Bulwark Takes - BREAKING: Senate Questions Todd Blanche on Epstein, Slush Fund During Confirmation Hearing

Episode Date: July 15, 2026

Join Sam Stein, Bill Kristol and Will Saletan as they cover the Todd Blanche confirmation hearing live.

Hey, everyone, it's me, Sam Stein, man and Janet at the Bullwark, and I am joined by the one, the only, Senator Peter Welch. No, Bill Crystal, what's going on, man? How are you doing? We are watching the Todd Blanche confirmation hearings right now. You can see it. We're not going to play with audio because we want to talk about what's happened, but we might dip in and out. Bill, we're, I'd say, three-fourth way through this thing. Anything stand out to you at all?

Yeah, but three forth as the way through his testimony, Blanch's testimony today. Then there's some witnesses to our one of whom is an Epstein survivor. That might be more interesting than Todd Blancher's testimony. What stands out to me is that I don't think they've done much damage to him. I'm not sure it's possible to in these hearings, 10 minutes. The witness gets to filibuster a little bit. Blanche is prepared. He knows all the questions basically that are coming.

All the Republicans, half the senators are giving him softballs, basically, with maybe the exception of John Cornyn. And the Democrats all have different points to make. And so they make a point and Blanche sort of answers it. Maybe there's one follow-up. This is not like, I mean, they would have all been better off, in my opinion, but they never do this. To take 10 minutes, focus on one very detail, one thing, focus on the Maxwell meeting, focus on the moving of her, exactly what happened, go through details, read them quotes. Don't sort of paraphrase things, which that allows Blanche to say, well, I don't think that's exactly what the president said or what I said. Right. Not great. Not great.

For those of us who think Blanche should not be a Attorney General, I don't think we made any, we gained any ground today. Do you think? No. I mean, so let's just recap. So Blanche obviously is acting AG. So he's serving in this role. Trump has formally nominated him. Right. And now he's obviously getting his confirmation hearing. There were a couple real issues handing into this hearing among them. And some of them came up. And we'll get to that. The weaponization fund, which was. was what was agreed to as part of some settlement with Trump suing his own government, the IRS. They had this $1.776 billion fund that they were going to give as reparations to the J-Sixers. It also that deal included immunity from IRS auditing for Trump and his family prior to the leaking of his tax returns. That was a big deal, and it did come up. The other big deal was obviously the Epstein files, which Todd Blanche was instrumental in orchestrating what you could

categorizes a cover-up. That was a big deal. And then I guess the other sort of macro deal here is just the weaponization of DOJ writ large. And that gets down to the pardoning. It gets down to the selective prosecutions, things like that. I think my takeaway is your takeaway, which is that when they were given the chance to question Todd Blanche, Democrats kind of were scattershot. They jumped between a couple of these different things. There's a couple of questions about antitrust. There wasn't like sort of a narrative that they kept going back to. Very rarely, if ever, did they reference a colleague's inquiries to, like, expand on that.

And so I don't know if this is an issue of prior coordination. I don't know if this is just everyone wants to get their time in the sun and get their own clip. But it did seem like if they had a game plan, I wasn't quite attuned to what it was. Yeah, no, I agree with that. I mean, I'm not sure they can, they need Republican votes to. to defeat him. I'm not sure the Republican senators

are that'd be moved by some Democratic senators questioning. So that's maybe they're right not to worry about. But then they didn't really focus. It was to take the Epstein, the Maxwell thing, which for me is so amazing. You know, they put out the statement on July 6th, 2025, Justice and FBI, nothing to see here. The stone walling falls apart.

10 days later, I think July 17th, if I'm not mistaken, as the Wall Street Journal's story on the birthday card is about to break, there's a meeting in the Situation Room, at the White House. which the deputy attorney, and it's political people. It's the comms guys and the, you know, the regular people you meet with in the White House

to figure out how do you handle this? This is a bad story for us. And the deputy attorney general of the United States who has law enforcement responsibilities. He's not supposed to be chatting, particularly with the White House comms guy on how to handle this for Trump is there. And indeed, seems for Maggie Haberman

and Jonathan Swan's account to be pretty central to the meeting. And in fact, the upshot of the meeting is that a week later, he flies to Florida to meet with Maxwell, two days. And then a week later, Maxwell's transfer to the thing. the cushy prison. I don't know. I feel like I've said I'm not an expert on this. I'm not a lawyer. I think I said maybe moderately, clearly, I hope, and I didn't practice this or anything. You know, in 30 seconds, what happened? I don't know. Did you? I felt like none of them quite,

I'm not better. They're smart people. They've done this in a million times. I don't do this. I mean, why can't they just say that, you know, and put them on the spot. I don't know. Well, then it gets to the form of questioning, right? Like, you know, yes or no questions are easy to dismissive, right? But if you ask open-ended questions, Like, tell us about what happened in the situation room when you guys were going through those files. Just like walk us through it. And, you know, just see what he says. Let him scorn.

