Bulwark Takes - Could Todd Blanche’s Epstein Exposure Doom His Nomination? (w/ Sarah Longwell) | Bulwark on Sunday

Episode Date: July 12, 2026

Bill Kristol and Sarah Longwell take on Todd Blanche’s role in the Epstein cover-up, the Republican senators who could derail his attorney general nomination, and Lindsey Graham’s complicated political legacy.Watch Home of the Brave's ad about the Todd Blanche confirmation hearing: https://newsletter.ofthebrave.org/p/todd-blanche-is-a-predator-protector

I'm Bill Crystal here. Welcome to Bulmerk on Sunday. Very pleased to be joined by Sarah Longwell to discuss we're going to discuss and we'll discuss the Todd Blanche hearing that's coming up Wednesday and Thursday and how Democrats might get some Republicans to the effects and stop him from becoming Attorney General. Let's begin with the breaking news, the shocking news really of Lindsay Graham's sudden death, I guess late last night or earlier this morning. He was taken to the hospital at GW Hospital apparently after heart attack at home last night and died early this morning. So Sarah, thoughts? I mean, you knew him.

I met him one time with you, I think, in Texas at an event where he stopped to say hello to you. And I was introduced to him. I remember actually at the time, you know, my relationship with Lindsay Graham is the Lindsey Graham mostly of the last 10 years. And then maybe, maybe just the five years prior to that, like the, where he was, he was really thoroughly just the wingman of John McCain, which is really how I knew him because I was such a McCain person. McCain was like the reason that I was a Republican at all, because he was kind of the one that I identified with. And so Lindsey Graham being his friend always put Lindsay Graham in sort of a good category for me that then, you know,

his, how he behaved in the last decade as post-John McCain's death and his being somebody who provided a lot of mainstream cover for Donald Trump left me with, you know, not a particularly good feeling about him. And I remember being struck, though, when I met him with you, because this is now probably seven or eight years ago. I actually remember at the time thinking that he looked quite elderly, much more so than he did on camera. He had sort of a stooped way of looking in that sort of shuffle walk, even which at this point,

he must have been then in his early-ish to mid-60s. But so you knew him well. What can you tell us about that? Yeah, no, I knew quite pretty well at one point, 20 years ago. and both the last several years being angry at him and saddened by his turn. I guess I have those sentiments this morning as well, though obviously when someone dies, a little more of the sadness, and maybe some of the anger recedes a bit.

I knew him well because in the early 2000, he was elected to the Senate, having been in the House since 1994, in 2002, and he quickly became very, very close, when he was close to McCain, I think, but became very close to him. And there was a small coterie of people in Washington who were hawks in foreign policy, neocons, as we say, hawkish on Iraq, but also willing to be critical of the Bush administration's conduct of the war. And very critical very early on, McCain was calling for a surge of troops in September of 2003, so just a few months after the war began, said it wasn't going well. Bush, Rumsfeld, that whole world, were very committed to the notion that it was all fine and nothing needed to be rethought.

And so by, I'm gonna say late 2003 early, and the week standard was with McCain and Lindsey Graham. So by early 2004, I was in touch quite a lot actually with McCain and Graham. And we spent the next two, three years arguing for the surge, which finally happened, arguing that, well, arguing that Bush should think about replacing Rumsfeld, replacing General Casey,

but also arguing for the surge, which finally happened in late 2006, and succeeded sort of, and I did. succeed in 2007-8 but it was kind of too late in terms of maybe the overall war though i will just point out that iraq today is a lot better place that it was under saddam hussein and is not a you know terror sponsor or anything like that but having said all that without relitigating all that and i was to say this i think you you called them correctly mccain's wingman and that certainly is and certainly after you became trump's apologists one thinks from a little more

that way i would say though in 0405 or 5 or 6 McCain was a very busy man he was getting ready to run for president again by 2005, 2006, and he just was involved in a million things, and he was John McCain. So Lindsay was the guy what dealt with day-to-day on sort of tactics of how to, you know, get pressure on the Trump administration, Trump, on the Bush administration on Iraq. And in 2007, 2008, how to resist efforts by the newly Democratic Congress to cut off funding for the surge and how to coordinate a little bit with General Petraeus's team in terms of his testimony. I remember that in September 2007. So I dealt with Lindsay a lot. I mean, probably more than almost any other member of Congress. And he was an unusual combination of knowing policy well.

