Latest / Bloomberg Law / Todd Blanche Faces Skeptical Senators

Transcript

Todd Blanche Faces Skeptical Senators · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: Todd Blanche came under immediate fire at his confirmation hearing
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: to become the next attorney general. President Trump's former personal
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: lawyer was repeatedly asked about his close relationship with Trump,
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: and his response is didn't seem to answer the concerns
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: about how independent the Justice Department would be under his leadership.
• 0:30
  Speaker 3: The Department of Justice, like every single department in the executive,
• 0:34
  Speaker 3: is part of the executive. I mean Article two of
• 0:36
  Speaker 3: the Constitution gives the power of the executive to President Trump.
• 0:41
  Speaker 3: So we certainly operate with integrity. We certainly operate in
• 0:45
  Speaker 3: the single mindset to serve the American people and do
• 0:47
  Speaker 3: the right thing. But I am a member. If confirmed,
• 0:52
  Speaker 3: I will be a member of the cabinet.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: And then there was the verbal slip when Republican Senator
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: John Kennedy asked him about his friend with Trump.
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: Are you in President Trump friends?
• 1:04
  Speaker 3: I'm his lawyer, was his lawyer, and now I'm the
• 1:07
  Speaker 3: deputy Attorney general.
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: But perhaps there were more questions about the one point
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: eight billion dollar anti Weaponization Fund than any other topic.
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: Despite Blanche insisting that the fund to compensate allies of
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: Trump was not moving forward. Senators, including Republican John Cornyn,
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: appeared skeptical because the Trump administration has yet to commit
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: in writing that the fund is dead and the settlement
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: agreement could conceivably be resurrected.
• 1:38
  Speaker 4: And is a settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by
• 1:41
  Speaker 4: the parties?
• 1:44
  Speaker 3: Well, yes, it's an enforceable document. So I suppose if
• 1:47
  Speaker 3: President Trump's council sought to enforce it that they potentially could.
• 1:54
  Speaker 4: Including the weaponization fund.
• 1:56
  Speaker 3: Well, they can try to enforce it.
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: Blanche needs the support of all the Republicans on the
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: Judiciary Committee to move his nomination forward. Joining me is
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: constitutional law expert David Souper, a professor at Georgetown Law. David,
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: what's your general impression of how Blanche did so far?
• 2:15
  Speaker 4: I mean, he's a smart lawyer. There are some lawyers
• 2:18
  Speaker 4: in Trump's orbit who are completely incompetent. Blanche is certainly
• 2:22
  Speaker 4: not one of those, and he's I think, fairly quick
• 2:26
  Speaker 4: on his feet. But he's got a record that's very
• 2:31
  Speaker 4: difficult to defend, and he's got a boss who won't
• 2:35
  Speaker 4: let him promise to do things that any reasonable Attorney
• 2:39
  Speaker 4: General would do. So he's been in a box several times.
• 2:44
  Speaker 4: Some of the Democrats have done a pretty good job
• 2:47
  Speaker 4: of pinning him down, some of them have done a
• 2:52
  Speaker 4: less good job of pinning him down, and some of
• 2:54
  Speaker 4: them have just talked.
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: There are a lot of questions about whether Blanche would
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: be independent from President Trump, and in response to a
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: question from Democratic Senator Chris Coons, Blanche basically said that
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: the Justice Department is part of the executive branch. If confirmed,
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: he'll be part of the cabinet and we all serve
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: at the pleasure of the president. I don't know that
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: he ever really asserted independence from the president.
• 3:23
  Speaker 4: Well, he really didn't. I mean, at one point he
• 3:26
  Speaker 4: said that we will act with integrity. At another point
• 3:30
  Speaker 4: he made the predictable statement that, of course, if he
• 3:34
  Speaker 4: was asked to do something illegal, he would resign, but
• 3:37
  Speaker 4: that would never happen with this president. But he is
• 3:42
  Speaker 4: part of a Justice Department that is asserting a historically
• 3:48
  Speaker 4: broad reading of presidential powers, which includes no independence for
• 3:53
  Speaker 4: anybody in the executive branch, himself included. So he can't
• 3:58
  Speaker 4: claim to be independence without having that used against his
• 4:02
  Speaker 4: own lawyers when they're asserting their unified executive theory.