Like, let it. Just leave it a little bit open-ended for him. And I don't mean this literally. And I know this is probably coming out poorly because we're talking about Jeffrey Epstein. But he could hang himself on that answer, right? It did come up. Epstein did come up. I don't want to suggest it didn't.

But remarkably, the question that kind of tripped him up a little bit or at least caused the most damage, I think, again, came from a Republican senator. In this case, it was John Kennedy of Louisiana who asks him about the Epstein trafficking issue and whether there were other people who Epstein trafficked beyond young women or who he trafficked too beyond himself. Let's play that clip for those who didn't miss it. Other than to himself, who, if anyone else, did Mr. Epstein traffic young women to? 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 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, victim or otherwise, that has information. I beg them. So I just, it doesn't, it defies credulity, right? Like, it doesn't really make sense. And also, I don't think that one's going to go over, particularly well, among Trump supporters who have trafficked in the Epstein saga for years.

They're not going to just say, oh, yeah, I guess that's it, K-Shatt. Yeah, I mean, he's the Attorney General of the United States. His job is not to tell us what evidence has been collected. It's to collect evidence if there's a new reason to do so. Other people around countries around the world are going after, you know, seem to be interested in prosecuting people whose activities will come to light. And I think the survivors sitting in the room would be happy to be privately with Todd Blanche. He hasn't done that with them to say, here's how I was trafficked.

I mean, I find the answer kind of amazing, actually. I read about it, but I hadn't been watching at that point. You know, sort of this kind of bland assurance that, well, we don't really know if he trafficked anyone to these people. Really? What was he doing? I mean, that's just ludicrous, right? On the face of it, I think. No, it makes no sense.

And the idea that, well, we haven't discovered it yet. Yeah, it's like you've been at it for over a year. Well, then I'm investigating anything, do you think? Of course. No, no, no, no. No, I mean, all the reporting is that they're not investigating so much as figuring out how to release what they are legally obligated to or the least amount of legally obligated to. Again, though, I think sort of the meta element here is important. It was a Republican senator who caused that. And it was the same senator who caused the other semi-viral clip, this is Kennedy, again, who is probing him on just,

you know how close you to trump i mean this is the big critique you worked for don't trump you was lawyer democrats over here going to tell you that you're just an arm of the president can you dissuade them of this and then todd lynch absolutely steps in it let's watch that are you in president trump friends i'm his lawyer was his lawyer and now i'm the deputy attorney general so i met him as his criminal defense attorney i'm not sure there's very many people who have ever had a criminal defense attorney who calls that person their friend um i now have a well let me put this way are you enemies no we're not enemies at all no have you ever okay that one was a fuck up yeah that should be all over the place the democrats should cut it they

don't need to cut the blanche is not an idiot so he quickly realizes what he said and it just goes off into some, you know, defense lawyers are really, not really easy friends with your clients and trying to get it back to free 2025, right? But of course, he does think of himself as Trump's lawyer. And that's very, and that is a core point, which underlies, as you said, a lot of the particularities of the decisions he's made in terms of prosecutions and pardons and letting people, or he doesn't do the pardons, but defending the pardons, and also a lot of the other stuff that's just as signed off on, all the, the, obviously. to the Sush Fund, right? So Kennedy, in his weird, kind of goofy way, as you say, caused much more

trouble for Blanche than all these Democratic lawyers asking their fine-tuned legal challenges. Let's talk about math here. So Mitch McConnell's out, which means there's 52 senators. The late Senator Lindsey Graham's sister is in, so it stays at 52, which means that it would take three Republicans to vote against Blanche to to Peter his nomination. I guess also the committee is at 11 Republicans, 10 Democrats. So if they can't get a majority in the committee, he doesn't get out of the committee, but I do believe

they can still bring him to the floor, but they would have to then hit a 60 threshold. I don't know the particularities of this. So anyways, there are ways to defeat him. But leaving this, I'm not sure that the math is there for Democrats, right? I'm not sure. I think I've always been doubtful that it was for me if it was about making clear his relationship to Trump, his relationship to the Epstein Files and sort of wrapping that

around their neck, so to speak, both Blanchers and Trumps. Having said that, Cornyn says he's undecided and he's on the committee, so that would be a problem for them. He's the one Republican who seems up for grabs on the committee. Rikowski, I've sort of thought is maybe a likely no vote almost. And Collins is a possible no vote. And she's up there in Maine and they've ICE killed someone there. And she made a big deal of how she called personally.

