Blanche STORMS OFF as HEARING GOES SIDEWAYS!!!!

Todd Blanche just wrapped up his. confirmation hearing for the Attorney. General position. It was an absolute. disaster. Let me show you what went down. as he stormed out of the hearing. You. can see him walk away. Midas Touch. Washington D.C. Bureau Chief Scott. MacFarlane had a question for him as he. stormed out. Here, play this clip. >> Mr. Attorney General, you going to meet. with the Epstein survivors while you're. here, sir? Mr. Blanche, any interesting meeting. with the Epstein survivors down the. hall?

>> How do you think it went, Mr. Blanche? >> Let me show you what went down inside of. the hearing. Democratic Senator Schiff. was cross-examining Blanche. Let's play. this. >> Well, it's in the plain language of your. agreement. Did you write this language, Mr. >> 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 Did you write this language?

>> Did I write the Did I type it up myself? >> Did you write this language? >> No. >> But you put your name to it. >> I did. >> So, who wrote this? >> Some I don't know the person that. actually typed it. I don't know who it. is in on somebody within the department. >> of the president's lawyers or was it. someone from the Justice Department or I. mean who wrote it? >> This document would have been somebody. within the Department of Justice. >> But you have no idea who that is. >> I I don't know the name of the person. that typed it up. >> 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. >> you did you reject the statute of. limitations defense? >> I. I'm not a judge. I don't reject things. >> signed an agreement for the U.S. >> around. >> you signed an agreement for the U.S. basically. uh indicating that the Justice. Department's position that the statute. of limitations applies doesn't matter. >> I I did That's not what I.

>> More cross-examination here from Senator. Schiff cross-examining Todd Blanche. Let's play this. >> It's 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 as president? >> It's 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. tax filed taxes. >> So, any money he made last year, right? So, >> Yes. So, um if he the no filed 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. >> No, there's no evidence taxpayers were. defrauded and he is not. >> is there's evidence in this agreement. that you've absolved him of any.

liability over. >> No, I just said he's not absolved. So, the question. >> agreement doesn't apply to to a tax. return filed last year or filed this. year? >> To tax returns filed after the date of. the agreement, no. >> No, but before the agreement. A tax. return filed in 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 is absolved of that.

further potential liability. >> No. >> Well, it's in the plain language of your. agreement. Did you write this language, Mr. >> 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. >> Then we heard from Democratic Senator. Whitehouse. Let's take a listen to this. cross-examination. >> Senator Whitehouse. >> Good morning, Mr. Blanche. >> Good morning. >> Why won't you tell us what became of the. $50,000.

in. confidential money. that the FBI reported that it gave to. Tom Homan? >> I'm I'm not aware of what you're. speaking about. The to the extent that. there have been public reporting about. an investigation, I know nothing about. it. >> [clears throat]. >> Well, the public reporting is that the. FBI reported giving $50,000 in the. nature of a bribe to Tom Homan, and. there's been no report of what became of. that $50,000. Will you answer that. question?

Not now, but will you answer that. question that we've been asking you for. a long time now? Your department. certainly knows what's happening. >> I'm I'm not aware that that's true. >> Well, take a look at it. And it's publicly reported, and the FBI. reported it, and you should answer the. question. >> Then we heard from Democratic Senator. Coons. Let's take a listen. >> Answer a question by a colleague about. input that you gave to the president. Did you ever say no to the president on. the slush fund, the anti-weaponization.

fund? Did you advise him against this? >> I am not will not talk about. communications I have with the. president. I served of his as his lawyer. for a couple years before he was. elected. I'm the Deputy Attorney General. and the Acting Attorney General, so I'm. not going to talk about communications. that that I have with him. But, Senator, I will say that. President Trump trusted me to give him. counsel. Counsel does not mean. yes, man. And and so that's and that's. true in my case like it should be in any.

Attorney General's case. >> Let me just for a minute bear down on. the anti-weaponization fund. >> This was an interesting part where MAGA. Republican Senator Kennedy asked a. question that was supposed to be a. softball for Todd Blanche. Are you and. President Trump friends? To which Todd. Blanche responded, "I am his lawyer. I. mean, was his lawyer." Yeah, you've. turned the DOJ into a racketeering. enterprise, engaged in crimes, and. basically serving as not just Donald. Trump's criminal defense attorney, but.

as Donald Trump's. criminal partner. Here, play this clip. >> Um. Are you and 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 it this way. Are you. enemies?