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: So everyone knew that a big point was going to
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: be the so called Anti Weaponization Fund. He said several
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: times the fund is dead, but Republican Senator John Cornyn,
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: who's a key vote, pinned him down, and Blanche admitted
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: that the settlement agreement is a contract and it could
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: conceivably be resurrected.
• 4:29
  Speaker 4: That leads me to believe that the President is not
• 4:32
  Speaker 4: comfortable with the Weaponization Fund being dead, because mister Blanche
• 4:37
  Speaker 4: could have gotten himself out of a lot of trouble
• 4:41
  Speaker 4: by agreeing to provide a letter declaring that and he
• 4:46
  Speaker 4: wouldn't do it. And when he was pressed on whether
• 4:51
  Speaker 4: they could sue for breach of contract, he more or
• 4:57
  Speaker 4: less acknowledged that they could and didn't really have much
• 5:01
  Speaker 4: of an answer to that. So I think President Trump
• 5:05
  Speaker 4: has made a firm decision that he wants to help
• 5:09
  Speaker 4: the January sixth rioters, and mister Blanche is trying to
• 5:13
  Speaker 4: avoid saying anything that will burn bridges that he knows
• 5:18
  Speaker 4: he's going to have to cross.
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: A federal judge had asked for a sworn statement from
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: Blanche that the fund was really did and he refused
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: to submit that. His explanation was that there's a long
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: standing precedent that judges can't ask cabinet secretaries or people
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: like me to put in declarations.
• 5:38
  Speaker 4: Is that true, not in the form that he is suggesting. Typically,
• 5:44
  Speaker 4: decisions in administrative agencies are made well below the cabinet member,
• 5:48
  Speaker 4: and it's not appropriate to ask a cabinet member to
• 5:53
  Speaker 4: put in declaration about a decision where they weren't in
• 5:57
  Speaker 4: the room. And very commonly there is someone else who's
• 6:01
  Speaker 4: more important, who was in the room, and you should
• 6:04
  Speaker 4: get the statement from them. But where as here you
• 6:08
  Speaker 4: have the very top officials in the Justice Department signing
• 6:12
  Speaker 4: this thing, it's entirely appropriate to ask why they did
• 6:16
  Speaker 4: it and ask them to explain what appears to be
• 6:20
  Speaker 4: highly unethical conduct. I would just add that we have
• 6:23
  Speaker 4: seen in this administration more examples of papers that are
• 6:28
  Speaker 4: only signed by top officials than I believe we've ever
• 6:33
  Speaker 4: seen before. When I litigated against the Justice Department, you
• 6:37
  Speaker 4: never even saw the Attorney General or the deputy Attorney General,
• 6:41
  Speaker 4: or even usually the assistant Attorney general's name. You would
• 6:44
  Speaker 4: see various names of lower officials typed and then an
• 6:47
  Speaker 4: actual signature by aligne DOJ lawyer. And what we're seeing
• 6:52
  Speaker 4: now again and again is mister Branch, mister Woodward, and
• 6:56
  Speaker 4: mister bow other senior Justice Department official being the only
• 7:01
  Speaker 4: one to sign papers. So who was a judge to
• 7:04
  Speaker 4: ask something from if it is explicitly being handled by
• 7:08
  Speaker 4: the senior lawyers.
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: And on Monday, a Florida federal judge wrote a scathing
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: opinion saying that Blanche shouldn't have been representing Trump in
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: settling his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, that it
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: raised conflict of interest concerns because he was Trump's former
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: defense attorney, and the judge ordered a copy of her
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: decision to be sent to the State Bar of New York,
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: where Blanche is licensed to practice law. When he was
• 7:38
  Speaker 2: confronted with that, Blanche said, well, that's not a referral.
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: But it is in essence a referral, isn't it.
• 7:46
  Speaker 4: That's a referral. I'm quite convinced that New York State
• 7:50
  Speaker 4: Bar can spring for a online search and get a
• 7:53
  Speaker 4: copy of the opinion on their own. The fact that
• 7:56
  Speaker 4: she is sending it to them suggests that she independently
• 7:59
  Speaker 4: believes there's material in there that they ought to see,
• 8:02
  Speaker 4: and given how scathing it is, that's obviously correct.