Mark Wayne Mullen and the head secretary of DHS and got him to stop those auto stops. And then Trump seems to have contradicted. Mullen assured Collins this. And then Trump decided, no, no, we have. Those are very important. to ICE doing his job what Trump's meeting at 7 o'clock this morning. So Collins is really in a bind. I don't know if she'll vote against Blanche,

but I think that vote really can be hung around her neck politically. And the politics of this just for a second. I mean, there are Republican senators on the ballot in competitive states, incumbent senators, who presumably are going to vote for Blanche and the Democrats' job partly, since they do kind of important for them, but for the country, if you agree with their analysis of Blanche's running of justice

and Trump's running of the federal government, It's kind of important for the Democratic Senate to help check a lot of these things in Ohio and even in Florida and in Maine, obviously, and in what I'm now flanking on there. There are two other states that are with Democratic, oh, Alaska with Sullivan and then one other Republican senator who's on the ballot in a very, in a competitive race and make, you know, that could be a pretty, that could be something in the race, I think. Oh, Bill, you're so polyanish. It's unbelievable.

Which way? Good point. I feel like you always find a thread of... Oh, I see. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, well, maybe. I don't know about that one. I will just say the surprise, there was two surprises for me with respect to the questioning.

One was Cornyn. I know he's unencumbered by, you know, the need to win office and all that stuff, and he's a free man. And I feel like to expect him to vote for Blanche. Don't get me wrong. but he did spend his time early, early on, because he is a senior member of this committee, really going after the weaponization fund. So I referenced that up top.

And O'Cornan was just like, okay, you say that it's null and void and put it in writing. Like, well, okay, just put it in writing. Now, they kept going back and forth. And he kept saying, could the president sue again for a violation of this agreement that was cut between it's all interrelated between

him and his own DOJ. Could he sue for this weaponization fund to be brought back into existence? And Plancher's like, I suppose he could, but I don't think it's going to happen. So Cornyn was really probing on that. And it's clear that the weaponization fund

specifically was a deep bother to him. So that was one surprise for me. The other one was Tillis. Tillis is in somewhat similar circumstances to Cornyn. He's not going to be a member of the Senate after in January. he doesn't have any reason to like you know play footsie with maga and he has been vocal about a lot of

his anger with the administration but he spent his time basically telling blanche what a good job he was doing and then admonishing democrats for being hypocrites so he's he seems to me like a firm yes vote those were the big surprises for me yeah tell us his comment i think was you're doing a good job of his hearing right i mean i mean he also probably thinks he's doing a okay job as Attorney General, and I think he's almost certainly a yes vote. It is wonderful. The senators are supposed to be interested in whether the person will do a good job, has not a good job in office.

As you say, he's been Deputy General and now acting, so it's not like you're, it's not a blank slate situation, right? And then what he will do in office. And instead, they're all become like theater critics. Well, you're doing really a good job being kind of clever here, you know? And it could be a little more serious about what actually the Justice Department should be doing and is or isn't doing under the direction. of Todd Blanche, but it's probably too much to ask for.

They talked a little bit about the pardons, which I thought was interesting. And we'll get Lozoyer tomorrow as one of the Democratic witnesses, the ex-parton attorney. And they talked, obviously, about January 6th. Klobuchar pressed him on whether he would send armed officials to the polling conditions. I was a little bit confused by that one because maybe I'm wrong. You correct me from it. It's not really his call, right? like Trump, that'd be Trump and Heggseth potentially, right?