He was very, you know, understood military stuff, understood foreign policy very well, in my opinion, studied up on things. He was, you know, kind of person unlike most members of Congress. He would send him something, hey, this is worth reading. He'd read it that night, but also very politically adept, which made in a way his turn to the dark side after 2016, but really 2018, I guess, after John McCain's death, particularly said his statements from 2015-16 incidentally about as you know about uh trump or among the best right

he was under compromising and what a damage this would do to conservatism to the republican party to the country as a whole the other thing i find i'll say is i'm sure you've seen the remember this there there's that video that went around a lot i guess in 2020 uh when the trump people were all attacking joe biden as an unbelievably horrible person and there's that that video of Lindsay Graham, I think it's after. We found it. That was very, okay. Say a word.

Say a word about that. Well, so this is, when I say that my relationship with him really is in the last 10 years, part of what was so, I'll say interesting, but what I really mean is sort of awful about Lindsey Graham was that it was so easy to find him more than almost anybody else. There was just tons of clips of him arguing the exact opposite. of what he was now standing for. Because I would say, and this is sometimes when people say, you know, Republicans were always like this or whatever.

Lindsay Graham is such a perfect distillation of somebody that I watched and thought of, well, because he would say good and kind bipartisan things. The video that we unearthed was him saying, you know, you can attack Joe Biden all you want, but he's one of the nicest, most decent men in politics. And of course, he ran from statements like that. I mean, rather than being the kind of person who would say, you know, we have our political differences, but I love Joe Biden. And in fact, there was this warm moment.

I don't know if people remember this. This was a long time ago, but just after John McCain passed away, Joe Biden was on the view. And he had Megan McCain had this really love. moment because these guys were friends. Like they were at a time, it was also Joe Lieberman. So they were this like kind of cohort of bipartisan types who were able to put personal, like they had personal relationships that allowed them to do politics in a way where, you know, the last 10 years is what ended up looking a lot like, you know, you say he was serious about policy, but it was this

sort of empty rush for relevance all the time and in such a clear defiance of the principles that he had once espoused. And so we used him all the time as a video, like we would clip him saying things that were the exact opposite of what he was then saying in the context of Trump. Like I'm not, and this is why I think Lindsay Graham, and I'll just say, I am pulled between two instincts right now, which is that I do not think one should speak terribly about somebody in the immediate aftermath of their death. It's sort of, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. On the other hand, our job is to get on and talk about politics. And so, you know, I do think that living one's life in a way so that when it is time for your

gulogy or when it is time for people to talk about your legacy, that they don't have to be sort of conflicted in this way. Like if you want people to say nice things about you in memoriam, live a life worthy of that. And I think part of what was tough about Lindsay over the last 10 years is he became sort of almost the thermometer isn't quite the word, but like he could be a personal stand in for the way that the Republican Party was shifting from something that we had known to this thing that was unrecognizable. Like he was almost a personal manifestation of the way that the party was shifting. No, I think that's right.

And I just one last point, maybe in defense of the truth-telling side of things. I mean, it's also not just a backward-looking thing, obviously. He had a real effect and until his death was having an effect in keeping it rational, letting other people rationalize their support for Donald Trump. Yes. And a lot of it had to do with foreign policy. And I think Graham really did push Trump to be less anti-Ukraine and more anti-Putin and Graham died just after coming back from a trip to Ukraine. I give him credit for trying to. I think he did really push behind the scenes to get Republicans to stick to their guns on Ukraine and maybe had some effect.

But that's the way in which being, quote, serious about policy and he was serious about that policy, legitimated a broader accommodation and a refusal to be truthful about or even honest, I think, with himself about the damage Trump was doing in all kinds of ways to the country and to our standing in the world. So it's sort of in a weird way, his ability to use his, you know, to tell himself that staying relevant meant he could really affect things made him, allowed him to do more damage in a funny way than someone who just kept his head down. right? Someone who just was cowardly and never said anything. I mean, he embraced saying things. And in that

respect, he really, I think, it's a sad, a sad story. It's a sad way to, to, and for somebody who I think sought to be close to power, because there was a point in time, which I think he saw himself as somebody who, and probably was trying to be worthy of real influence on our politics. And unfortunately, he squandered that here at the end. I was struck by something, just, this is just like a casual thing. But like the Senate is about to be very different. It is sort of an end of whatever you think about the era in question. It is about to be the end of an era where Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham sort of being gone now.

