Rubin on Blanche’s predicament: “The President likes to threaten, but he hates to lose”

trng to have it both ways, while his boss is single-minded. about retribution. Blanche now claims there are no criminal. investigations into Democratic. lawmakers who've dared to say they'll. exercise their constitutional oversight. duties when they take the majority in January. But it took a lot of tap dancing to get there. Right after Republicans' deep midterm losses, President Trump ordered criminal probes. into Democrats for saying they'd. probe the administration, calling them extortionists who.

should be imprisoned. And Blanche was happy to play along on Sunday, leaving the door open for those to land. behind bars. Watch now how he's trying to backpedal. He said that the democratic lawmakers are. extortionists and they should be imprisoned. Is that a possibility? Well, it depends on what the crime is. and what they've done. We're not going to stop working.

with Congress or allowing them to. conduct their oversight RIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES AND. NOTHING I'VE SAID THIS WEEKEND. OR IN THE PAST SHOULD SUGGEST OTHERWISE. TRYING TO DETERR THEM, WHEN. YOU HAVE THE POWER, INVESTIGATIVE POWER LIKE. SHE DOES, IS DANGEROUS. BUT WE AGREE THAT THAT IS NOT THE CRIME OF. EXTORTION. IT'S NOT HER COMMENTS ALONE ARE NOT EVEN A. POTENTIAL CRIME. HER COMMENTS ALONE ARE THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT A. CRIME. THERE IS NO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THERE IS. I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT SPECIFICALLY HAVE DEMOCRATS. SAID.

CROSSES A CRIMINAL LINE IN YOUR. VIEW THAT THE President's statements don't, and what legal standard are you applying to. distinguish the two? There can come a point when a criticism becomes a. threat, and then when a threat becomes. something criminal. There's no ongoing investigations, criminal. Democrats that already failed in court.

With a constitutional clash on the line, let's bring in New York Times chief White House. correspondent and MSNL contributor Peter Baker, MSNL legal analyst, former U .S. attorney Joyce Vance, and our senior legal. analyst, were they not prepared. or do they believe. that it is strategically valuable.

to them to come out swinging? Well, Alicia, you and I are old enough to. remember just four years ago when. Republicans took over the House. of Representatives when Joe Biden. was president and they promised a lot. of oversight, a lot of investigations. And you heard people during the Biden. administration say repeatedly words. like lawyer up, words like we're going to. come after you. That was Kash Patel, by the way, the future FBI. director. So the words that Todd Blanche seemed. to suggest over the weekend were offensive. and potentially even criminal are the words, of course,

that both parties have used in recent years whenever. they took power. There's nothing unusual about that. It's unusual. THE PARTICULAR IS THE NOTION. THAT THIS MIGHT BE SOMEHOW CRIMINALIZED. AND LOOK, IT'S ABOUT A SIGNAL SENDING, RIGHT? IT'S ABOUT THIS WHITE HOUSE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO. FIGHT, THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO. THE PRESIDENT AND HIS PARTY SO THOROUGHLY LAST WEEK. THAT'S THE MESSAGE OF SENDING. BY PUTTING STEPHEN MILLER IN AS. THE CHIEF OF STAFF. THAT'S THE MESSAGE IT'S NOT A. LITTLE BIT OF PUTTING IN BY,

ARE SENDING BY PUTTING IN JIM. JORDAN AS THEIR LEADER. THEY'RE PLANNING TO FIGHT. THIS IS GOING TO BE TWO YEARS POTENTIALLY OF. TRENCH WARFARE. I'M INTRIGUED BY THIS 180 I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT I. THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO. CALL IT THAT ON THE PART OF. ATTORNEY GENERAL BLANCH BECAUSE. YOU HEARD HIM SAY QUOTE THERE. CAN COME A POINT WHERE CRITICISM BECOMES A. THREAT LEGALLY, WHERE IS THAT LINE? AND HAVE THESE DEMOCRATS COME ANYWHERE NEAR IT? JOYCE. YEAH, SO I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT IT WAS FOR LISA. ORIGINALLY,