I don't know. I guess the DOJ does have a role there, right? Am I wrong? I'll tell you one thing about the OJ is sort of interesting. I mean, people underestimate how important it is, and I say this is as someone who worked, not just in the White House, but in the education department. So in a way, had the experience of being in another cabinet agency,

a much inferior one, obviously is a smaller and less important when they're just or a defense. It's important though education is. Don't get me wrong. But DOJ is really important because they sign off on the legality of all kinds of things. Someone made a good point to me. the day just a couple days ago just chatting with soon court and and he said you know he's a lawyer he said actually people the Supreme Court's important you know what just is important the office of legal

counsel the Justice Department the office of legal counsel says no problem with these both strikes we've done the careful analysis here's a 32 page report's classified no can read it but we're giving it of course to do jet to do d to the military and to the jags and they have to follow it you can't stare at education or defense or or somewhere else and say well i have my own opinion about this I mean, you can say it, but the Justice Department controls, so to speak. And so there, justice is, who runs justice and how they run it, does affect the whole government. Go to get to your question, I think in that respect, justice could be quite important, even though

as you say, the actual people who would be deployed, presumably would be T.F. people or D.O.D. people and so forth. So it is important, the justice. I mean, if you're thinking of the authoritarian picture writ large. Yeah, of course. That's important. Justice is really crucial. You know, see, of course, it's important.

And the way that it's been deputized by Trump is obviously problematic from institutional standpoint and democracy standpoint. I don't recall anyone asking him about the Comey prosecution, the infamous seashells prosecution. But, like, that's a great example. I mean, it's an intimidate, it's uses an intimidation force, a blunt one, particularly. I know you have to go. And the New York Times, right, Sam? I mean, that happened literally last week. And his, I believe, his signature.

was, oh, no, that was Clayton's signature that was on it, which brings me to the other hearing that's happening here. So I don't know why they scheduled. I'm sure this was intentional. But Jay Clayton's nomination to be head of DNI is currently happening at a separate Senate hearing, separate confirmation hearing at the same exact time. And Clayton, as people probably know, Southern District of New York attorney, Bill Pultzies currently in the post.

I think generally speaking, virtually everyone on the hill, except for the diehards really want Pulte out of there because it's a mess. But Clayton is like having a little bit of a rough go of it in front of his committee because they keep asking him a very difficult question, which is who won the 2020 election. It's an impossible question. We just don't know the answer to it. But this moment in particular really, and we'll get back to Schiff actually in a little bit. I want to play the Clayton thing. I'll go to shift. This moment with John Ossoff really.

really stood out about how uncomfortable that Clayton hearing has gotten. We're here asking for the support of senators to lead America's intelligence community. We've established that you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with this committee and with the American public, but you refuse to answer a simple matter of fact about the 2020 election. Is that right? No, that's not right. Then answer the question. Who won the 2020 election?

I have answered. Answer it. What is your answer? What is your answer? I've given you my answer. What is your answer? You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election, but you asked to lead America's intelligence community?

Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the president's delusions? We know, you know, everybody in this room knows. a truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it? I think I gave you the answer. Oh my God. Clayton must be sitting there being like this little shit. Just this little shit trying to put me in a corner. But yeah, answer the fucking question. What would happen if he said Joe Biden won? But here we are. I guess Trump would pull the nomination. I don't know. I don't know. It is a good example. What we were talking about before, though. I mean,

also picks one thing. He goes after him. He doesn't give up. it's not exactly, you know, it's not about exactly the details of what he's going to do at ODNI, right? I mean, it's a broader question. Although we don't know now because they've been. Well, but it is, and it is a predicate, obviously, for what Trump's going to do tomorrow night in a speech and what the whole, you know, attempt to go after the next set of elections. But still, it is, yeah, I thought that was telling. It is pathetic. I mean, it's unbelievable.

We're in the United States, America in 2026, and these people being nominated to the highest positions of trust and important. in the United States government cannot say that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. I mean, it's remarkable. And again, I come back to the idea of like what would happen. I just don't. I'm very curious. I just wanted to happen once. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Says, yeah, Biden won. Votes are counted. It was pretty close, you know, but it happened. And now we're here. So let's move on. I just want to see it happen once just to see Trump's reaction. All right. We're going to do a quick thing here.

Let's go live to Adam Schiff just to get a taste of what's happening in the hill. And let's also bring in Will Salton when he's ready because I know Bill does have to leave soon. No, no, no. The department's position under you, Mr. Blanche, the department's position under you, Mr. Blanche, was do not release the report.

So that position... If you went into court asking them to release it, it would be released by now. So how is that not a patent conflict of interest? What you're saying happens to not be true. I did not do that. What you're talking about happened before you came to the deputy general. release of the law two?

No, I don't, but I'm recused and had nothing to do with that case. You can't accuse me of violating my ethical rules and then lie about what I did. So you had nothing to do with the decision to prohibit the release of the report? You had nothing to do with the department's position. I wasn't in court. I'm asking you whether anyone sought your opinion or used your guidance in refusing to release volume two. When that litigation, when that litigation was ongoing, I was a private citizen, still representing the President of the United States.

