Adam Schiff EXPOSES Todd Blanche's Corrupt Trump IRS Tax Cover-Up On LIVE TV!!!

[00:00:00]And what I don't understand, Todd Blanch, what happened to the Todd Blanch who was a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York? What happened to the prosecutor people had respect for?

[00:00:09]What happened to the prosecutor who once respected the rule of law? What happened to the prosecutor who said that there wouldn't be a whiff of political partisanship and then prosecutes the president's enemies over Sea Shell's cases, over making a video stating the plain law and constitution? What happened to the Todd Blanch of the Southern District of New York that could convert him into you?

[00:00:32]>> Senator Adam Schiff, former federal prosecutor, House impeachment manager, just walked Todd Blanch into a corner built entirely from his own contradictions. Blanch represented Trump in three criminal cases, then promised this committee he'd recuse from anything touching those matters. Ethics lawyers told him he must. Yet Schiff shows him bragging at CPAC about firing the very prosecutors who investigated his client.

[00:00:59]Blanch moved to vacate the convictions of a dozen Proud Boys and Oathkeepers.

[00:01:03]He put his name on an IRS settlement that shields Trump from tax liability, a deal a federal court called a sham with no adversarial relationship. And then Schiff asked the question that lingers over the whole hearing. What happened to the Todd Blanch who was once a respected prosecutor in the Southern District of New York? Watch this. If you want to support the channel and get exclusive videos, kindly hit the join button below. That's how we keep this going.

[00:01:33]>> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Blanch, you represented the president in three at least three criminal cases. The hush money payment case in New York, the January 6 case, and the Mara Lago classified documents case. You said when you appeared last before this committee you'd consult with ethics lawyers about that apparent conflict of interest in handling any case involving the president having been his personal counsel. Did you consult with Joseph Terrell, a senior ethics lawyer at the department?

[00:02:00]>> Um, I believe I met with Mr. Terrell.

[00:02:02]Yes.

[00:02:03]>> Did Mr. Terrell tell you that ethics laws and policies required that you not be involved in cases involving uh your prior and Yes.

[00:02:15]>> Uh representation of the president.

[00:02:16]>> Yes.

[00:02:17]>> So in those three matters, hash money payment case, January 6 case, Mara Lago case, you were to recuse yourself.

[00:02:24]>> I'm recused. Correct.

[00:02:26]>> Well, by the way, the cases are not ongoing, Senator, but to the extent there's any work around those cases.

[00:02:31]Yes, I'm recused. 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. She was 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 >> 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?

[00:03:11]>> No. Okay.

[00:03:11]>> I'm making I said there was 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 move to vacate, I don't think you're going to deny involvement in this. You move to vacate the convictions of 12 Proud Boys and Oathkeepers, which erased their convictions, restored their gun rights. These people were convicted in the January 6 investigation, which also involved the president, who you represented. You were involved in dismissing those cases, were you not?

[00:03:51]>> I was. I'm the acting attorney general, so yes, my department moved to dismiss.

[00:03:56]Um I I was not >> So you you didn't recuse yourself from that matter.

[00:04:01]>> You were willing.

[00:04:02]>> There's no reason to from the the Proud Boys matter.

[00:04:06]>> Yes. It was you know the rules. There are rules that say when there are rules and that's not one of them.

[00:04:11]>> And there are rules and when you're told to recuse yourself from investigations you handle for the president. You're supposed to recuse yourself.

[00:04:18]>> No. But what I 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 Maraago Maraago documents case.

[00:04:31]How is that not an abundant conflict of interest refusing to release to the public an investigative report of an investigation into your client?

[00:04:41]>> I am not a judge, a federal judge.

[00:04:43]>> No, no, no, no, no. The department's position under you, Mr. Blanch, the department's position under you, Mr. Blanch, was do not release the report.

[00:04:52]>> So that position >> if you went into court asking them to release it, it would be released by now.

[00:04:57]So how is that not a patent conflict of interest?