And the way that Trump is outlasting this old guard, Because, you know, Lindsay Graham, 71, Mitch McConnell is 83. And, you know, it looks like what happened to Lindsay Graham is just a catastrophic cardiac arrest, which is not a crazy thing to happen to 71-year-olds. And, you know, but Mitch McConnell has now disappeared on top of the, was it keen, who also had been, had just dropped out of sight. Like this is sort of the gerontocracy at work, but it will be a different Senate. And I'd like to say, there's part of me that wants to think like, okay, without Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, who I think we think of as some of the more malign actors in the Republican Party in terms of the way in which they have accommodated Trump knowing how bad it was to do the accommodating, right? they know better. But like, they're gone now. And so like the people that replace them will not be better or I guess I don't even know how to assess better. They will be of the era in which

Trump is not anathema to our politics at all. Yeah, no, that's really a good point. I just add John Gordon to that. He's not, he's healthy, which is good. But he was defeated, obviously, and it's not his way out. And he was number two. People forget this to McConnell. I don't think McConnell was a very, very powerful leader and didn't. I don't think. bother consulting John Cornyn on all of his tactical decisions. But it was Cornyn who was number two, not Thune, then Thune beat him. I mean, Thune was also a leadership and beat him for the, you know, for the leader's position. And now Cornyn's lost. So he's also out. So, yeah, that whole generation's gone. And again, unless a Democrat wins that C, which is possible in Texas, obviously, again,

you'll have a Trump Republican replacing an acquiescent to Trump Republican. It's not going to change any votes. And in some ways, as I say, to be honest, the acquiescence of Trump Republicans conceivably did more damage on the outside. Ken Paxson's not to convince any of our ex-friends in Republican donor world or conservative intelligency or such as it is world that, you know, they should be for Trump. Whereas in a way the Lindsey Graham's or the John Cornyn's going along gave the board of an excuse to go along themselves. Yeah, that's right. Go ahead. No, this is just a thing that I think about a lot, which is, you know, your Tommy Tubber. are just a pure real expression of where Republicans are now. And in many ways, every sort of

semi-normal or semi-serious or somebody that has a legacy that makes people think of them as a, quote-unquote, good Republican, when those guys run cover for Trump, it does more damage than when Tommy Tuberville does it because everybody's like, all right, Tommy Tomberville. So I think it's a good point. Which I think gives us a transition to what we're going to talk about and we'll talk about the remaining half of the show, which is the Todd Blanche's, the hearings on Todd Blanche's nomination to be Attorney General. I mean, Blanche, in a funny way, is a little, not quite, but a little like Lindsey Graham or John Cornyn in being, having been a sort of respectable corporate lawyer in New York with a background

at Southern District of New York, which is a very well-respected place to be an assistant attorney general, assistant U.S. attorney, and then became Trump's lawyer and then did what he did for the last year and a half his deputy attorney general. and now we have his hearing coming up this week. You and I have been doing a little work on this and both the bulwark, but also in our capacity with Home with the Brave and the sort of more advocacy side of things. What are your thoughts on the Blanche hearing? And you've also talked about it in focus groups, I think.

So say a word about that. Yeah, so the first thing is I did wonder if Lindsay Graham passing away would have any impact on these hearings. It sounds like as of right now, no, everything seems to be moving ahead. But I don't know if it's gone under the radar, but whether it's the platinum stuff or the Iran stuff, I don't know that Blanche has been really centered

in terms of what we're thinking about who is going to be running the DOJ. Now, I talk about it a lot on the illegal news with Andrew Weissman and others, because it really is shocking, shocking to have somebody like Todd Blanche coming in to run the DOJ, because this is somebody who has been at the forefront of running Donald Trump's legal agenda. He was Donald Trump's personal defense attorney. He has been the one

responsible under Pam Bondi for the release, the sort of terrible way in which the Epstein files have been released, as well as the cover up for what has not been released. But more importantly, he's been the guy doing the vindictive prosecutions, you know, going after Comey. He looks for in every way to bend the law to Trump's will. He is the guy responsible. People may have already forgotten about this, even though the story was not that long ago. He's the guy who was trying to do the slush fund. The 17, the however many, you know, the first it was a billion dollars and now we're going to do, what was it?