It was before March, since March, to the extent there's been anything in front of that judge, I asked you in your last confirmation hearing, whether you were- He's talking about volume two here. Is that the volume two of the Jack Smith report, well? Your answer was, no, I will not release the report. That was your testimony last before this committee. You subsequently were advised by ethics lawyers not to be involved in these matters, but it appears you were involved in these matters.

Let me ask you about another matter. You can't say it appears I was involved. Let me ask you about another one you have your name on. The truth has to matter at some point. Yeah, it does matter. We just don't hear much of it from you. But let me ask you about another matter you have your name on. I don't think you can deny responsibility here.

And that is the IRS settlement agreement. So you put your name on this. That absolves the president of tax liabilities in the past. The president was convicted in the case you represented him in of falsifying business records in part for tax purposes. Does this settlement not absolve the president of any liability for tax crimes associated with what he's already been convicted of? That's not what he was convicted of.

Not having to do with tax purposes. Well, I'm happy to read the statement of facts. The participants took steps that mischaracterized for tax purposes the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of this scheme. So you know, Mr. Blanch. there was not the president. You, somebody else. Well, if the president is conspiring with others to falsify business records to help them cheat on taxes,

he has also exposed to liability. You know that as well as I do. He can't be audited for that. And of course he can't be. Of course he can be. And he can be prosecuted for it. But the agreement you signed on behalf of your former client, on behalf of your current client, in a staggering example of self-dealing prohibits that.

Let me ask you this. Does this tax agreement? this addendum you signed, also hold him harmless from any audit or tax liability with respect to the billions in crypto money he made in his first year's president. It's not forward-looking. So to the extent there are taxes filed by the president or his sons or the Trump organization after the date of that agreement, there's no protection. Well, but before that agreement.

So any taxes. He hasn't filed taxes yet for money he made last year, right? So, yes. So if he filed tax returns this year for money he earned last year, that his sons earned, that his World Liberty Financial, all those people earned and defrauded taxpayers on it, he faces no liability under this agreement. There's no evidence taxpayers were defrauded, and he is not protected.

There's not a agreement that you've absolved him of any liability over. No, I just said he's not absolved. So the question was- So this agreement doesn't apply to a tax return filed last year. year, or filed this year. To tax returns filed after the date of the agreement? No, before the agreement. A tax return filed in this calendar year before this agreement.

Before the agreement, it applies, not after. Okay. So for a tax return filed this year for last year, for the billions he made, there's no tax liability, even if he cheats on his taxes or his kids do or his business do, he has absolved of that further potential liability. No. Well, it's in the plain language of your agreement. Did you write this language? You have to use the facts, though, that he hasn't filed taxes yet.

So when he files taxes, there's no protection based upon this agreement. Did you write this language? Did I write the, did I type it up myself? No. Do you write this language? No. Well, you put your name to it.

I did. So who wrote this? I don't know the person that actually typed it. I don't know who it is. Was it one of the president's lawyers, or was it someone from the Justice Department of IRS? Yes, this document would have been somebody within the Department of Justice. But you have no idea who that is.

I don't know the name of the person that took it up. And did you debate with them the statute of limitations, which clearly would preclude the president's claim, this $10 billion lawsuit? We had extensive discussions internally about the underlying litigation. And did you reject the statute of limitations defense? I'm not a judge. I don't reject. But you signed an agreement for the U.S.

There was discussion around the litigation. agreement for the U.S., basically indicating that the Justice Department's position that the statute of limitations applies doesn't matter. I did. That's not what I said. I didn't say that anywhere. Who rejected the 25 defenses the IRS had to this sham lawsuit? Who rejected them?

Who said that these defenses, we're not going to accept. We're just going to go with the president's agreement in the slush fund. There was a lot of discussion internally. But you made that. I mean what's the decision what do you mean you made the decision to not defend the IRS and the Justice Department you made the decision and said to sign this slush fund agreement we made the decision to settle the case correct yeah and in in doing that you basically decided that you were going to be the lawyer for the president and the lawyer for the IRS and the justice

department. As the court found in this case, there was no adversarial relationship. Yes, sir. The court found it was a sham. It was a collusive relationship. And what I don't understand Todd Blanche, what happened to the Todd Blanche who was a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York? What happened to the prosecutor people had respect for? What happened to the prosecutor who once respected the rule of law? What happened to the prosecutor who said that there wouldn't be a whiff of political partisanship and then prosecutes the president's enemies over seashells, over making a video stating the plain law and constitution. What happened to the Todd Blanche of the Southern District of New York

