🚨Blanche CRACKS under CROSS-EXAM at HOUSE HEARING!!!

Added: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]Total havoc just erupted as Donald Trump's acting attorney general crumbled under oath during cross-examination in the House of Representatives. Democratic Congresswoman Dean was cross-examining Todd Blanch about his cover up of the Epstein files. Watch as he crumbles under crossexam. Let's play this clip.

[00:00:21]>> You were paid $10 million to represent the president. You hang a 30foot banner of the president's menacing face over the entrance to the Department of Justice. You said that if you were terminated or not moved forward as attorney general, you would say to the president, "I love you, sir." So, I have one question for you. Is your obligation to the victims and survivors of Epstein's heinous crimes and all his perpetrators, or is your first obligation to the president of the United States? So without a doubt, we want to bring justice to everything.

[00:00:59]>> When will you bring that justice?

[00:01:00]>> Can I please finish?

[00:01:02]>> Excuse me.

[00:01:02]>> Can I finish?

[00:01:03]>> In decades, when will you >> can I finish?

[00:01:05]>> When will you bring the justice?

[00:01:06]>> So as I was saying, when >> when will you prosecute and who will you prosecute?

[00:01:11]>> Can I please allow the witness to >> You told me in our conversation, you blamed the victim.

[00:01:15]>> Every victim. Every victim. Let the record told me that the victims didn't give good names. Let me let me be crystal clear that this Department of Justice will always will always protect victims and we'll always prosecute anybody we can. Okay.

[00:01:34]Full stop. No ifs, ands or buts. Okay.

[00:01:37]What you are showing in a game of showmanship are redactions because of victims. Because that prosecution memorandum talks about excuse me >> perpetrators too.

[00:01:46]>> How do you know that?

[00:01:48]>> Go ahead.

[00:01:50]talk to the victim.

[00:01:52]Their victims their victim's names which we are required to redact required by law to redact which we did. Okay. So so I I take I realize I'm over time. I uh thank you for that indulgence. Uh I have uh I want to ask for unanimous consent to enter records into the uh onto the record. May I do that now?

[00:02:11]>> Without objection.

[00:02:12]>> Thank you. Uh the first >> time of the gentle lady has expired. Mr. Alford, >> I would like to enter these records. May I please list what they are, sir?

[00:02:21]>> More from Todd Blanch right here getting cross-examined this time from Congresswoman Deloro, who talks about this waiver of all of Donald Trump's potential uh tax evasion charges in a settlement agreement between the Trump family, Trump organization, Donald Trump, and the DOJ when Todd Blanch was Donald Trump's former personal attorney.

[00:02:46]Watch Todd Blanch squirm right here.

[00:02:48]Play this clip.

[00:02:49]>> An addendum. The second order.

[00:02:51]>> No.

[00:02:52]>> The only thing you're talking about here. So, the blanket immunity is is not something that you're going to move back on.

[00:02:59]>> It's not blanket immunity. That's not true.

[00:03:02]>> It is.

[00:03:02]>> No, it's not.

[00:03:06]>> Read it.

[00:03:12]>> Okay. United States releases, waves, acquits, and forever discharges each of the plaintiffs from and is hereby forever barred and procluded from prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims, counter claims, causes of actions, appeals, requests for any reliefs. I mean, this is this is a this is an order from from you, but you're not prepared. You are prepared to say that the president and his family will be uh uh barred uh are immune uh from that's a yes.

[00:03:48]>> No, it was not a yes. I had not answered the question. I can answer if you want me to.

[00:03:53]>> What are you doing with this?

[00:03:54]>> Okay. So, more cross-examination here from Congresswoman Dean on the cover up of the Epstein files by Todd Blanch and others in the DOJ. and you'll see the MAGA Republicans try to shut down this hearing and they don't let Congresswoman Dean finish. Let's play this clip.

[00:04:11]>> And it's public this time and more importantly, it's under oath. You're speaking to Congress. So, let's get into it. When will you comply with the law and release all of the files?

[00:04:22]>> Um, as as I said to you when we spoke before, um, we have complied with the law. We have >> There are 3 million more documents and you know what you said to me? They're all duplicative and they include another guy named Ebstein. Nobody's buying. I did not say that. That's what you said.

[00:04:38]So look, reclaiming my time answer. Can I answer the question?

[00:04:41]>> Not I just gave you the answer you gave me.

[00:04:47]>> No, actually it's my time, Mr. Chairman.

[00:04:49]I think those are the rules of this committee. I told him the answer he gave me and now in public he's trying to say something else. Please stop the clock.

[00:04:57]Can I get that time back? May I have 20 seconds back, Mr. Chairman? Thank you. I very much appreciate that.

[00:05:05]>> Do you want you want me to answer the question?

[00:05:07]>> Mr. Blanch, as you know, I visited DOJ three times for as much as 10 hours, and I'll be going back.

[00:05:14]>> Does the Epstein file Transparency Act say that the file should be available to members of Congress with a minder at DOJ where you you're in a secure room, you can't uh write on uh any of the binders, you can take your own notes. Is that what the transparency act says? It doesn't require we allow you to come to DOJ at all. We did that on our own.