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: There are also multiple bar complaints filed in New York,
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: one by hundreds of former judges that alleged serious ethical breaches,
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: abuses of power, conflicts of interest, etc. Misconduct during his
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: tenure as acting Attorney General. So those are at the
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: initial stage. Are they important in considering his nomination?
• 8:32
  Speaker 4: The Attorney General is the highest law enforcement official in
• 8:36
  Speaker 4: the country, has many responsibilities to the American people, and
• 8:40
  Speaker 4: certainly one of them is to set a standard for
• 8:43
  Speaker 4: ethical behavior. Now, anyone can file a complaint, and the
• 8:48
  Speaker 4: mere fact that a complaint has been filed should not
• 8:51
  Speaker 4: be pivotal. But the fact that some fairly serious people
• 8:55
  Speaker 4: whose reputations matter and who's value presumably their reputations, have
• 9:03
  Speaker 4: filed complaints should give us cause, and I would think
• 9:06
  Speaker 4: the committee should get to the bottom of them. If
• 9:08
  Speaker 4: mister Blanch has not done anything on fl complaint, shouldn't
• 9:11
  Speaker 4: stand in his way. But there's certainly are reasons to
• 9:15
  Speaker 4: question some things that have happened. I will also note
• 9:19
  Speaker 4: that you made the same slip that mister Blanche did,
• 9:24
  Speaker 4: and you talked about him representing President Trump, and it's
• 9:29
  Speaker 4: a little confusing in that context because both sides are
• 9:32
  Speaker 4: working for President Trump, so if he's involved in the
• 9:36
  Speaker 4: case at all, he's representing President Trump on one way
• 9:39
  Speaker 4: or the other.
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: I stand corrected. I believe it was Democratic Center Sheldon
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: white House who pointed out that the Justice Department filed
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: no pleadings in that Florida case to try to make
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: sure the Department didn't come under the authority of that court.
• 9:57
  Speaker 4: That's something where I was sorry there wasn't more follow
• 10:01
  Speaker 4: up because mister Blanche said they didn't give us a
• 10:06
  Speaker 4: chance to respond. And yet the judge explained very carefully
• 10:12
  Speaker 4: what she was considering, what the issues were, and took
• 10:16
  Speaker 4: a very long time to write her opinion. The Justice
• 10:19
  Speaker 4: Department had a very long time to submit things. As
• 10:22
  Speaker 4: a lawyer, when i have something to say to the court,
• 10:26
  Speaker 4: unless I've been explicitly ordered not to, I file papers.
• 10:29
  Speaker 4: And I've certainly seen the Justice Department filed papers numerous
• 10:33
  Speaker 4: times without being invited to do so. If they felt
• 10:36
  Speaker 4: their behavior was ethical, they had all the time in
• 10:39
  Speaker 4: the world to explain to the judge through a declaration
• 10:43
  Speaker 4: or a brief why that was. And if the Justice
• 10:46
  Speaker 4: Department didn't defend their behavior. I can only conclude that
• 10:50
  Speaker 4: that's because their behavior was not defensible and Democratic.
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse grilled Blanche about the current reputation of
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: the Justice Department.
• 11:01
  Speaker 5: Between judges appointed by every president harshly criticizing the department's
• 11:07
  Speaker 5: work in your tenure, grand juries, rejecting indictments, judicial findings
• 11:11
  Speaker 5: of outright misconduct, capable lawyers fleeing the stinking ship. This
• 11:18
  Speaker 5: seems to be the most troubled Department of Justice in history.
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: I've been talking to Georgetown law professor David super David,
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: we've talked before about how federal judges are repeatedly finding
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: fault with the Justice Department and its attorneys. Blanche denied
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: that when he was questioned, but that is true. The
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: Justice Department has lost credibility with a lot of federal judges,
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: and there have been orders that have not been followed,
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: and judges have found a lot of problems. They've found
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: problems with grand jury proceedings. I mean, this Justice Department
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: has I think lost credibility with the judiciary.