that could convert him into you? Someone willing to say the president has both the right and the duty to prosecute his political enemies. I cannot imagine that Todd Blanche of the old days would have ever done that. What happened to you, Todd Blanche? I'd tell you this. I think Robert Carroll had it right when he said that power doesn't. corrupt as much as it reveals, I suspect it has just revealed who you are and who you are

as someone willing to sacrifice everything you once believed in for that title, for that position of Attorney General. And it is a sad story that we have seen from Trump appointee after appointee after pointee after pointe. We have seen people compromise themselves little by little and then a lot by a lot until they're sitting before this committee and trying to justify. the unjustifiable I yield back. It may just briefly respond. Let's listen to this. Very briefly.

So I, you ask me what happened to Todd Blanche. I am still here. I am the same exact person I was when I was a federal prosecutor in the SDMY, which is do the right thing and do everything you can to keep communities safe. So when I was a line prosecutor, when I was a supervisor, when I was the head of a division, My motivation and my goal was the same thing with the people who worked with me and worked for me, which is do the right thing,

enforce the laws and put bad guys in jail. And so you spend time talking about, I did not interrupt you, I did not interrupt you, a little courtesy would be appropriate. So when you ask me, what has changed? And you talk about a single document that I signed, okay? And somebody had to sign that document

on the president sued, okay? So I tried to do the right thing. What I do every single day and what the prosecutors in this country do every single day and the nearly 100,000 indictments and information that have been filed since January 20th is exactly what everybody in this building should want the Department of Justice to do, which is to make our community safer, enforce the laws, both civilly and criminally, and always do the right thing with integrity, which is exactly what I'm doing. So I am the same Todd Blanche I was when I was a federal prosecutor in the SDMI.

All right. Let's mute this for a second. Ladies and gentlemen, Will Salton, the one, the only. That was a striking exchange. Actually, one of the better ones, I would say, from watching all this. But I thought the thing that, well, the thing that really sort of got me was Blanche at the end right there, where he said, I don't know if he picked it up, someone had to sign that document that the president wanted. Not verbatim, but close. Someone had to sign that settlement document.

And I had to do it because I was, you know, acting AG. In fact, that that was not a requirement. There was another option. You could have refused to sign it. Could have said, no, not going to do it. We would rather not play this role? I'll resign. See you.

Peace. Clearly, he's embarrassed by that document. He's already tried to create some distance from it as much as he feels like he can with Trump. But boy, what? What a telling statement from Schiff, right, from Blanche right there to say, I had to do it. It was part of the job. Yeah. Well, the whole hearing, Blanche has been basically saying under the law, and then he proceeds to say whatever the president says, I just do because I work for the president.

Thereby disowning the independence of the justice department. Also, disowning the part of the law that the president violated. The only law Blanche cares about is the one where the president controls the government. and people like Blanche do whatever the president says. So, I mean, to me, the story of this hearing so far has been all of the, this is what it looks like for when an authoritarian is running the government and the sort of people who are willing to work for an authoritarian come in and they just tell you they do whatever the guy says.

Yeah, pretty much. And I think that's how he views his role. I mean, we played the clip where he slipped up and he was like, I'm the president's attorney. And he's like, oh, actually, I meant I was the president's attorney. But that was very Freudian. He clearly views himself as a functionary and not as an independent agent in this system. And that's the problem fundamentally, right?

It's like, you know, and he has this view of the executive power and the power of the president to determine these prosecutions that just fundamentally, you know, I don't know, it just makes it clear what he would do as Attorney General. He's acting attorney general, but as confirmed attorney general. General. Yeah. Yeah. And so and that thing he said at the end, Sam, he's defending himself against Schiff by saying, I put bad guys in jail. And that's clearly a message that the Republicans on the committee want to put out. We put bad guys in jail. Right. Sam, this guy is the acting Attorney General and nominated for Attorney General precisely because he kept a bad guy out of jail. And that guy was Donald Trump, of course, who then. So what we're just, this whole here, just a big picture on it.

This is the upside down world we live in, in which a man was convicted of felonies, the American people elected him president. That guy is in charge of the government, purging all of the prosecutors, all the people who respect the rule of law. And what you're seeing today is his lawyer, who, in fact, he didn't even keep him out of jail.