1.766. 7-76 billion or, and so at every turn, Todd Blanche has proved himself to be the exact opposite of the kind of person that you want D.OJ, that you want running DOJ. And so there's a sort of a buffet of riches for these senators to chew on as they like list all the reasons why he is unfit to be America's top law enforcement officer. And this puts you into thinking about, like, what are the best legal arguments against him versus if you think he's going to be confirmed anyway. And I'll be interested in what you think about this because I think right now I think yes that he's going to be confirmed. Then the question is, is what do you use the hearings to elevate as an issue? And based on focus groups with voters, voters have not forgotten about the Epstein files. I cannot tell you of all the things that voters have, the attention span of gnats on a wide variety of things. They're so, and it's not even their fault. There's so much insane news, so much corruption that they often, it's difficult, right? You're like, oh, yeah, the slush fund. Like, this was a major horrible thing for like two weeks.

And then you forget that it happened, but that was Todd Blanch. So the question is, what can you really sort of pin him down on? And for me, I think the Epstein files are one of the main things that people should focus on for Blanche because I think it's time that we continue to talk about the Epstein files generally as a matter of public discourse, but most importantly because it comes up in the focus groups all the time, not just from Democrats or independents, but from Trump voters who when you say like, well, why are you disappointed in Donald Trump? There's basically two things. It's the inability to fix the economy and the fact that the Epstein files have not been released.

Yeah, that's interesting in a minute. I'll ask our colleague, Chris Herbert, to show us the ad that Homer the Brave has done that will be airing on, I think, on cable. and on digital this week. I think it's not inconceivable that a Republican or two would break away. I guess the obvious candidates would be John Cornyn and who's on judiciary. And was a judge, and probably deep down doesn't think Todd Blanche should be Attorney General, but will he actually vote against him? I don't know.

But Epstein both is the strongest argument for Republican senators, and it's a strong argument altogether. I mean, Blanche's centrality did the Epstein cover up, just to take a second on that, shouldn't be forgotten. He was the one, Pam Bodhi said this, right? He was the one who was in charge. He was the one who decided, along with Cash Patel in July 6th, obviously with Bondi signing off on it, that there was nothing to investigate.

He was the one who then, when that all fell apart very quickly in last July, and they had to, oh, my God, the cover-ups not working. He's the one who flew down and met with Galane Maxwell. I mean, that, for me, is the most astound, the personal fingerprints on that. It's one thing to run an apartment that's doing all kinds of terrible things, prosecuting Comey and all that. But that's at least, I mean, like, defendant him, it's at least, you know, He's got other people sort of signing the documents, mostly, that are going ahead with that,

and other people prosecuting and showing up in court. This, he literally flew out of himself to have this totally corrupt meeting with Maxwell, which is in which Maxwell's, oh, I didn't know anything bad about Trump, which followed within a week by the Bureau of Prisons, which reported to the deputy general, Todd Blanche, transferring her to a cushy prison in Texas. I mean, I just feel like that by itself should be just disqualifying. I mean, it's ridiculous. You know, it's unbelievable that this is happening with Epstein.

seen and everything we've learned. Then he botches the rollout and doesn't redact survivors' names. And then we'll meet with the survivors and doesn't even express real regret. The survivors, I think, will be interesting. I think one of them will testify Thursday that Wednesday will be the Blanche testimony. Interesting to see how that goes. And the Thursday will be witnesses. Both, obviously, Republicans will have supporting witnesses. Democrats get the opportunity to call two or three, I believe, and I think one will be a survivor who courageously is going to, I believe, speak there. So, but I think you're right. But also, if, just, before we show the ad. If he doesn't get confirmed, very important, and this isn't a matter of vindictiveness