BUT I THINK TODD BLANCH KNOWS AS WELL. AS ANYONE WHERE THE LINE IS BECAUSE HE'S. OVERSEEING THE SEASHELLS. PROSECUTION OF JIM COMEY WHERE THERE'S BEEN A. LOT OF PUSHBACK SAYING THAT SEASHELLS ON AN. Instagram account aren't a threat of violence. That case involves the president. of the United States. There are a lot of different threat statutes. in the U .S. criminal code, but one ONE OF THE. COMMONALITIES. IS IT HAS TO BE AN ACTUAL THREAT, A THREAT THAT THE PERSON. WHO MAKES IT IS CAPABLE OF COMPLETING.

AND THE REAL PROBLEM FOR BLANCH HERE. AND THE REASON I THINK HE'S HAD TO WALK. BACK I THINK IT'S NOT A THREAT. SOME OF THE EARLIER COMMUNICATIONS OUT. OF THE WHITE HOUSE ON THIS IS. THAT THERE'S NO THREAT. DEMOCRATS ARE TALKING ABOUT SENDING OUT. STUBPOENAS AND PERFORMING. their constitutional duty. That's just not the sort of threat the criminal. code contemplates. Again, there's not been great reporting yet. on this, what it was that happened. behind closed doors that, you know, created a situation where Blanche would 180.

But can you just sort of put. on your analyst hat for me? What are the conversations that could. have happened about even just sort. of the legal liability he was opening. himself up to or the difficulty. of prosecuting future cases, the fact that he had already made. this very public threat? Well, I think part of those conversations has. to be distinguishing between the speech. protections that are already robust. in the IN THE CONTEXT THAT JOYCE WAS MENTIONING, AND THEN AMPLIFYING THAT BY THE FACT. THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL. IMMUNITY UNDER THE SPEECH AND.

DEBATE Clause FOR THEIR LEGISLATIVE ACTS. RECOGNIZING THAT, THE THREATS THAT WERE. STARTING. TO COME FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL'S OFFICE, FROM A U .S. ATTORNEY IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TO. SENATOR BLUMENTHAL AND THE LIKE APPEARED. TO BE RATCHETING UP A IT WAS A FIGHT BETWEEN. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ON ONE HAND AND. THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH THAT WAS. SETTING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH UP FOR A LOSS. MERELY THREATENING PEOPLE ON. THE BASIS OF THEIR STATEMENTS, PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY ALREADY. HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION. FOR THOSE THINGS THAT THEY ARE.

SAYING IN SERVICE OF LEGISLATIVE. OVERSIGHT IS A BATTLE THAT THIS DEPARTMENT OF. JUSTICE WAS NOT GOING TO WIN. BUT TODD BLANCH KNEW THAT. FOR ALL THE THINGS YOU CAN SAY ABOUT TODD BLANCH, HE DOES KNOW THE LAW. AND HE DOES UNDERSTAND SPEECH AND DEBATE. SO WHEN HE MADE THOSE INITIAL THREATS, ARGUABLY, HE KNEW ALL OF THAT. SO WHAT CHANGED? I THINK THEY UNDERSTAND THAT. THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE AND IT. TAKES SOME TIME FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO. CATCH. UP BETWEEN ON ONE HAND WANTING. TO SERVE THEIR AUDIENCE OF ONE.

AND ON THE OTHER HAND FOR MAKING SURE. THAT THE THE PRESIDENT KNOWS SOMETHING. IS A LOSING BATTLE BECAUSE AS YOU. AND I BOTH KNOW, ALICIA, THE PRESIDENT LIKES TO THREATEN BUT. HE HATES TO LOSE. IF HE CAN BE CONVINCED THAT SOMETHING IS A LOSING. BATTLE, THEN PERHAPS THE RHETORIC CAN FOLLOW. WHERE THE LAW ALREADY STANDS. SPEAKING OF LOSING, THE HOMEWORK. OF TRUMP'S WEAPONIZED DOJ CASES. THAT THEY KEEP FAILING IN COURT, JOYCE. BLANCH WAS PRESSED ON THIS BY DAN ABRAMS AND. ARGUED, IT'S ALL TOTALLY NORMAL. RIGHT, SO IT'S NOT NORMAL. I REVIEWED BLANKS.