• 11:57
  Speaker 4: I think it's unfortunate that this part of the hearing
• 12:01
  Speaker 4: is played so theatrically. I would have loved to see
• 12:05
  Speaker 4: a senator take a list of orders, read from this order,
• 12:11
  Speaker 4: ask mister Blanche, why did your Justice Department do that?
• 12:14
  Speaker 4: Then read from the next order, Why did your Justice
• 12:17
  Speaker 4: Department do that? And show by repeated questions, just how
• 12:23
  Speaker 4: prevalent this is, which is enormous and utterly unprecedented. As
• 12:28
  Speaker 4: someone who is litated against the Justice Department, their lawyers
• 12:31
  Speaker 4: are a total pain in the next But they don't why.
• 12:35
  Speaker 4: They say nasty things, But they don't why, except now
• 12:38
  Speaker 4: they do.
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: Blanche was also pressed on the Justice Department's bungle release
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: of the Epstein files, a process that was beset by problems,
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: including redaction errors that left exposed some nude photos, names,
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: email addresses, an other identifying information of victims. What do
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: you think about Blanche's response to that? He acknowledged that
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: mistakes were made and at one point even apologize to
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: the victims.
• 13:10
  Speaker 4: The questions on Epstein that we've had so far have
• 13:12
  Speaker 4: not been very clever. They've been sometimes bombastic, but not
• 13:17
  Speaker 4: very probing. Even still, even with pretty bad questioning, I
• 13:23
  Speaker 4: was struck by his assertion that he's not allowed to
• 13:28
  Speaker 4: meet with people who have lawyers. The rule is that
• 13:31
  Speaker 4: a lawyer cannot meet with opposing parties who are represented
• 13:37
  Speaker 4: without the permission of the opposing lawyer. But no one
• 13:42
  Speaker 4: is saying that the lawyers for the Epstein victims are
• 13:45
  Speaker 4: unwilling to come to such a meeting or unwilling to
• 13:49
  Speaker 4: allow such a meeting. They've been begging for such a
• 13:51
  Speaker 4: meeting for many, many months. So that was an absurd
• 13:56
  Speaker 4: and not very honest statement. I'm sorry he wasn't pressed
• 13:59
  Speaker 4: on source of this supposed rule, And of course he
• 14:03
  Speaker 4: had no problem meeting with ms Maxwell, who is represented
• 14:07
  Speaker 4: by counsel and an active litigation against DOJ, which the
• 14:11
  Speaker 4: Epstein victims, for the most part, are not, So that
• 14:15
  Speaker 4: was an absurd and dishonest statement. I wish they're being
• 14:19
  Speaker 4: a senator who then better prepared on that.
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: Senator Booker, Democratic Senator Booker from New Jersey did press
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: him on that meeting with Glaine Maxwell, and then suddenly
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: a few days later, she's transferred to a prison camp.
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: Convicted sex offenders are not supposed to be allowed to
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: serve their term in that kind of a prison camp.
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: All of these women have reported their crimes decades ago,
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: but yet you won't meet with them. What you will
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: do is meet with Gleane Maxwell over a year ago.
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: You sat with her, and you publicly said you were
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: seeking the truth. So let's talk about what that two
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: day meeting produced. Interview with miss Maxwell lead to a
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: single additional person being charged, yes or no.
• 15:06
  Speaker 4: No, Senor Booker did get him to state explicitly that
• 15:11
  Speaker 4: he had no involvement in the transfer. I don't particularly
• 15:15
  Speaker 4: believe that. You don't sound like you particularly believe that,
• 15:19
  Speaker 4: But there are lower level people who know the answer
• 15:23
  Speaker 4: to that. And if he lied about that, then he
• 15:26
  Speaker 4: has just opened himself up to a perjury prosecution, and
• 15:29
  Speaker 4: the statute of limitations on that will extend into the
• 15:33
  Speaker 4: next presidential term.
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: He said he didn't discuss clemency with her, He didn't
• 15:38
  Speaker 2: discuss pardons with her.
• 15:41
  Speaker 4: Well, that one I might be willing to believe because
• 15:46
  Speaker 4: the context is so obvious that it probably doesn't need
• 15:49
  Speaker 4: to be discussed. She knows that if she plays along
• 15:54
  Speaker 4: with President Trump's efforts to distance himself from the matter,
• 15:59
  Speaker 4: that something is likely to come along the lines to
• 16:02
  Speaker 4: her later. She probably also knows that promises from Trump
• 16:06
  Speaker 4: officials are not worth the paper they're not written on,
• 16:10
  Speaker 4: So there's no real reason for her to get into that.