[00:05:32]>> What does it say in terms of transparency?

[00:05:35]>> It says that they should be made publicly available.

[00:05:37]>> And they were.

[00:05:38]>> Am I correct?

[00:05:40]>> Publicly available.

[00:05:40]>> And they were >> Oh, let's talk about that.

[00:05:42]>> Okay.

[00:05:46]>> Time of the gentle lady has expired.

[00:05:49]>> I beg your pardon.

[00:05:52]>> And I I'd actually like to get 20 seconds back. How do I get cut off 2 minutes into this?

[00:05:56]>> 2 minutes and 10 seconds.

[00:05:59]Time of the gentle lady has expired.

[00:06:01]>> I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman.

[00:06:03]>> No, that's not >> What rules are we operating under?

[00:06:06]>> Because he's under a little bit of heat for not prosecuting anyone in these monstrous crimes. I've been in the room.

[00:06:14]I have been there. This is what we I had to do to transcribe to show what is true. What is true is that the president has lied about being on Epste Epstein's plane and the unredacted files prove that. There's a lot in here. I am I am shocked at this. There's also this set of files in the in the file. This is investigation into the potential co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein. I almost used up all the blank ink in the hallway because it's all covered up.

[00:06:48]It's all covered up. The American people are not stupid. They know that when members of Congress have to go in and actually unredact to try to find the truth for these victims, something is corrupt. Something is corrosive.

[00:07:06]Now, going back to Congresswoman Deloro here in her questioning of Todd Blanch, she mentions how you receive $10 million from Donald Trump's Save America political action committee. you don't see a conflict of interest that now you've entered into a deal on behalf of the Department of Justice directly with Donald Trump to give him immunity from any past tax evasion that he his family and the Trump organizations engaged in.

[00:07:37]And uh Blanch was like, I don't I don't know why why would that be a conflict of interest. It's quite literally the definition of a conflict of interest and in my opinion criminal, frankly. play this clip.

[00:07:49]>> Simply put, you just gave the president and his family a tax immunity to the tune of about a hundred million dollars.

[00:07:56]>> Not true.

[00:07:57]>> Well, yes, you have, my friend. You know, um uh look, and I just want to say this, the Save America, you paid you dear nearly $10 million between March of 2024 and December of 2024 to serve as the President Trump's personal defense attorney.

[00:08:16]My god, don't you not find there's any conflict of interest in what you are doing here as the acting attorney general of the United States?

[00:08:26]>> I didn't What are you saying is a conflict? I don't understand what you're saying.

[00:08:30]>> More from Todd Blanch right here admitting during cross-examination that they will not be pursuing the $1.8 8 billion slush fund to the January 6th insurrectionists which were part of that 10 the the settlement relating to the Trump 10 billion dollar case against the IRS and Treasury Department. Watch what he says. Play this clip.

[00:08:52]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Mr. Attorney General, I wanted to ask a few questions about the anti-weaponization fund. Uh we know that the department has agreed to pause this effort until at least June 12th. Uh I wanted to ask what your plans were for the fund after June 12th.

[00:09:13]>> So thank you. So look, we're not moving forward with the fund. You're right that there's a date that um in in the case in the east of Virginia in in June, but we are not moving forward with the fund period. Um we we the reasons for the fund is something that President Trump talked about for a long time. Um which is the the fact that there were a lot of people in this country who had their government weaponized against them. Um the reasons for the fund I think were were were it remain as important as they were before but um we are not moving forward with the fund.

[00:09:45]>> Oh not moving forward ever.

[00:09:47]>> Correct.

[00:09:48]>> Oh there's no more fund then.

[00:09:50]>> Well to the extent there was a fund and remember the fund wasn't set up yet.

[00:09:53]There were no commissioners ma name.

[00:09:55]There was no um no claimants brought anything in front of um there was no claims made yet. So yes um we're not moving forward with the fund. um you and associate >> then some great cross-examination here from Democratic Congress member Ivy who says like do you realize that you're not allowed it's not lawful to give pardons in exchange for getting paid? Like, do you see how improper it is that Trump accepts money from people who he pardons and he's pardoning now some of the worst of the worst fraudsters in addition to the violent January 6 insurrectionists, some of the biggest fraudsters because they're buying him off. Play this clip.

[00:10:34]Why haven't you appointed a special prosecutor to take a look at this? This looks on its face. It just looks like a quidd proquo scenario that should be investigated. Why haven't you taken that step? Well, to be look, the the power to pardon in our Constitution is given to the president of the United States. The Constitution does not require him to provide any explanation for who he chooses to pardon or not pardon or commute or not commute. And so I I don't I very much reject the idea that this the premise that this looks like something um is is for me to appoint a >> Let me reclaim my time. The Constitution gives him absolute power to pardon. It does not give power to pardon in exchange for payments clearly and a $2.1 billion payment to his family. And we'll set aside the fact that he should have devested from all of those interests anyway. But the fact that he gave the two bill that he gets the $2 billion piece and then a few months later pardons the guy who was guilty of money laundering and providing money to or helping to finance the moneyaundering operation for ISIS and al-Qaeda and the guys we're fighting in Iran right now, the Iranian revolutionary guard.