or anything. This is a matter of, I think, for the next two and a half years, it's very important to weaken him, honestly, as a attorney general, and to weaken Trump. And to get in people's minds, you can't trust this Justice Department. It's one of the worst things that's going to be three months or now when the Justice Department announces X, Y, or Z about Antifa, domestic terrorism, elections are being subverted, blah, blah, blah, blah, it's very important to elevate the true fact, the true fact that you can't trust this Justice Department being run by Blanche. And I think Epstein is such a useful way to get that out. So I think, yeah, some of our friends who, I don't be glad to, they're fighting hard to stop him. And I wish God those were, I am too, and I wish them well. But very important to

weaken this Justice Department going forward as well. Because it's a lawless justice department. And I think, you know, if you are somebody who right now is thinking, oh, I don't care about the Blanche stuff. Like, this doesn't seem that important to me. Just remember that Donald Trump got rid of Pam Bondi because she was being insufficiently loyal or insufficiently prosecuting his agenda. And so he has reached in because he wants Blanche to have that job. Yeah, it's really striking.

And incidentally, Blanche has in the two or three months, I think it probably is that he's been acting as very general, has done that. I mean, he has been more of, there were things that. Bondi either, I don't know, wasn't competent enough in a way to do, but also I think may have even thought, I don't know, could we really do that? Blanche has just done it, you know, on the prosecution of Comey and many other things. So, yeah, he's more dangerous than Bondi, actually, I think, and unfortunately. So maybe Chris, can we show the ad at Home of the Brave? Our friendly group here has, I think we'll be showing this week.

It isn't a crime to party with Mr. Epstein. Meet Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. States and the guy who oversaw the release of the Epstein files. How'd that go? Two million Epstein pages still haven't been released. And Blanche transferred Epstein's co-conspirator Galane Maxwell to a cushy prison camp with puppies and Pilates. Oh, and now he wants to add Attorney General to his profile. This isn't a resume to reward. Tell your senators don't confirm Todd Blanche. We'll see if that... Good job, team. Good job. It was a good job. So let's, uh, I don't know. I I don't know. I mean, you've been on top of the Epstein thing for a year in terms of focus groups.

And I'm saying a word more just about, has it really receded? Has it receded in Washington but not in the country? Can it be brought to light? Yes. So this is, look, in the very early days of the Epstein stuff, I was sort of begging people to not treat it like a two-week story. And the reason is, is that you can always tell, or I can tell with voters, when something is sticky. And it's not, again, this is not something driven by Democrats. It's not something driven by political independence. This is driven by Trump's own voters. And it goes to a central belief that they have about him. Like one of the reason a lot of the red pill types wanted Donald Trump is because they believed he was going to be transparent about the

Epstein files, that he was going to be, it's going to tell him everything. That's why they keep releasing the alien stuff as a way to head off the concern that their voters have about the fact that this is not a transparent administration. And it wasn't just, it's not just sort of regular voters. It's also the Republican influence set that spent a lot of Joe Biden's presidency talking about needing to release the Epstein files. Like this became a central internet issue. for influencers on the right who, and it's the reason that Pam Bondi made this big show about

giving them these big binders that was supposed to be full of new information. It's the reason she went on Fox and immediately, like one of her first, her first duties as the head of the Department of Justice, was to say, I've got it on my desk, the list of these people who are in the Epstein files and we're going to put it out. And so the fact that they have failed to do so is something that exists as an angry point inside their own voters. And we should, just as a PR comms offense matter, be looking to elevate that whenever possible. Trump hates talking about Epstein. He hates it.

He's always like, who is this guy? I don't want to talk about this. Pam Bondi's inability to sort of get him out from under the Epstein file scrutiny is the reason he, one of the main reasons he got rid of her. And so we should hang it around Todd Blanche's neck. And we should, I think to, because voters are often, it's like, they really, they care about it. It comes up unprompted, but also for a lot of people, if you, like, then this is what Trump does, right? He keeps throwing them different chum, different chum, new things to focus on, new things to focus on, plays the hits. We're going to arrest Obama. We're going to go get Hunter Biden, whatever.

