What A Day - What Happens When Trump's Lawyer Becomes America's Lawyer

Episode Date: July 16, 2026

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche went under the microscope this week as he took questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of his confirmation proceedings. A major line item for senators? The concern that Blanche — who once was President Donald Trump’s personal criminal attorney — might still be operating as Trump’s personal attorney in spirit. Blanche is in a tough spot, because history has shown that his future job security is dependent on doing exactly what Trump says. For more on how an attorney general who’s subject to the whims of Trump could impact the justice system, we spoke with Laura Coates. She’s chief legal analyst for CNN and host of Laura Coates Live.And in headlines: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt returns to her briefing podium, federal investigators are looking into a White House teleprompter operator accused of insider trading, and smoke from wildfires in Canada and Minnesota darken U.S. skies.Show Notes: Call Congress – 202-224-3121 Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/ For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail]

Before Trump, I think Attorney General, they felt powerful or at least an intellectual equal who could be at the table, have a seat, and be responded to. It wasn't as if they were a true subordinate. They knew that they were serving at the pleasure of the president. But they did not believe that if the president was displeased, that that meant that they would no longer have a job. I'm Jane Koston, and this is What Today, the show offering you pure, unadulterated enjoyment. In this case, it's from Georgia Democratic Senator John Assoff, who asked President Donald Trump's nominee to serve as Director of National Intelligence, Jake Clayton, an incredibly easy question on Wednesday.

Is that right? No, that's not right. Then answer the question. Who won the 2020 election? I have answered the question. Answer it. 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? Props to Jay Clayton for not simply dying of embarrassment on the spot. On today's show, we talk with CNN's Laura Coates about acting attorney general Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing and whether his support for President Trump's bogus ideas, remember that anti-weaponization slush fund make him fit to lead the Department of Justice.

Before we get into all that, here's what we're following today, Thursday, July 16th. The reason for the recent strikes over the course of the last several days is because Iran violated the memorandum of understanding that we struck with them, specifically in the memorandum of understanding that they signed they were not to fire on commercial vessels moving through the strait of Hamos. And unfortunately, they have made the tragic. decision for them to do that. Press secretary, Caroline Levitt, has returned to her podium at the White House. I knew the day would come, and yet, somehow I still wasn't ready for it.

Levitt held her first briefing since she won a maternity leave earlier this year. During the briefing, Levitt talked about the latest with the war, saying Iran still wants to make a deal with the U.S. because it's suffering, quote, devastating blows. The U.S. has intensified its strikes on Iran, hitting targets farther north, and firing into a ship that the U.S. accused of trying to break its naval blockade. on the Islamic Republic. Iran then retaliated by launching missiles and drones at U.S. allies in the region, warning its attacks may escalate. So much for that. Memorandum of Understanding. This individual has been accused of making trades around the present speeches for months.

I mean, this has been going on since at least earlier this year, maybe even before that. Did the White House, White House counsel have any awareness that this was going on with this individual? And if not, no, why not? Is there any sort of plan in place to try to figure this out to see if anyone else is doing this or to track future people from see if they're making these types of bets in the White House? Any discussions around that? Look, there are very strict ethical guidelines here at the White House that explicitly state not to do this. And the White House counsel's office makes that clear to all of us who sign up to work in government on behalf of the president. Yes, Caroline Lovett.

we all know about these strict ethical guidelines governing the Trump White House. The question was spurred by news that federal investigators are probing a White House teleprompter operator, Gabriel Perez. According to reporting from ABC News and statements from the prediction market, Kalshi, Perez had been making bets on whether or not Trump would use specific phrases or reference specific topics during at least a dozen speeches, like February State of the Union address and Trump's remarks at a middle of honor ceremony in March, which, since Perez was operating the teleprompter for the, their speeches would be insider trading. According to ABC News, it was Calci that flagged the suspicious trading to regulators. Perez has been operating Trump's teleprompter since 2016,