[00:11:44]>> I just I don't >> that's not a problem.

[00:11:47]>> Who he chooses to pardon is not a problem. Period. And you're saying all these things that are just not true.

[00:11:52]>> What's the legal basis for that statement? The constitution of our United >> The Constitution does not give them the authority to pardon in exchange for payments. It does not permit bribery for payments. You have you told me nothing about exchange for payments. You said there's put a bunch of facts together.

[00:12:07]>> That's why you need a special prosecutor. Shouldn't somebody take Clearly, you're not going to do it.

[00:12:12]Shouldn't somebody be appointed a a truly experienced prosecutor to take a look at this and conduct the investigation? And then if he reaches the conclusion that you're right, that's fine. But if he finds that there's a problem with what the president or his family, then he should he should move forward with with uh prosecuting that >> case has expired.

[00:12:32]>> I very much disagree.

[00:12:34]>> Then we heard more from Congresswoman Mang right here. She goes, "Okay. Okay, Blanch, if you promise that you're going to shut down this slush fund right here, um, put it in writing. Why don't you put it in writing so that we all know that you are agreeing to it?" and watch what Blanch does here. Play this clip.

[00:12:53]>> General, I want to thank you for verbally committing to not moving forward with the so-called um anti-weaponization fund. I just want to make sure. Are you going to issue a new memo in writing? Uh rescending that May 18th memo.

[00:13:07]>> I I I I'm not committing to putting anything in writing. I'm going to said it today over and over again. I mean, I I don't know what the purpose of putting something in writing. I'm telling you what we're doing. Meaning like what's the why do I need to put something in writing if I'm telling you what we're doing?

[00:13:21]>> You you you started it, you established it in writing. So it just makes sense to resend it in writing. I think a lot of Americans, both sides of the aisle, are concerned about it and it would restore a lot of trust about this issue.

[00:13:36]>> Okay. I'm I'm not committing to doing anything in writing.

[00:13:39]>> Okay.

[00:13:39]>> I mean, I'll take it under advisement.

[00:13:41]>> I'm just concerned because you're not under oath and I want to trust you and I want to believe you. We we all do. Um but putting it in writing would would settle that issue.

[00:13:50]>> I want to remind you at all that at a prior uh hearing, Todd Blanch became completely unhinged when he was cross-examined by Senator Van Holland.

[00:14:02]And he's like, I'm not the personal attorney of the president. I'm the acting AG. Remember before I play this clip going to you're not going to submit this proposal to any federal judge or independent >> there is no judge >> any independent authority that an independ What does that mean an independent authority >> it means not somebody who's getting to pick five of the members who was the president's former personal attorney that would be somebody who would be independent >> I'm the acting attorney general okay the fact that I used to be President Trump's lawyer is just a fact but I'm the acting attorney general so don't say the president's former personal lawyer will do something the acting attorney general general will do something.

[00:14:37]>> Mr. Attorney General, you are acting today like the president's personal attorney and that's the whole problem.

[00:14:42]You've got his whole you have a whole banner of his face hanging over the Department of Justice and you and everybody else walks under it and you are acting like you're his current personal attorney. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. And then Senator Van Holland, what was that about a week ago or so? Week and a two weeks. two weeks ago he was like, "Okay, just to be very clear, you know that you are under oath and it is a crime to lie to Congress because I think in the future Blanch will probably get prosecuted here." Play this clip.

[00:15:12]>> Can you point to Mr. >> I have a last question for you.

[00:15:18]>> Do you know that it is a criminal offense to lie to Congress?

[00:15:24]>> I am very well aware of that.

[00:15:26]>> I'm glad to hear that. Thank you. Now, finally, let me show you another key moment of that cross-examination from Van Galand. Let's play it.

[00:15:34]>> Will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund?

[00:15:39]>> Well, as it makes plain, anybody just let me know if they're eligible for the fund.

[00:15:45]>> As as as was made plain yesterday, anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they were victim position.

[00:15:52]>> Mr. Attorney General, let me ask you this. Are there going to be rules that say that if you've assaulted a Capitol Hill police officer or committed a violent crime, you will not be eligible?

[00:16:03]Why not make that a rule?

[00:16:04]>> I expect that the Well, because I'm not one of the commissioners setting up the rules, I expect four of the five members, aren't you, Mr. Attorney General?

[00:16:11]>> Pardon me.

[00:16:12]>> You're appointing four of the five members.

[00:16:14]>> I am appointing all set up the rules. I would hope you would make a rule that anyone convicted of assaulting a police officer of violent crime is simply not eligible. They should not apply.

[00:16:23]>> All right. Well, there you have it, folks. Hit subscribe. Help us get to 7 million subscribers. Thanks for watching. Double check that you're actually subscribed. Thank you, everybody. Want to stay plugged in?

[00:16:34]Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filicowski, ad free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.