EDITION 6 THAT WAS PRESENTED TO A. GRAND JURY AND THEY DIDN'T RETURN. AN INDICTMENT AND YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT THE D .C. GRAND JURIES HAVE NOT RETURNED INDICTMENTS. It happens in any administration regularly. It's just usually not broadcast. Not like this. Not like this. Not like this. I mean, come on. We've never seen this many. rejections. I just don't agree with it. I think that there have been no true bills. throughout I THINK IT'S ABOUT. GENERATIONS IN HIGHLY POLITICAL CASES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, JOYCE, NOW, SET THE RECORD. STRAIGHT FOR US. YOU CAN TELL I'M OUTRAGED BY THESE COMMENTS.

LOOK, THE REALITY IS THAT BLANCH, A CAREER CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR, UNDERSTANDS THIS IS NOT NORMAL. WE'VE SEEN MORE No true bills. That's a grand jury that fails to indict. in the District of Columbia alone. in the last few months than I saw. in my entire career, 25 years at the Justice Department. Blanche said oh, most prosecutors have had a. grand jury. decline to indict a case. That's how the system works. It's not true.

I've never had a grand jury refuse to indict. and that's for the very simple reason. that as a prosecutor, when I'm in front of the. grand jury, I control the playing field. I decide what cases to take in. I can make sure that I've got evidence. on every element I need to prove. before the grand jury can find probable. cause to PROCEED, WHICH IS A VERY LOW STANDARD. IT'S NOTHING LIKE THE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THAT I NEED TO PERSUADE A JURY TO. CONVICT A TRIAL. PROSECUTORS CONTROL THE PROCESS AND WHEN YOU.

SEE THESE SORT OF REPEAT REFUSALS BY GRAND. JURIES IN CASES THAT ARE PART OF DONALD TRUMP'S. REVENGE DOCKET, YOU KNOW THAT. SOMETHING THERE AIN'T RIGHT AS WE SAY IN THE SOUTH. AND FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO. DENY THAT IS JUST LUDICRUS. WELL, SPEAKING OF TELL US SOMETHING THAT. AREN'T RIGHT. CAN WE MARINATE FOR A SECOND, JOYCE, ON THE FACT THAT IN. THAT SAME CLIP YOU HAVE HE IS STILL CARRYING THE. HE IS STILL CARRYING THE HE IS REFERRING TO MEMBERS. OF. CONGRESS AS THE SEDITIOUS SIX. EVEN IF THERE HAS BEEN. HE IS STILL CARRYING THE PRESIDENT'S.

WATER IN ANOTHER. HE IS STILL CARRYING THE HE ABSOLUTELY IS. AND LOOK, WE ARE HERE because on November 7th, just under a week ago, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social. and demanded prosecutions. His White House counsel then sent out a letter. suggesting that there could be criminal conduct. and others in the administration followed. suit. And in that post he made on Truth Social, he singled out Michigan Senator Alyssa. Slotkin and talked about the fact. that she had been threatening.

incoming Republicans trying to intimidate. them against serving in the administration. And, you know, this is all tied in very. much to. this notion of the, quote, seditious six. By the way, attorneys, generals, like every other federal prosecutor, don't prejudge guilt or innocence. So picking up the president's moniker there. is highly inappropriate. But the reality is in Slotkin's lawyer, my former colleague and podcast host. who represents her pushed back very heavily,

saying this is the way autocrats behave. And why that's so highly significant is. that Preet Bharara used to be Todd Blanche's. boss in the Southern District of New York. And it was a way of saying, I see you, I know you know what the standards are, and we've caught you violating them.