but he has now been put on unpaid leave. He's believed to have won more than $100,000 betting on Trump's speeches. Heavy, pungent smoke from wildfires in Canada and Minnesota darkened skies in the U.S. today. From the Great Lakes to parts of the East Coast, the smoke reduced visibility and prompted warnings of breathing the air outside could be dangerous. According to data from IQ Air, Detroit, Toronto, Minneapolis, and Chicago had some of the worst air quality of all major cities across the globe. And in the New York City area, a thick haze tinged the morning sky in orange and yellow, reducing visibility so dramatically that it partly obscured Manhattan's prominent skyline. One national weather service meteorologist said even if winds from the northwest clear skies is expected later this week, the smoky air could keep returning until the fires are out. A meta-oversight board study released today shows that major AI systems, including those built in the U.S.,

are more likely to refuse to criticize restrictive leaders or governments. For example, ask Claude to make a pamphlet critical of President Trump or Britain's King Charles III, an Anthropics chatbot would oblige, but when prompted to do the same for Thailand's king, Saudi Arabia's crown prince, or China's leader, the artificial intelligence model declined. And that's not even the scariest part. Get this. The findings indicate that AI models are reflecting speech restrictions beyond the countries where they apply. For example, the report said that AI models could be less likely to help a potential demonstrator in Brisbane create protest materials to speak out against events in China or Saudi Arabia,

even if that kind of expression is legal in the user's jurisdiction. And that's the news. Let's talk about the Department of Justice and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Blanche has been under the microscope this week as he undergoes questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of his confirmation hearing. Eight major line item for senators? The concern that Blanche, who previously served as President Trump's personal criminal attorney, might still be operating as Trump's personal attorney in spirit, if not in name.

We played part of this exchange Wednesday, but it's worth playing it again in full, because I don't think this response to Louisiana Republican Senator John Kennedy helped Blanche's case. Are you in President Trump, France? 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. I now have a really- Well, let me put this way. Are you enemies? No, we're not enemies at all. Blanche is in a tough spot because history is shown that his future job security is dependent on doing exactly what Trump says. Blanche would be Trump's fourth confirmed U.S. Attorney General. The previous three, during both of Trump's terms in the White House, lost their jobs for displeasing the president.

So to talk more about what having an attorney general subject to the whims of Trump does to the justice system, I spoke to Laura Coates. She's chief legal analyst for CNN and host of Laura Coates Live. Laura, welcome to What a Day. Thank you. What a day. What a week. What a month? What a year. I say that to myself every single day. acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, just spent two days getting grilled in his Senate confirmation hearing. And the obvious giant concern from senators is that as attorney general, Blanche will just do whatever President Trump wants because he was Trump's personal lawyer before joining the Department of Justice. Now, is there any precedent for a president making his personal attorney the head of DOJ?

What does this typically look like? Well, we've seen some nepotism in the past, right? We've seen something like that, so your brother can be varsan. But we've also seen people. Usually it's your person that you trust to make the decisions when you're not in the room who can independently oversee an very important department of justice. I mean, the org chart is insane. And so normally, you would have a political appointee who's going to serve at the pleasure of the president. That is set in stone, so to speak. But you normally have somebody that's trusted based on advisors who have, who have said, listen, here is someone on a short list I want you to consider because of their objectivity, because of their expertise, because you don't want to have to be the person controlling things because they're totally competent. Trump has a very different take on this. He believes, as you well know, that the DOJ was weaponized against him. And so he believes that the only way to correct it is to have somebody in place who's very comfortable having thumbs on a scale. He believes to

reverse weaponization, but many believe is in fact engaging in it. So let's zoom out a little, because I'm glad you made the point about Kennedy having RFK. Then there's also Nixon with John Mitchell, who's the Attorney General who went to prison for doing crimes on Nixon's behalf. But I think you got it something important, which is looking at past administrations, what role is the U.S. Attorney General supposed to play in the DOJ and the government as a whole? You know, they are supposed to be the ones to set the tone in terms of the priorities of prosecution, knowing that prosecutors have discretion about the kind of cases they bring. They will prioritize the types of crimes. They will ensure that

the morale and the efficiency of the department is at its peak to be able to effectively represent people of the United States. They have to ensure professional responsibility and ethics and knowing full well that the decisions that their line attorneys make not only will under the benefit of other attorneys, but also can take their cases if their credibility falls. But ultimately, their role is to oversee a huge department with a number of different divisions to ensure that the pursuit of justice matches our moral compass. And if you don't have somebody who is invested in every single division and singularly focused on trying to ensure the prosecutions of some at the pleasure of the president, you don't have a comprehensive department.

And believe you, me, the United States of America requires a full justice department who is geared towards making sure that all different cases have the same level of objectivity and credibility. If you object to the appointment of Trump's personal attorney as America's next top lawyer, stick around. We'll get back to my conversation with Laura Coates in a moment. But if you like the show, make sure to subscribe.

Leave a five-star review on Spotify and Apple. Watch us on YouTube and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. What a day is brought to you by Delete Me. Have you ever thought, I really should be doing something to protect myself from stalkers, scammers and hackers, but you're not sure what? Here's what you do. Go to www.joinedeleteme.com slash Wad and enter code Wad.

You'll get 20% off Delete Me. In the age of AI, we're all especially vulnerable to scammers using your personal data that's floating around on the internet against you. Have you ever Googled yourself and found your home address, phone number, or the name of a family member? It's unsettling. But the good news is, DeleteMe can help. Delete Me was named the top pick for data removal services by Wirecutter. As someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me.

I want to protect myself and my family. That's why Delete Me works. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joinDeletme.com slash Wad and use promo code Wad at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to www. www.J.W.com slash Wad and enter code Wad at checkout. That's www.com.J.W.com code Waddeday is brought to by Zbiotics. I have to tell you about this game-changing

product I use before a night out with drinks. It's called pre-alcohol. Zbiotics, pre-alcohol. Zbiotics, alcohol probiotic drink is a world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct, nut dehydration that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Every time I have pre-alcohol before drinks, I notice a difference the next day.

Even after a night out, I can confidently plan on working out without worry. July is packed with barbecues, fireworks, late weekends, and late nights with friends. Keep the good times rolling into the next day. Drink pre-alcohol before you go out and wake up ready for whatever Sunday brings. Remember to head to Zbiotics.com slash Wad and use the code Wad at checkout for 15% off. You hear that? That's Rogers Red Partner Program at Work in Your Business.

Bringing more customers through your door with additional cashback for eligible Rogers Red Credit Cardholders. And more savings to your bottom line with lower transaction fees. Give your business a real edge with Rogers Red Partner program. More than a point of sale, a sign of smarter business. Learn more at Rogers.com slash Red Partner. Let's get back to my conversation with Laura Coates. So Blanche has been doing this job in an acting capacity for a few months, and we're here. about how courts are starting to say, hey, we're not going to give the Department of Justice the

benefit of the doubt anymore because you keep bringing us stuff that doesn't make any sense. So to that point, how has he been doing on that front of being a responsible arbiter, a responsible front person for the Department of Justice? Well, school's out for the summer, but he might not be passing at all in his grades. I'll tell you that. And here's why. normally you used to have that phrase. It wasn't even that long ago. A year, two, three, maybe five years ago, you could say that prosecutors could indict a ham sandwich, right?

That phrase was there because there was such a benefit of the doubt that was extended to prosecutors and the choices they made. The presumption of innocence, whether you like it or not, oftentimes was secondary in the minds of the court of public opinion. If the prosecutors or the DOJ brought a case against you, your inclination was that they wouldn't have done it if they had nothing. Now that has been chipped away in a way that I think people are concerned might not be reversible for quite a long time because the words like pretexts are coming out from judges or saying things like this, a pretextual effect for you. They're talking about the idea of political weaponization. They're talking about audiences of one. Those credibility assessments by a judge

where there used to be the extension of grace is extremely problematic. Now, I believe, that you have to hold prosecutors to account. I've been a federal prosecutor. I know full well the power that they have. And I think it's important that people do question and having a healthy level of skepticism about who brings cases and why. But that should be based on the conduct and the actual facts of a case, not the general impression that the DOJ does not have your back and only pursuing cases because they're the private attorney of one person. So you mentioned this a little bit earlier, that Trump views the Department of Justice as operating on his behalf. And Blanche was asked yesterday if he's running the DOJ independent of Trump, and he basically said no, because DOJ is part of the executive branch.

But Trump fired Jeff Sessions for not doing his bidding on the Russia investigation. Barr resigned after he made Trump mad about 2020 denialism. Before Trump, how did past AGs understand? their relationship with the president? Before Trump, I think Attorney General, they felt powerful or at least an intellectual equal who could be at the table, have a seat, and be responded to. It wasn't as if they were a true subordinate. They knew that they were serving at the pleasure of the president, but they did not believe that if the president was displeased, that that meant that they would no longer have a job.

It meant that there'd be a discussion about how they would explain their choices or otherwise. I think now the serving at the pleasure of the president means instead, I must serve and be beholden to you your moods, mercurial or charismatic. I have to do what I need to do to make sure you're happy, even if it comes at the expense of what I know to be the precedent in the Constitution, in my own Department of Justice, and what is recommended by line attorneys. And I want to just make a quick distinction. When I talk about career prosecutors, those are prosecutors who serve not because they're political appointees. They oftentimes will serve through successive administrations. I myself was hired under Bush, served through Obama. I mean, this idea of being a career prosecutor, you did not previously feel as though the president's directives would directly impact the ability to bring your everyday case. now, I think, with the mass exodus and mass firings, and also, in fact, the current acting

attorney general has been so supportive of the pardons that essentially tried to erase the valid convictions of line attorneys for proud boys, oathkeepers, and January 6th defendants, they don't feel that he has their back. And that is more than just a friendship faux pa. That is a professional indictment for prosecutors and also, for the Attorney General. And so free Trump, it meant, I think, a seat at the table among equals. Now with Trump, I think it means tell me what you'd like me to do. To that point, what Trump cares about most with regard to federal law enforcement is immigration. And the Department of Justice has followed suit and shifted resources away from other crimes,

like sexual abuse and any number of especially white collar crimes to help ICE. So what does that mean? for other types of prosecutions. If DOJ, under Blanche or under any Trump appointee, is focusing so much on immigration, what's not happening? On a good day, the weight of the federal government is a bit of a misnomer. It's not essentially an elephant against a feather. The resources have always been strapped. The resources have always been stretched. It's just the institutional knowledge, the benefit of the doubt, and, of course, the power of subpoenas and beyond that really can elevate the ability of prosecutors to bring cases even distinctly from a private litigant. So knowing that resources were always scarce,

the fact that you're now taking resources away from any number of cases to prioritize what is in the political zeitgeist, more than what is in the pressing till, it means that justice can't be pursued in the way that the American public needs it to be. All the different cases that are worked on. Some of them are the very salacious, very sexy cases that everyone wants to talk about on the group chat. But the overwhelming number of them are your everyday person who was wronged, who needs the power of the government to support them. And those cases are not always the most exciting cases, my friends. Sometimes they are the most mundane but necessary. But if you don't even have resources to do that. And you're only prioritizing the things that might make it in the

political group chat. You're going to see a lot of people feeling victimized, unable to address that victimization, and not having much faith in the Department of Justice to address it. And I fear that if the focus is solely on the sexiest cases according to the true social posts, a lot of people will be left by the wayside and that has dire consequences. So Blanche is not in the clear yet. Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn said he still has some concerns after questioning Blanche in yesterday's hearing. Republican Senator Tom Tillis said today that he won't vote for Blanche if he doesn't meet with Epstein victims. And assuming every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee votes know, those votes are non-negotiable.