[00:05:00]>> What you're saying happens to not be true. I did not do that. What you're talking about happened before you came to >> support the release of I don't, but I'm recused 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 position. I was you were in court.

[00:05:24]>> I'm asking you whether anyone sought your opinion or used your guidance in refusing to release volume two >> when you're saying you had nothing to do with that litigation was ongoing. I was a private citizen still representing the president of the United States. It was before March um since March to the extent there's been anything in front of that judge.

[00:05:43]>> Mr. I asked you in your last confirmation hearing whether you would release the report and 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.

[00:05:58]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.

[00:06:06]>> I wasn't involved. Appears I was involved. I said let me let me ask you about another one. You have your name on. The truth has to matter at some point.

[00:06:12]>> Yeah, it does matter. We just don't hear much of it from you. But let me ask you about another matter you have your name on. I don't think you can deny responsibility here. And that is the IRS settlement agreement. So you put your name on this that absolves the president of tax liabilities in the past. The president was convicted in the case you represented him in of falsifying business records in part for tax purposes. Does this settlement not absolve the president of any liability for tax crimes associated with what he's already been convicted of?

[00:06:48]>> That's not what he was convicted of and not having to do with tax.

[00:06:52]>> I'm happy to read the statement of facts. The participants took steps that mischaracterized for tax purposes the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme. So you know Mr. >> there was not the president. It was somebody else.

[00:07:06]>> Well, if the president is conspiring with others to falsify business records to help them cheat on taxes. He is also exposed to liability. You know that as well as I do.

[00:07:15]>> He can't be audited for that.

[00:07:16]>> And of course he can be. Of course he can be. And he can be prosecuted for it.

[00:07:21]But the agreement you signed on behalf of your former client, on behalf of your current client in a in a staggering example of selfdealing prohibits that.

[00:07:31]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?

[00:07:46]>> 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.

[00:07:55]>> No, but before that agreement. So any tax filed taxes for money he made last year, right? So >> yes. So um if he file if he filed tax returns this year for money he earned last year that his sons earned that is world liberty financial all those people earned and defrauded taxpayers on it. He faces no liability under this new sign.

[00:08:18]>> There's no evidence taxpayers were defrauded and he is >> but there is there's evidence in this agreement that you've absolved him of any liability over >> No, I just said he's not absolved.

[00:08:28]>> So the question >> So this 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 >> before the agreement. A tax return filed in in uh this calendar year before this agreement.

[00:08:41]>> Before the agreement it applies, not after.

[00:08:43]>> Okay. So for a tax return filed this year for last year for the billions he made there is no tax liability even if he cheats on his taxes or his kids do or his business do. He has absolved of that further potential liability.

[00:08:57]>> No.

[00:08:57]>> Well, it's in the plain language of your agreement. Did you write this language?

[00:09:02]>> You have to use the facts though. He hasn't filed taxes yet. So when he files taxes, there's no protection based upon this agreement.

[00:09:09]>> Did Did you write this language? Did I write the Did I type it up myself?

[00:09:14]>> Did you write this language?

[00:09:15]>> No.

[00:09:16]>> Well, you put your name to it.

[00:09:17]>> I did.

[00:09:18]>> So, who wrote this?

[00:09:21]>> Some I don't know the person that actually typed it. I don't know who it is on one of the president's lawyers or was it someone from the Justice Department or IRS?

[00:09:29]>> This document would have been somebody within the Department of Justice.

[00:09:32]>> Well, you have no idea who that is. I >> I don't know the name of the person that took that. Did you debate with them the statute of limitations which clearly would preclude the president's claim this $10 billion lawsuit?

[00:09:45]>> We had extensive discussions internally about the underlying litigation.

[00:09:49]>> And you did you reject the statute of limitations defense?

[00:09:53]>> I I'm not a judge. which I don't reject, >> but you signed an agreement for the US discussion around the >> You signed an agreement for the US basically uh indicating that the Justice Department's position that the statute of limitations applies doesn't matter.