It's because Trump got elected president that he couldn't be punished for those crimes. But we're just seeing people who broke the law, people who defend it, people who broke the law, people who pardoned people who broke the law, being put in charge of enforcing the law, which is just a massive joke. Yeah, you've observed this stuff a lot. You've watched way more clips of this stuff than I do. You're a maniac.

What do you make of confirmation hearings in general? It seems so kabuki. It seems so already, you know, like the results already preordained. And that we're just looking for clips. Can you even remember the last time a confirmation hearing really demonstrably changed the outcome of or changed the conventionalism by what the outcome would be? You know, I don't, I'm not remembering a specific one, but Sam, you know, we're journalists and we know that the only thing that matters is did you move the ball?

Did you find, is there some piece of information? There's some evidence. Is there some reporting you've done that, like, introduces a new fact? So I would use that criterion when we look at these hearings. There are plenty of senators on both sides who are wasting your time, who are just doing their talking points. When somebody drills in on a specific piece of information and tries to get, tries to elicit some disclosures, I mean, John Cornyn, a Republican was doing that. There were a couple other people in this hearing. But you can see the Democrats who are wasting your time.

You can see the Republicans who are being useful in some way, irrespective of whether I agree with. them and uh i you know gosh i mean the rule is every senator gets a number and every representative in the house gets a certain amount of time and some of them just waste it i would recommend after you watched a couple of these hearings just in the first 30 seconds you can tell whether you need to listen or whether you can go get some lunch well there's also the pre-hearing stuff too so like uh and you might know more about this than i do but it's almost like clockwork prior to a big hearing special for the Judiciary Committee, some sort of big revelation, some sort of inspectors general report will be laundered through Chuck Grassley's office or someone like that, so that there

is something that can be a different focus of the attention for the hearing. And sure enough, yesterday there was this report from Chuck Grassley's office that Jack Smith had obtained, not just the metadata, but the actual texts of, you know, what was it, 44 texts. I don't even know what it was. Can you explain what exactly was discovered? Do you know what the issue is? I don't know the precise details. I can give you a take on it. Sure. Give me a take. It's another part of how upside down this whole hearing and this whole administration is. Jack Smith was a prosecutor investigating a bad guy, Donald Trump. You can go read the indictments of Donald Trump, which we never got trials of because Donald Trump got elected president. The criminal that he was

investigating is in charge of our government. And the senators who are conducting this hearing were corresponding with, there was phone calls back and forth, there are text messages back and forth with the White House around January 6th. And now these guys who were working, who were in communication with the criminal are running a hearing and they're trying to portray the prosecutor, Jack Smith, as the bad guy. He was doing a legit investigation. And he's, I love what Dick Durbin did. Dick Durbin, after Grassley disclosed this thing, says, we've invited Jack Smith to come before this committee. Jack Smith would like to come, and the Republicans won't let him speak. They just want to portray Smith, the good guy, as the bad guy, and they won't even

give the public a chance to see the good guy explain himself. Yeah, Smith has spoken out a couple times here and there, and I think he went on TV too. So it would be interesting to see what happens with that. You know, the other thing I'm sort of grappling with, and we're going to wrap up in a little bit, but I am grappling with the fact that maybe you can help me work through this. Todd Blanche is already the acting attorney general, right? Like, let's say he gets defeated in committee. Obviously, it's a huge setback for Trump, but he's still going to be in the post, right? So, like, what do you do with that, knowing that it's like damned if you do, damned if you don't, right? He's going to be there. Obviously, you want to make a special.

spectacle of this and you want to you want to delivery a no vote because it's in your conscious to phone-no. But like the deck's kind of stacked here, right? Yeah, you know, and Sam, you know, the irony of this that Trump loves having acting people in these years. Because it gives him the power to like pull the plug on them anyway. My counter argument to that is he pulled the plug on Pam Bondi who was not acting. So he's going to fire people at will regardless. The hearing is kind of an opportunity to put, you have Blanche under oath, you can ask him questions if he lies. And, you know, he's certainly trying to evade the truth in a lot of these answers. That's useful. You may get him to disclose something that he was withholding before. That's useful too. So the

hearing itself as a forum is useful. The actual vote on whether he's acting or not, I don't know. I don't know. How do you feel about it? Well, I just think it's, you know, some of this is just me being kind of like, you know, what's the word, fatalistic? Like, there's nothing that matters anymore. And it's like, okay, yeah, Todd Blanche is going to be permanent versus acting. It doesn't, like, what difference does it freaking make, right? But I do think it's important to have these hearings, obviously. And I think it's vital to have oversight.