He's afraid of this. And as a, and just. Anybody who wants to get Donald Trump down below the Bush line, this is one of those issues that can do it because it turns off his own voters from him. And the proof that he's afraid of it incidentally is. So they had that meeting in the, which the New York Times ended up reporting about it a little bit later, but very good reporting. I guess this baby is in Maggie Abramson and Jonathan Swan's book, right, in the situation room. The situation room. Which is two weeks after basically the July 6th memo, and that's that cover up is beginning to the stone wall is falling apart. So they're moving from stonewalling to covering up, right?

I mean, if you accept that distinction, stonewalling is nothing to see here. No, no more news, no reporting, no nothing. It's finished. Cover up is, okay, I guess it's not finished, but now we're going to manage the release the files in a way that is partial and unrevealing and making sure that it doesn't damage Donald Trump

and doesn't expose other people we don't want exposed and, et cetera. So that was what they've been in since about two weeks after July 6th. And when they meet in the sit room that evening, I think it's late in the afternoon of the evening, Blanche comes over from the Justice Department, which is really itself shocking. This is a political meeting. It's shocking that it's in the situation,

recently. It's a totally political meeting. Trump's PR guy is there. I think that was that guy, Stephen Chung, how he said, who's, he had that money. Yeah, his comms guy is unbelievable. I mean, anyway, he's there timing in. And the deputy attorney in the United States

is supposed to be concerned about law enforcement is there, chiming in on the political strategy. That is, our friend Tom Jocelyn reminded me of this and this hasn't been publicized. That is, that happens a couple of hours before the Wall Street Journal article comes out on the Trump birthday card, the horrible, horrible, really birthday card that Trump contributes to Epstein's 50th birthday book. That Trump, of course, lied about. Right.

And they knew it was coming. I mean, they'd been called about it. Trump had called the Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch, and the editor of the journal trying to stop it. So this was very much on their mind. They knew this was coming from the journal. And that's one reason they have the meeting was. they know how damaging that card is.

I mean, I've always been struck by that. The people, what possible explanation for that is there? Then the Trump knew minimally that Epstein was involved in extremely, well, and very bad things, and very bad things. I mean, what do we, you know, because let's kid ourselves about that. And that card comes out. It did cause a huge rucket. So they're having the cover-up meeting there.

Blanche is there. And I think it's literally a week later that he flies to Florida to see Maxwell. Well, I mean, it's such a, I mean, the TikTok on this is so obviously a cover-up, you know, that I do wonder, and then we mentioned it at home with the brave mentions it in the ad. I mean, I just wonder if that gets into the bloodstream a little more, honestly. I wonder if that gives second thoughts to maybe a couple of these, enough of these Republican senators. Or as you say, even if it doesn't give them second thoughts, it makes that vote more damaging, frankly, to the, to Republicans who are just willing to go along with. with this terrible cover-up of this guy who did and facilitated and this woman, Maxwell, who didn't facilitate terrible crimes. Can I ask you just something really quickly, just as a procedural matter, with Lindsay Graham, having passed away, Mitch McConnell out, if they're going to do a confirmation hearing, how many Republicans do they need?

Like, how many could defect? The committee is, I think, 12-10, and it would be 11-10, though they could also replace him pretty quickly. The Democrats could object. It's a little complicated. I assume the governor, South Carolina, who's Republican McMaster, is going to appoint literally tomorrow a successor. And they'll swear him in quickly. So that there will be a vote in the Senate, maybe somewhat on the judiciary or not.

That doesn't matter quite as much. So I think in that respect, there's no, it's not, you know, they'll fill the seat temporarily. Then there'll be this crazy, fast primary. But he's also a free election. He just defeated a primary challenger, Lindsay Graham. So Nancy Mays and all kinds of crazy people and maybe one or two less crazy people will write. for Graham's seat in a very accelerated primary process in South Carolina. But Mitch McConnell being out is not nothing. I mean, if there are 52 Republicans and 47 Democrats, you got to get to 50,

so Vance can come in and break the tie. Fifty-two Republicans means three defections could defeat it, and presumably Murkowski is a no vote. I kind of think she probably is. Who knows about Susan Collins? If Vrakowski's a no vote, Dan Sullivan from Alaska, who's up this year, a little hard for him to explain why he's comfortable with this if mokowski isn't i think or his senior colleague and then there are others tillis mccorne and corin's on the committee incidentally and i think the the anti i've been in touch with some of them the anti blanche you know the liberal lawyer groups so to speak who were working on this and a very conscientious and i think doing their best sort of way uh have begun have targeted cornynard a lot and incidentally it's to say cordon is the senator from texas he's still the senator even though he lost