• 16:13
  Speaker 4: I probably believe him on that, but I don't think
• 16:16
  Speaker 4: it means very much. The transfer, though, that seems very funny.
• 16:21
  Speaker 4: I wish someone had asked him, how do you think
• 16:24
  Speaker 4: the victims of Jeffrey Epstein feel seeing this person who
• 16:29
  Speaker 4: played such a pivotal role in the destruction of their
• 16:32
  Speaker 4: childhood being treated so well.
• 16:35
  Speaker 2: I question if these hearings really matter. Lately, they seem
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: to be just performative. It seems to be coming down
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: to one Republican Senator, John Cornyan, who said he's not
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: decided yet. It appears that all the Republican senators on
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: the Judiciary Committee at least will fall in line.
• 16:55
  Speaker 4: I think so, and I find that very distressing. There's
• 17:00
  Speaker 4: no question that President Trump will get an attorney general
• 17:03
  Speaker 4: to his liking and an attorney general who will do
• 17:05
  Speaker 4: what he says on a great many things. But to
• 17:09
  Speaker 4: confirm someone as Attorney General who has already been personally
• 17:13
  Speaker 4: involved in so much misconduct seems very unfortunate, and I
• 17:20
  Speaker 4: wish more senators would say you get your person, but
• 17:24
  Speaker 4: not this one.
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: Blench can't afford to lose any Republican votes on the
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: Judiciary Committee. But what about when this goes to the.
• 17:32
  Speaker 4: Floor, he will need to hold all but three Republicans,
• 17:37
  Speaker 4: and I think he can.
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: Do you think Blanch succeeded in sort of keeping the
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: temperature down except when he was questioned by Senator Corey Booker.
• 17:45
  Speaker 4: I was struck with how he kept trying to wriggle
• 17:52
  Speaker 4: out of questions when it would seem that there was
• 17:55
  Speaker 4: a fairly simple way to answer them. Would he agree
• 17:58
  Speaker 4: to meet evasion? Evasion? Evasion? Did ethics approve his dinner
• 18:04
  Speaker 4: with the people whose anti trust investigation he was about
• 18:08
  Speaker 4: to terminate? Evasion? Evasion? Evasion? If he had nothing to hide,
• 18:13
  Speaker 4: why not just say yes to some of these questions?
• 18:18
  Speaker 4: And maybe that comes down to combativeness, but I assume
• 18:24
  Speaker 4: it's because there's more to be said to the story.
• 18:27
  Speaker 2: And what about the questioning by the senators?
• 18:30
  Speaker 4: I do give the Democrats very mixed reviews. They're clearly
• 18:35
  Speaker 4: looking for the sound bites and the film clips. And
• 18:39
  Speaker 4: if you really want to put Blanche in a difficult position,
• 18:44
  Speaker 4: you don't talk over You can talk over him when
• 18:46
  Speaker 4: he's not answering the question, when he changes the subject,
• 18:49
  Speaker 4: but you don't talk over when he's answering the question,
• 18:52
  Speaker 4: and when he evades your question, you ask a follow up.
• 18:56
  Speaker 4: You don't just let that stand. I thought Senator Booker
• 19:00
  Speaker 4: started out well, then he started talking over Blanche. I
• 19:03
  Speaker 4: thought Senator Coons started well and then got too interested
• 19:08
  Speaker 4: in his graphics. I thought Center Bloomenthal scored on some
• 19:12
  Speaker 4: points and let him off easy on some others. I
• 19:15
  Speaker 4: wish that the focus was purely on questions. I'll have
• 19:19
  Speaker 4: time to give speeches later.
• 19:21
  Speaker 2: More to come tomorrow. Thanks so much, David. That's Professor
• 19:25
  Speaker 2: David Super of Georgetown Law. And that's it for this
• 19:28
  Speaker 2: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast.
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
• 19:37
  Speaker 2: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law, and
• 19:42
  Speaker 2: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg