for vacation activities like snorkeling, Olympics and visiting girlfriends?

Are you sure he knows what he is doing? Do you vouch for him? Are you willing to look at whether he lied to this committee?

BLANCHE: That's an extraordinarily obnoxious question, Senator. And I have full faith in Director Patel and the work that he is doing every day.

WHITEHOUSE: Great. You get to own that.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITEHOUSE: One last thing, if I may. You have refused to exclude January 6 rioters from your anti-

weaponization fund. You have refused to put in writing that the slush fund is dead. Indeed, you signaled to allies that payouts are still on track. You have vacated seditious conspiracy convictions against members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.

You hired January 6 rioter Jared Wise, who had urged the mob to kill police officers. You scrubbed press releases about January 6 prosecutions and called the releases partisan propaganda. You denied that Trump encouraged any violence on January 6. You have cleaned house of every attorney who worked on a case related to Trump, and you have bragged that bringing justice for violent rioters meant that every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted.

I hope that our colleagues who are concerned about what happened on January 6 take that into account.

Thank you.

GRASSLEY: Would you like to respond?

BLANCHE: I would.

Almost everything the senator just said -- and he's protected. He's allowed to lie, but almost everything he just said was absolutely false, OK, starting with the fact that I have never, I have never said that any sort of violence against law enforcement is appropriate.

I have never said that publicly. I have never said that in a speech, and I certainly do not believe it. I did not hire the person referenced. And that's -- that is, again, something that just happens not to be true.

When I talk about what happened with the January -- the convicted January 6 defendants, I talk about what President Trump did. He has the absolute right to pardon anybody for any reason he sees fit, and every one of them got pardoned or commuted. I am not celebrating that. It is a fact.

And the fact that my department had to take action in response to those pardons by dismissing some cases is exactly what I have to do under the law, and it's what I did. So that -- the narrative that the senator just suggested and put on me as something I believe is absolutely not true.

WHITEHOUSE: Since he accused me of lying personally, Mr. Chairman, let me ask that I put this series of concerns into a question for the record, and that you, under oath, one by one, tell me where there's a lie.

[10:55:06]

BLANCHE: I'm happy to do that.

WHITEHOUSE: OK? We will get that to you.

BLANCHE: I'm happy to do that, absolutely.

GRASSLEY: Before I go to Senator Blackburn, since oversight was brought up and responsiveness to -- of your department, I'd like to speak about how it was with the Biden Justice Department's nonresponsiveness to my oversight letters.

If the Biden Justice Department would have been remotely responsible...

BLITZER: All right, we're going to take another very, very quick break, resume our special coverage of this important Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)