>> No, we're not enemies at all. No. >> Have you. >> More from Democratic Senator Whitehouse. right here. Let's play it. >> It it depends on. >> Explain how it is active continued. litigation in the District of Florida. >> Well, there's been several indications. that the parties of I never entered. notice of appearance, but that the. parties intend to appeal the judge's. Monday 56-page decision. >> [clears throat]. >> Well, it'll be interesting. Do you. intend to appeal the Department of. Justice?

>> We weren't really even part of that. decision. So, to the extent there's. something that we we can appeal, I I. very vigorously will encourage the. Department to do so. >> Well, here's the tell. In that case, the Department of Justice filed no. answer, filed no agreement with respect to the. extension of time, filed no response to the case or. controversy, amicus, filed nothing.

related to the withdrawal of the. complaint, filed no settlement, and filed no response to the fraud on. the court inquiry. To me, as a. one-time litigator, that looks like. really weird behavior. And when for the first time in history. there's an inquiry into fraud upon the. court committed by the Department of. Justice, the silence from the Department. in response to that is deafening, Mr. Blanche. Deafening. And it strikes me.

that the stratagem here was to file no. pleadings. to try to keep the Department out. of the authority of the court. when what the Department knew to be a. collusive and false enterprise was blown. up in that court. Now, it didn't work. because the court found collusion, and. it takes two to collude. And they also went on and made the other. adverse findings about the Department's.

conduct. And the problem here, Mr. Blanche, is. that it's not just that one occasion. between judges appointed by every. president harshly criticizing the. Department's work in your tenure, grand juries rejecting indictments, judicial findings of outright. misconduct, capable lawyers fleeing this stinking. ship. This seems to be the most troubled. Department of Justice in history. Here.

are some of the. misconduct findings against your US. attorneys. And. if I haven't put it up yet, here's a. word cloud. of the commentary by federal judges. about the conduct of your DOJ. These are red flag words that when I was. a US attorney would have provoked, at. minimum, an internal conversation about what the. hell went wrong, and very likely. a conversation with OPR and maybe OPR. pursuit. Or it's like pretext.

>> Then we heard more cross-examination. This time it was from Republican Senator. Cornyn. Uh here was his. cross-examination of Todd Blanche. regarding the weaponization fund, you. know, the. uh deal that Donald Trump entered into. with the government after suing the. government for $10 million uh. this year. And uh one of the I thought. it was a good line of questioning by. Cornyn that he says, you know, the. settlement agreement says it can only be. modified if there is a writing. Isn't.

that why you don't want to put anything. in writing because the agreement only. gets modified if it's in writing. That's. why you don't want to put it down in. writing before any courts or anything. like that. It's your trick in order to. keep Donald Trump's super pardon so. Trump never gets audited for all of his. tax evasion and any tax fraud and any. tax crimes that he may have committed. And that this is how you keep the. weaponization fund alive by not putting. it in writing. Here, play this clip. >> Um. but let's talk a little bit about the. set about the settlement agreement and.

the release. Um first of all, I believe you said that. the weaponization fund is a moot issue. Is that your position? >> Yes, it is a moot issue meaning there is. no weaponization fund. The weaponization. fund is dead. It's not moving forward. >> Well, I would refer you to the uh. settlement agreement. Do you happen to. have a copy of that in front of you? >> I I do not. [clears throat]. >> Okay, well, you probably know what's. what's in it. >> I'm familiar with it, yeah. >> I'm sure you are. On page four, this.

settlement agreement can be modified may. be modified only upon the written. agreement of the parties. Has there been. a written agreement of the parties to. modify the settlement fund? >> No, the settlement fund is just not. moving forward. There's not There's no. modification. It's just it never. started. No money went from the Treasury. to any other account. There's no. commissioners. It's not moving forward. >> Well, the so the settlement agreement. remains as it was originally. Um. but you're I hear what you're saying. Um.

is it in Is the settlement agreement. enforceable as a contract by the. parties? >> [laughter]. >> Well, yes, it's an enforceable document. So, I suppose if if President Trump's. counsel sought to enforce it, um. they potentially could. >> Including including the weaponization. fund. >> Well, they could try to enforce the. the contract. They can't force the. Department of Justice to move forward. with the weaponization fund. They could. potentially say that I suppose that we. breached by not moving forward. They.

haven't done that and I'm I'm I'm not. aware that they're planning on doing. that. Like I said, Senator, what and and. Senator Durbin talked about this, but I. have talked to extensively with with you. and and other colleagues about. potentially um. um. codifying so there's no weaponization. fund, which is certainly something that. could be done. And I wasn't meaning to. insult the this body, but just in. response to questions from senators. about whether that could be done, we. very much are okay with that.

>> But just to be clear, the President of. the United States who is a plaintiff in. this lawsuit um has not agreed in. writing uh to delete the weaponization. fund and there's no guarantee that he or. one of the other plaintiffs might raise. that issue by way of a lawsuit and uh a. breach of contract lawsuit in the. future. >> Well, Senator, the. the plaintiffs have no power over the. fund. The fund was administered solely. by the um. by by the five commissioners and through.

the Department of Justice. So, no, they. don't have any power with respect to the. fund at all. I suppose they could bring. a lawsuit um and then we would litigate. it, but even if we were litigating it, there's no fund. So, the results of such. litigation, whatever it would be, wouldn't be a revival of the fund. >> I want to ask you about the release. >> And then Cornyn says, "It also talks. about you releasing something called. Lawfare or weaponization in your. settlement agreement with Donald Trump. Tell us, what does that mean? So we all. know what it is that the United States.

is releasing Donald Trump from as part. of this super pardon that you've given. him while being his lawyer. You want to. play this clip? >> Finally, let me just go back to the. in the 50 seconds I have, go back to this release. This purports to release. lawfare or. weaponization. and or weaponization. Those aren't legal terms of art, are.

they? >> I think they are just legal terms of. art. They're not There's not any. >> been defined in any case or any statute? >> Not that I'm aware of, no. No, they're. not a legal term of art. Well, I think that they they the the. terms have been um used by the legal. community and by people within. government, [clears throat] but no, I. don't I'm not sure that they're in. Black's Law Dictionary. >> But we don't know what that covers. >> Well, I think it depends on the. circumstances of the facts presented as.

whether it covers. As to what it covers, sorry. >> Thank you. My time's up. >> You're globalist job. >> Let me interrupt for a moment with a new. story that you need to hear. So just. recently the Trump administration. bragged about the PJM power grid. It's. the largest in the country moving away. from renewables. Energy Secretary Chris. Wright posted a chart showing coal, gas, and other non-renewable sources making. up over 91% of generation and renewables. under 6%. He was bragging about this. His advice in a time of strain during.

the summer heat was to keep your air. conditioners blasting, his words. One. day later, PJM had to declare emergency. actions following an alert by the. federal government, the Trump. administration, telling utilities to cut. electricity use as outages, overloaded. transmission lines, and extreme heat. pushed the system towards blackouts. Now, what Trump loves to say in his. speeches, is all the time, that only. unsuccessful countries use wind, that. only disasters run on renewables. He. said that China doesn't use wind power, but that's not true even in the.

slightest bit. China is the number one. wind producer on Earth. It's not even. close, and they keep on expanding it. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is. bragging about cutting renewables while. the grid nearly buckles. Listen, this. isn't about politics. It's facts and. common sense. Renewables aren't just. good for the environment, they're good. for lower costs and a stronger, more. reliable grid, and they make the country. stronger and more competitive as a. whole. So, now I want to hear from you. What do you think about how the. administration is handling climate and. renewable energy? Do you want to see.

more investment? Let us know all your. thoughts right now in the comments. I. want to hear from you. Okay, Ben, back. to you. >> Then we heard from MAGA Republican. Senator Kennedy, and he asked Todd. Blanche, "Other than to himself, was. there anybody who Epstein trafficked. young women to?" To which Todd Blanche. says, "We have no evidence of other. men.". You're saying in the Epstein files you. have no evidence of Epstein trafficking. women to other men and girls to other. men. Here, play this clip.

>> Yes. >> Um. other than to himself, who, [clears throat] if anyone else, did. Mr. Epstein. traffic. young women to? >> There's There's from what we learned. from what we know. So, when we know, I. mean, what's in the FBI files and what's. in the DOJ files. Um we did not identify. evidence. And by we, I mean career.

prosecutors, not not me, not my. leadership, but career prosecutors in. New York and career prosecutors in. Florida who worked this case hard. Um. did identify other participants, some of. whom, as has been discussed, um were. also victims themselves of Mr. Epstein. But, we did not have evidence, um, as of now, of other men, um, who were, um, that that were trafficked, um, that.

Epstein helped traffic. That is does not. mean it didn't happen, and I want to be. clear about that. It just means that we. have evidence, um, that the FBI. gathered, and that the Department of. Justice gathered, and that's the body of. of work that that we have to work with, which is why earlier, if there's anybody. out there, victim or otherwise, that has. information, I beg them to come forward. >> Okay. >> And then Blanche says that he did a. great job with the Epstein files, that. it was so transparent, and that. everybody loves what they did with the.

Epstein files. Here I'll play this clip. >> and redact those names. Then, the other thing that we did, Chairman, is we made unredacted versions. of the entire database available to. everybody in this body, and we did that. because of transparency. Remember, for 4. years, there wasn't a peep about Jeffrey. Epstein. Um, the Biden administration did nothing to. be transparent about the Epstein case. We have been extraordinarily transparent. in not only producing the records, but. letting unredacted versions be available.

to anybody in this body. And if, after. reviewing unredacted materials, a member. had concerns about why something was. redacted, they brought them to to the. Department's attention, and and and and. we addressed that. So, I. I, um, >> [clears throat]. >> I want to make sure the American people. know that this administration, when it. comes to Jeffrey Epstein, has been more. transparent, um, than any past. administration, than Biden was, or. anybody else. And what we did is we we. complied with the law, and if we learn a.

new material, we will most certainly, um, review it and make it available. When it. comes to the the the victims of this. whole. >> Todd Blanche then refuses to agree with. Democratic Senator Blumenthal that ICE. agents shouldn't fire into cars. Let's. play it. >> One last question. Would you agree with. me that agents of the United States. should not fire into cars unless there's. fire their weapons into cars unless. there. is an imminent threat? >> Give a short answer to that.

>> There's a well-established standard as. to when an agent can discharge a firearm. and I think that that's that's something. that's that that should be followed in. every case. >> And that includes not firing weapons. into cars. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Before I Well, do you want to respond to. >> I mean, there's not really a response. It. It requires federal agents to follow the. rules. >> Then let's move on. Before I call on. >> We then heard from Senator Booker. Let's. play it. >> Well, just 1 week after your meet.

meeting, Ms. Maxwell was transferred from a. low-security federal institution to a. minimum-security prison camp. Were you. involved with that transfer? >> When as I've talked about before, um in. the time leading up to me going down to. meet with her, um we learned that she. was receiving um threats. The. The turned out with. >> I'm going to interrupt you for a matter. of time cuz. >> Okay, well, it's not a a question I can. answer apparently in the time you're. giving me. >> I'm going to tell you this because I. deal with the issues of criminal.

justice. When people are under threats. in a Bureau of Prison facility, they're. put into solitary confinement or. protective. They're not moved to a camp. >> That's not always true. >> It is What is What is true is someone. that is accused of child sex trafficking. under the Bureau of Prisons own policies. is not put in a facility like this that. seems clearly like a reward. >> More from Booker. Let's play it. >> I'm closing up. >> Let me tell you why.

ethics laws that bind you about the. appearance of impropriety. are so so damning in this case. On the same day that Paramount. shareholders voted to approve the. merger, David Ellison, the head of the. acquiring company, hosted a dinner that. you attended honoring the President of. the United States. While you were at that dinner, the DOJ was still investigating a. merger. Did you speak with Mr. Ellison on that. evening? >> Uh, no. >> Did you discuss with anyone involved in.

that organization that evening the. department's ongoing investigations? >> No. >> Well, 6 weeks later after that dinner, that investigation was closed as you're. stating you have no idea if the. attorneys in charge even finished their. investigation. >> That's not what I said. >> What did you say? >> You asked me a question about whether. the attorneys recommended that the. investigation be closed and I said I. wasn't sure. That's different than the. what you just asked me. >> it it you Do you believe that that.

creates an appearance of impropriety. that you were at a dinner? >> No. >> Okay. The Justice Department ethics. rules. are very clear. about approve about about avoiding the. appearance of impropriety. In a case like this, I don't think. that's. appearance of impropriety, I think. that's improper. >> Every. >> that the connected, and the powerful. are getting a chance to rub shoulders. It would seem appropriate that you avoid. those kind of appearances and dinners.

like that. >> Every appearance or dinner or speech. that I give are cleared by ethics. officials. >> So, you your your attendance at that. dinner was cleared by ethics officials? >> Everything that I do. >> ask you everything you do. Was your. appearance at that dinner. >> You can ask the questions, but you. cannot control my answers. I'm under. oath and I can answer the questions I. choose to answer them. >> Were you approved Yes or. no? Were you approved by ethics. >> it's a speech, whether it's a dinner,

whether it's an event, they are approved. by ethics officials. >> You did not answer whether that. attendance was approved. >> Every time I go out it's approved, yes. >> Here's more from Senator Booker right. here. Let's play it. >> Department of Justice is also. responsible that powerful corporations. play by the same rules. Let's take a proposed merger between. Paramount, Warner Brothers, and. Discovery. This is no ordinary transaction. It was. a proposed $111 billion merger involving. two of the last remaining legacy.

Hollywood studios. As Deputy Attorney. General and later Acting Attorney. General, you all exercised oversight of. the Antitrust Division. You approved the decision to close the. department's investigation into that. merger, yes or no? >> I was part of the decision. I don't know. whether. >> in that. Yes. >> going to let me answer, man. >> Did you Did the career attorneys who. investigated that deal recommend closing. that investigation? >> I didn't have a conversation with the. career, but as I was saying.

>> ask you that. I asked you did the career. attorneys who investigated the deal. recommend closing the investigation? >> no idea what they. >> You were in charge of that department, yet you have no idea. Well, >> I didn't say I had no idea. It's no idea. about the question you asked about what. the what the career attorneys' view was. >> You do not know what the career. attorneys' view was. >> I'm not sure what the view was with. respect to closing it or not closing it. >> me tell you why. >> We then heard from Democratic Senator. Adam Schiff, who I thought probably did. the best cross-examination of all. This. one was on conflicts of interest. Let's.

play it. >> So, you said to CPAC a couple months. ago, "The other things that are happening, there is not a single man or woman at. the Department of Justice who had. anything to do with those prosecutions.". Meaning the prosecution of the. president. So, you're saying that it's not a. conflict of interest for you. to be involved in the firing of. prosecutors who prosecuted your client, your former client? There's no conflict. there? Is that your. >> No, there. >> is. I wasn't involved. >> So, at CPAC, you're taking credit.

for the firing of these Department of. Justice lawyers, but you're not willing. to take responsibility before this. committee. Is that the case? >> No. >> Okay. >> I said I There's a statement I made at. CPAC. >> bragging about this at CPAC, the firing. of these prosecutors, the firing of the. FBI agents, the getting rid of everyone. who investigated your client. You were. proud of that. Speaking for the. Department of Justice, but you don't. think that's a conflict of interest. You. moved to vacate. I don't think you're.

going to deny involvement in this. You. >> More from Senator Schiff right here. Let's play it. >> No, what I represented. >> have also You have also said. You've also refused to release volume. two of the special counsel's report. That was an investigation into the. Mar-a-Lago Mar-a-Lago documents case. How is that not an abundant conflict of. interest? Refusing to release to the. public an investigative report. of an investigation into your client. >> I am not a judge, a federal judge.

>> No, 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. >> So, you you supported the release of. volume two? >> I don't, but I'm accused and had nothing. to do with that case. Like, 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 uh to prohibit the release of. the report. You had nothing to do with. the Department's position. I wasn't I. wasn't in court. >> sought your opinion or used your. guidance in refusing to release volume. two. When that delegation. was ongoing, I was a private citizen, still representing the President of the. United States. It was before a March. since March to the extent there's been. anything. >> I I asked you in your last confirmation.

hearing whether you would release the. report your answer was no. Your answer. was not I will recuse my answer myself. 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. >> I wasn't involved. You can't say that I. was involved when I said I wasn't. You. can't say that I was involved. >> Let me let me ask you about another one. you have your name on. That's the true. past the matter at some point. Yeah, it. does matter. We just don't hear much of.

it from you. But let me. >> There you have it folks. Let me know. what you think. Hit subscribe. Let's get. to 7 million subscribers. Let me know. what you thought about that. cross-examination. Want to stay plugged. in? Become a subscriber to our Substack. at [music] Midas touch.com. You'll get. daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski, ad-free episodes of our podcast, and. more exclusive content only available at. midastouch.com.