And I think it's exceedingly rare where senators or members of Congress really get to push back on these cabineters. Actually, I would love to run the data on how often the cabinet is going up to the for these hearings versus in the past. I'll also note that unlike Pam Bondi, I don't think Todd Blanche has talked about the Dow being over 50,000, how grateful everyone should be. Hold on, is the Dow over 50,000?

Dow Jones. Dow was over 50,000. It's at 52, 600, 660. So that's pretty good. He should have put that out there. Could have really won him some points. I do have one of the clip, which is totally unrelated to this. So Bill and I were talking a bit about the Jay Clayton,

nomination, which was happening simultaneously, confirmation is happening simultaneously to this. Another cabinet official also is making news. And I want people, including you to sit down, because this is going to blow your mind. Pete Heggseth has a new policy that he introduced today. Have you seen this? No.

OK, great. This is perfect. I didn't want you to know about this. Pete, I'm going to play this. And then I'm going to just watch Will's face. Let's play Pete Heggs' new policy. a new screening program for testosterone deficiency for our service members, ensuring you have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best, because it's well-established

science that as we age, testosterone levels often naturally drop. Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, war fighters age 30 and older, are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment. It's a health assessment that happens every year. We're just adding this test. Those under 30 can voluntarily choose to get the test as well. If treatment is recommended, it's entirely your choice to receive testosterone replacement therapy.

It's like a Seattle's commercial. Sam, is that real? Is that real? I know, it looks like AI, but it's absolutely real. Absolutely. You can take down tag crews. We can just talk about, let's talk about P for a saying. It's 100% real. He tweeted it out. This is a real video. They're going to do annual testosterone screening at the Pentagon people over 30. Oh, my God. Okay. Where do we begin with this? I don't know. So, okay, well, there's a fun part and there's a serious part. The fun part, this reminds me of, wasn't it Tucker Carlson who was doing the sort of, the, that was him with the light on the balls.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sunlight on the balls, yeah. Right. So, like, this obsession with the testosterone on the right, I mean, it's silly, it's ridiculous. The serious part, we just had the report, I just read it in the New York Times yesterday, that Heggseth personally intervened to block promotions in the Navy so that no women, zero women, got. promoted was it like a two-star admirals? I forget what the details were. If you have an administration run,

and we've seen this pictures where there's negotiations and the only people in the room are men, and they're obsessed with what they think of as masculinity and testosterone clearly. It's not surprising that this poison, I mean, what is it? Is it testosterone poisoning? That they've excluded women because of their bizarre criteria.

And you can certainly argue that some of the decisions made in this administration, like launching a war without having a plan about where it was going. These are not decisions that speak well for having a government controlled entirely by testosterone and poisoned men. Well, hold on. Hold on. Those decisions were made prior to the mandatory testosterone testing. So it's possible that they didn't have enough tea going on. And that was why the decisions didn't go well. Imagine if we had launched the Iraq war in the post-testosterone testing period, we would definitely have the straight of our moves on lockdown right now.

He got the problem right. He diagnosed it correctly. I was a little bit disturbed by how he kind of reverted into like commercial prescription drug mode where he's like, if you're experiencing side effects, he'll call your doctor. Was he reading from language that lawyers cared about the idea? It didn't feel like that, right? He's got it cleared. I'm a little bit also surprised that Bobby Kennedy wasn't in this video.

It feels like this one should have been a dual like DOD HHS initiative. Oh, don't speak too soon, Sam. I know. Bobby's out there. There will be shirtless, shirtless Bobby and shirtless Pete doing their phony pushups and pull-ups. Absolutely. Drinking bone broth and doing weird shit. They can go to Bobby's tanning salon and get the light on there.

It does feel every day like we're in VEP. Honestly, it's truly the show that best defines DC. Only from the perverse mind of Jonah Ryan, could you come up with Pentagon initiative like this? So it makes a lot of sense. Okay, folks, I think we've exhausted ourselves. We tried to give you a big Pope break. Let's quickly go back to live stream of the bland sharing

so we can see who's up speaking right now. If we can. if our operators aren't able to, it's fine. All right, we can't do it. Anyways, we're going to quit this anyway. We've talked enough about Todd Blanche, Jay Clayton, testosterone testing. We got in Will Salton. If you folks who joined us, really appreciate it.

I hope it was a good popery of topics for you. Subscribe to the bulwark so you can get more stuff like this. Will, thanks for joining us, man. Appreciate it. All right, take care.