the primary. Houston is where the horrible killing happened Tuesday and of someone who'd live there 35 years. We all know that story and we've been pretty focused on that at the at the bulwark. And I don't know, it was quite uncomfortable with the way the fact that the Justice Department is not, literally not investigating it. I mean, they just decided to, I don't know, I guess we're going to let DHS as Inspector General is going to investigate the, this killing, which they lied, DHS has lied about pretty clearly from the beginning. Inspector General has a backlog of 600 cases of alleged misconduct against ICE agents or TSA, DHS employees, most of them I believe ICE agents, the cases. And what, that's fine. I'm able enough to remember when the Justice Department investigated these kinds of actions by federal officials from other department, that's kind of why there's a justice, one reason there's a Justice Department, right?

So I don't know. I feel like that could help push corner it a little bit towards not being an automatic vote for this. Anyway, but I think the hearings going ahead on Wednesday and Thursday, they could postpone it. You'll never know when a senator dies. There are also issues of how does funeral, you know, people get, the calendar can get a little messed up. But I think they'll probably try to go ahead with it on Wednesday and Thursday. Yeah. And in terms of a, just speaking of a different Graham, Graham Platner being out in Maine means that the Democrats in Maine are going to be trying to put up a new candidate against Susan Collins. And so she's actually in, this is a tough vote for her. And this goes to your point about like the political ramifications of really

elevating Blanche's Epstein stuff. I think one place to do it is in Maine to make it very hard for Susan Collins to explain to her voters why she's going to vote to because that is a, that is like peak the problem with Susan Collins, right? Is that she's there to often, she will help Trump's agenda and she'll take a no vote. vote if it's going to get over the line anyway, so to try to maintain her principled thing. But like, this is one of those votes where either they've all got a vote in favor of it. And if Murkowski is a defector, like it just, we should, we should put a lot of pressure on Susan Collins to not vote for Todd Blanche.

Because if she does, I think that's a real, a negative political proposition from her with her voters there in the state. And if she doesn't, we might actually keep Blanche out. Oh, that's well said. And I assume so everybody's over at Home of the Brave or watching this live. And they certainly can watch it on the recorded version if they're been busy midday here on Sunday.

So yeah, the main, I didn't really, you're right. I mean, the focus has been on Corridon in Texas because Collins isn't on the committee, but probably worth really focusing on college right away too. because the final point, maybe final point I think about this is there's a little bit, I think at the end of the day, this thing does not go down. I'd be pretty surprised if it goes down 51, 49. And that's sort of not how these kinds of things usually work, certainly not in the Trump area.

Either it passes, but maybe, you know, Prakowski and Collins getting to vote no, but then it gets 50, they get 50 votes or they get vans to break a tie or something. But either it passes, most likely, more likely outcome, or, but not impossible, it goes down. And if it goes down, I think, like, five or six or ten of them, defect at once. You know, at that point, I think at that point, Cornyn who's leaving, Tillis who's leaving, Cassidy's leaving, maybe they all just decide, you know what, we'll go in a group, gives Collins cover to say no as well, she's not alone. The Trump people can't simply target her. You know, I mean, I kind of think it falls apart or it doesn't. Probably doesn't, but not certainly.

And if it falls apart, I've got to think Epstein is the key wedge into making it fall apart. Yeah. Well, I just and also, I mean, the Epstein's such a clear, easy way to demonstrate how corrupt Todd Blanche is. And I got to say, if Corny and Tillis and Cassidy, these guys who are on their way out because Trump targeted them, went after them, wanted people more corrupt than them in their seats, if they give him this contra everything that they know is right, contra to the rule of law and anything they've ever held dear as supposed institutionalists of the Senate, I hope they never get to show their faces in public again. Like, we should be putting an enormous amount of pressure on them to do the halfway decent thing. Like, it isn't even a crazy act of courage to vote somebody down like Blanche. This is a, it should be a fate of complete. He should never be allowed to get this close to running the Justice Department.

Yeah, absolutely. It's not as if defeating him. doesn't mean Trump gets to nominate someone else who we also won't like, incidentally, and who will also be bad. He just will be, but it won't be rewarding someone who as Deputy Attorney General and as acting Attorney General has done the most, as you say, the most corrupt things, which is a vote to just authorize that for the next two and a half years. I think that's really, so it is a forward-looking as well as a retrospective judgment, so

to speak. But that was very well said what you just said, and I'm hoping that some of that passion and also strategic insight comes through to. all of our friends out there who are engaged in this good fight. Yeah, the Blanch thing could end up being a little more significant as a kind of confirmation hearings usually come and go, honestly, and we get upset about the, as we should. You know, Pete Hex-S didn't have to be Secretary of Defense if Tom Tillis hadn't voted for him. But anyway, and it does matter who's these cabinet positions.

But I think the Blanche hearing has more potential to be interesting. And Blanche, the actual vote, more potential to be problematic than people have thought. Yeah, although somebody just flagged this in a comment. And they're right about this, which is the other person to watch is Federman. Because now, he can usually be good on stuff like this. And this is, but we'll see. He's been moving further and further in the wrong direction. So we'll see.

Yeah, it has been pretty good on the confirmations. I think if you votes for a pledge, that just means he's going to become a Republican or try to become Republican. That you can actually win a Republican primary in Tennessee, 28, but whatever. Maybe you'll get a job in the Trump. Maybe he'll, who knows? Anyway, I guess the sad death of Lindsey Graham, the fortunate, I'm going to say, forced withdrawal of Graham Platner. I mean, certainly, which I don't think few Democrats should be bringing their hands about.

They should be thanking the people who had the courage to come forward to force it to happen, I would say. It does remind one how much things can change in politics, right? I mean, you know, it just sort of, you know, you think everything's sort of laid out here. and the pet. Lindsay Graham would have been a good advocate for Blanchine on the Judiciary Committee. He's an intelligent man. It was an intelligent man.

He was a good questioner. He, when he wanted to be nice to someone, and this is kind of, goes back to what you were saying earlier. Maybe it's a good thing to close on. In 2010, when it was a different Lindsay Graham, he sets up Elena Kagan, who most Republicans are going to oppose,

and he voted for when President Obama nominated her for the court for that famous slide of hers about, I can't remember he said, someone's attacking her because basically she's Jewish. I mean, some Republican group or maybe Senator, I can't remember. What was she doing on Christmas? And she has that, you know, I like all Jews. I was a Chinese restaurant, you know.

And I think it later came out that that was kind of set up, you know. And so that was a different, Lindsay Graham. And anyway, maybe that's an appropriate thing to end on. Final word, Sarah? I'm going to go back to the thing that I said before. That, you know, well, two things. This idea of things can change really fast is a really important point. We shouldn't act like things are a fait of complete.

And the reason that Bill and I still do work with places like Home of the Brave is that we want to continue to be part of the advocacy community that is pushing these things. Because for some reason, it's not always being done on the institutional democratic side. And ways that I think are sufficient to the moment. And so we continue to try to be people who are saying, hey guys, you've got an incredible, this guy's dereliction of duty is all over the place, obviously, but focusing on Epstein is something that really resonates with Republicans still, Republican voters, especially. And then on the Lindsey Graham of it all, on the Mitch McConnell of it all, I think it's just to remember that everybody has a legacy.

And your legacy will often be judged by what you do late in the game. And if you want people to appreciate your legacy, you're going to have to live a life worth being eulogized in a positive way. And so maybe, you know, Lindsay Graham is just a reminder that maybe you think you have more time to curate your legacy, but your legacy comes when it comes. Well said, well said, Sarah. Thank you for joining me today, and we will be what in the bulwark. We'll be covering the commenting on and obviously reporting on the blanche hearings on all of our different podcasts and video and bulwark takes and on morning shots, certainly, which we'll be writing about it quite a lot. So thank you. Keep in touch with us at the bulwark and keep watching and reading.

Sarah, thanks for joining me today. Thanks, Bill. Thanks, Bill. Bye, guys.