So let's say, theoretically, what happens if Blanche is not confirmed by the Senate? Oh, I love a theoretical because you know a lot of things are going to be triggered in terms of Trump. questioning the entire system, the confirmation process. He will have the political heads rolling, so to speak. He could allow him to be in the position for, there's a finite amount of time you can be a non-confirmed person when you have the advice of Senate and beyond. So conceivably, he could try to get somebody else in that position and have a series of acting people in that role that there is necessary cutoff because at some point, you have to have a permanently held position. But I think one important thing, you mentioned the idea of the contingencies of

these votes. Call me a skeptic. But I put some, but not all weight in these threats of contingencies that many senators have, because the point was not just to meet with, as you might have a corporate meeting with somebody, right? Oh, yeah, I met you. Hi, you're doing good. Nice to see you. Okay, I'm going to pass you off to the next person now. It really was contingent, I think, for many of the survivors to feel as though the Attorney General was meeting with them with an I torturing. trying to progress criminal investigations against those who wrong them, or at least being able to offer some insight into what is lacking in the investigations. So I think a performative attendance of a meeting, if that is enough to meet the criteria, you haven't moved the needle. And I think

they'll be very telling as to how the president, if he's not confirmed, or if he is confirmed, will move from there. Laura, thank you so much for joining me. Thank you. That was my conversation with Laura Coates, chief legal analyst and anchor of Laura Coates Live on CNN. Before we go, last week, a Texas father and construction worker was on his way to work when he was shot and killed by an ice officer. Days later, in Maine, ice agents fired on another vehicle, killing a 26-year-old man from Columbia. This week on runaway country, journalist Alex Wagner examines these two fatal incidents on opposite sides of the country and the broader ice crackdown that has left countless families grieving and scared. Then Alex sits down with the bulwrix Sarah Longwell to discuss whether it's possible to change everyday Americans' opinions and immigration and get the ICE reforms we need to stop the senseless violence.

Watch Runaway Country Now on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcasts. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review. Enjoy Trump discussing a quote, Po-Pourri of whatever weird shit he wants to talk about tonight and tell your friends to listen. And if you're in the reading, and not just about how Trump is giving a speech tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern that will likely touch on, quote, free and fair elections, i.e. his misbegotten belief that he won the 2020 election,

but he didn't, like me, where today is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at crooked.com slash subscribe. I'm Jane Koston, and you could watch Trump's speech tonight, or you could watch almost any Trump speech from the last five years, which somehow always ends up discussing the same thing. What a day is a production of Crooked Media. Our show is produced by Caitlin Plummer, Emily 4, Erica Morrison, and Adrian Hill.

Our team includes Haley Jones, Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Joseph Dutra, Johanna Case, and Desmond Taylor. Our music is by Kyle Murdock and Jordan Canter. We had helped today from the Associated Press. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Hey, so listen, whether you're in the States, across the pond, or somewhere on the other side of the world, we love that you tune into Cricket for US News. But did you know, we also have a UK news show? Yes, that's right. It's called Pod Save the UK.

Pod Save the UK is a no bullshit, unabashedly progressive conversation about politics, focused on the issues that matter most of the people of Britain. With all the changes in our government, including the fun, revolving door of Prime Ministers we have here, there's always lots to talk about. And there's lots of fabulous guests to talk to journalists, politicians, experts, comedians and activists. Yeah, we've had great comedians on as well, like Rosie Jones, Stuart Lee, Ashling Bee. We've also had Tommy Vitor on, who may be our boss. We still don't know.

We're not quite clear on who our boss is. I thought it might be Tommy Vitor. I thought it might be John Favreau. I don't know if it's John Lovett. It's hard to say. It's not clear to us who our bosses are. Some of our listeners call us irreverent but not stupid. I object to that.

I'm deeply stupid. It doesn't sound too bad. So look, come check us out. Come join us. Pod Save the UK every Thursday wherever you get your podcast.