[00:10:09]>> I I did that's not what I said. I didn't say that anywhere.

[00:10:12]>> Who rejected the 25 defenses the IRS had to this sham lawsuit? Who rejected them?

[00:10:18]Who said that these defenses we're not going to accept? We're just going to go with the president's agreement in the slush fun.

[00:10:26]>> There was a lot of discussion internally. Um, >> but you made the decision.

[00:10:30]>> I What's the decision? What do you mean?

[00:10:33]>> You made the decision to not defend the IRS and the Justice Department. You made the decision and said to sign this slush fund agreement.

[00:10:41]>> We made the decision to settle the case.

[00:10:43]Correct.

[00:10:44]>> Yeah. And in in doing that, you basically decided that you were going to be the lawyer for the president and the lawyer for the IRS and the Justice Department. As the court found in this case, there was no adversarial relationship.

[00:11:03]>> The court found it was a sham. It was a collusive relationship. And what I don't understand, Todd Blanch, what happened to the Todd Blanch who was a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York?

[00:11:14]What happened to the prosecutor people had respect for? What happened to the prosecutor who once respected the rule of law? What happened to the prosecutor who said that there wouldn't be a whiff of political partisanship and then prosecutes the president's enemies over Sea Shell's cases, over making a video stating the plain law and constitution?

[00:11:32]What happened to the Todd Blanch of the Southern District of New York that could convert him into you? Someone willing to say the president has both the the right uh and the duty to prosecute his political enemies. I cannot imagine that Todd Blanch of the old days would have ever done that. What happened to you, Todd Blanch? I tell you this. I think Robert Carroll had it right when he said that power doesn't corrupt as much as it reveals. I suspect it has just revealed who you are and who you are as someone willing to sacrifice everything you once believed in for that title for that position of attorney general. And it is a sad story that we have seen from Trump appointee after appointee after appointee. We have seen people compromise themselves little by little and then a lot by a lot until they're sitting before this committee and trying to justify the unjustifiable. I yield back.

[00:12:30]>> Okay.

[00:12:32]>> May I just briefly respond, chairman?

[00:12:34]>> Yes, you may.

[00:12:34]>> Very briefly. So, I you ask me what happened to Todd Blanch.

[00:12:39]I am still here. I am the same exact person I was when I was a federal prosecutor in the SDNY, which is do the right thing and and do everything you can to keep communities safe. So when I was a line prosecutor, when I was a supervisor, when I was the head of a division, my motiv my my motivation and my goal was the same thing with the people who who worked with me and worked for me, which is do the right thing, um enforce the laws, and put bad guys in jail. And so you you spend time talking about I did not interrupt you. I did not interrupt you. A little courtesy would be appropriate.

[00:13:13]>> So when you ask me what has changed, okay? And you talk about a single document that I signed. Okay? And somebody had to sign that document when the president sued. Okay? So I tried to do the right thing. What I do every single day and what the prosecutors in this country do every single day in the nearly 100,000 indictments and informations that have been filed since January 20th is exactly what everybody in this building should want the Department of Justice to do, which is to make our community safer, enforce the laws both civily and criminally, and always do the right thing with integrity, which is exactly what I'm doing. So, I am the same Todd Blanch I was when I was a federal prosecutor in the SDNY.

[00:13:57]Let's be absolutely clear about what Adam Schiff exposed in this hearing. He demonstrated that Todd Blanch, who promised to recuse himself from any matter involving the client he'd defended in three criminal cases, was in fact involved in a series of those very matters, culminating in a settlement he personally signed that a federal court found to be a sham. and Schiff did it as a former prosecutor who knows precisely how damning each of these facts is.

[00:14:25]Schiff begins by pinning down the recusal. Blanch represented Trump in three criminal cases. The New York Hush Money case, the January 6th case, and the Mara Lago classified documents case.

[00:14:38]At his prior appearance, Blanch said he'd consult ethics lawyers about the obvious conflict. Schiff confirms he met with a senior department ethics lawyer and that the lawyer told him ethics rules required he not be involved in matters touching his prior representation of the president. Blanch agrees he's recused from those three cases. Good. That's the standard he set for himself. Then Schiff shows how Blanch crossed it at CPAC. Blanch had boasted that there was not a single person at the Justice Department who had anything to do with the prosecutions of the president, framing the purge of those prosecutors as an achievement.

[00:15:15]Schiff draws out the contradiction.

[00:15:17]Blanch took credit at a political rally for firing the very lawyers and FBI agents who investigated his client, but before the committee, he won't take responsibility for it. You can't brag about it at CPAC and disclaim it under oath. And it goes further. Blanch moved to vacate the convictions of 12 Proud Boys and Oathkeepers, erasing their convictions and restoring their gun rights. Those were January 6th cases, the same investigation that touched the president Blanch represented. Blanch confirms his department moved to dismiss them and insists he didn't need to recuse. Schiff's point is that the rules say otherwise. when you're told to recuse from matters connected to your former client signing off on dismissals in those matters is exactly what recusal is supposed to prevent. Shift presses on the refusal to release volume two of the special counsel's report. The investigation into the Mara Lago documents case, Blanch's own former case. The department's position under Blanch was to keep it sealed. Schiff argues that's a patent conflict, suppressing the public report of an investigation into your client. Blanch's defense is that he was recused and the litigation predated his tenure. Though Schiff notes that at his last hearing, Blanch testified flatly that he would not release the report. Not that he would recuse from the decision, but the centerpiece is the IRS settlement. And here, Schiff has the one thing Blanch cannot disclaim because his name is on it. Schiff lays it out. Trump was convicted in the hush money case of falsifying business records in part for tax purposes. The settlement Blanch signed absolves the president of past tax liability.

[00:17:00]Schiff reads from the statement of facts that participants took steps mischaracterizing the true nature of the payments for tax purposes and makes the point that conspiring to falsify records to cheat on taxes creates real liability liability this agreement extinguishes.

[00:17:18]He presses on scope. Does the deal also shield Trump from audit or liability on the billions in crypto money he made in his first year? Blanch says it's not forward-looking, but Shift sharpens it to the vulnerable point. A tax return filed this year for last year's income before the agreement's date is covered, meaning even if Trump or his sons or the Trump Organization cheated on those taxes, the agreement absolves them, and Blanch can't say who even wrote the language he signed. Then Schiff exposes the mechanism of the self-deing. Trump sued the United States for $10 billion.

[00:17:52]The IRS had defenses, including a statute of limitations that Schiff says clearly should have precluded the claim.

[00:18:00]Schiff asks, "Who rejected those defenses? Who decided not to defend the IRS and to sign the settlement instead?"

[00:18:08]Blanch concedes they made the decision to settle, which means, as Schiff frames it, Blanch served as the lawyer for the president and the lawyer for the IRS at the same time. And as the court found, there was no adversarial relationship.

[00:18:22]The court called it collusive, a sham.

[00:18:25]And then Schiff delivers the close that gives the hearing its weight. He asks, "What happened to the Todd Blanch of the Southern District of New Yorker, the prosecutor people respected, who once said there wouldn't be a whiff of political partisanship, and who now prosecutes the president's enemies." He invokes Robert Caro's line that power doesn't corrupt so much as it reveals and suggests power has simply revealed who Blanch is. Someone willing to sacrifice everything he once believed in for the title of attorney general.

[00:18:56]Blanch given a chance to respond insists he's the same person he always was. That he does the right thing every day. But the record shift assembled, the CPAC boasts, the dismissals, the sealed report, the signed sham settlement tells a different story than the one Blanch tells about himself. And a prosecutor laid it out piece by piece until the only defense left was to insist he hadn't changed at all. You're watching Inside Politics. Hit that subscribe button and help us reach 100,000 subscribers and comment your thoughts.