Blanche Makes STUNNING ADMISSION That Could DESTROY His Chances…

[00:00:00]This is Scott MacFarlane Reports at the Capitol. If Todd Blanche wants to be confirmed as the next Attorney General, this one answer to one follow-up question from a Senate Democrat may not help the cause. It's buried deep in the 400 pages of questions and answers, follow-up questions he was given by senators after last week's confirmation hearing. And one of the questions revolved around January 6th pardons and the rioters or the defendants who went on to be accused of or be convicted of other crimes after their pardons, including at least one case in which a man from Florida was convicted of a child sex offense. The question asked by a Senate Democrat on the Judiciary Committee to Blanche was, "These pardons were indefensible from day one. But knowing now how these offenders have gone on to victimize children using their expectation of restitution from this administration to facilitate their abuse, how can you continue to defend these pardons? How do you defend the pardon of a person who went on to commit a child sex offense?"

[00:00:58]Blanche's response was, "The Constitution gives the president the power to pardon or commute the sentence of anyone convicted of a federal crime."

[00:01:06]End of response.

[00:01:08]Nothing technically wrong with that question from Todd Blanche, but we will see how that lands with those handful of swing votes who could control his fate on the US Senate floor.

[00:01:18]You know that Todd Blanche is ongoing support of Trump's personal interests has been a source of contention, but also the fact that he begged off other questions or seemed to give non-declarative answers to questions about his role in this sweetheart immunity deal Trump received from the IRS or his role in building up that slush fund. And potentially paying taxpayer money to January 6th defendants, all of that has been landing with a thud here in Washington among all the Democrats. Not just in the Senate, there are House Democrats watching this too with their own objections to all of this. One of them is Mary Gay Scanlon, Democrat from Pennsylvania, who spoke with Scott MacFarlane reports. I'm wondering what Caucus thinks what your constituents might think about Todd Blanche being the next Attorney General.

[00:02:03]And I ask that because he's still today in his responses to the Senate is denying January 6th and denying taxpayer money will go to January 6th defendants.

[00:02:11]I suspect that doesn't land right with folks in Philadelphia.

[00:02:14]>> I certainly heard about Mr. Blanche several times when I was home this weekend and people are not happy with the idea that someone who denies the facts that January 6th occurred could be in line to be the US Attorney or the Attorney General for the United States. I mean this guy he defended folks involved in January 6th. He's been the president's lawyer. He's totally conflicted out of this and he shouldn't be in that position.

[00:02:42]>> We heard Senate Democrats, the one who'll vote on this confirmation, just lean into Blanche for these non-answers about January 6th.

[00:02:50]>> Coming back to January 6th, there've been several of my colleagues who have asked about the quote-unquote slush fund. Do you personally believe that someone who's forced who forcibly entered the US Capitol, assaulted law enforcement should be rewarded with taxpayer money?

[00:03:05]Yes or no?

[00:03:06]>> I I can't answer it yes or no, but if you want the answer, I think that the the fund that doesn't exist anymore set up parameters where no, somebody that you just described would likely not recover from.

[00:03:18]>> Which which brings me to my other point because several members have asked and I know Senator Tillis specifically focused on the weaponization slush fund and language versus declarations versus appropriations bills and how to undo this. I also need to be clear that January 6ers cannot, should not be able to seek payouts from other sources including the Federal Tort Claims Act.

[00:03:42]Do you commit to vigorously defending taxpayer money from being paid out to January 6th rioters, those who were convicted of their involvement with January 6th regardless of the source of funding from the Department of Justice?

[00:03:54]>> You're talking about a a statute that exists and allows anybody to seek to to file a suit against the United States. So, I can tell you we always vigorously defend our cases, but I I can't speak to a particular case >> You know this is a hypothetical.

[00:04:09]There's been at least four letters that I've signed on to along with Senators Durbin, Klobuchar, and Whitehouse who asked earlier about the status of January 6th rioters seeking payouts from the department. When can we expect responses to those letters?

[00:04:24]>> When you say status, you mean those that have filed cases in court? I don't know what that means.

[00:04:29]>> Yeah, status of their their request for payouts being reviewed, approved, or not.

[00:04:35]>> I I think anybody, including January 6th defendants, can file a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and I think some of them have. Those cases are ongoing, they're publicly available on ECF.

[00:04:46]>> I went through these 400 pages of responses so you don't have to. There's a lot there. There were also several questions about Kash Patel and Kash Patel's alleged excessive drinking or episodes of unexplained absences.

[00:04:58]Todd Blanche's response to one of those questions was, "I'm not going to certify on a yes or no basis matters that are the subject of liberal media reporting and that would be appropriately addressed through the department's review process." You'll recall during his confirmation hearing, he was asked about Kash Patel and any alleged excessive drinking by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island who measured Blanche's response and said, "Fine, you own this. You own whatever happens next in the Kash Patel FBI." There were also questions about the Epstein survivors and whether Blanche would try to meet again with the Epstein survivors, and the response was pretty declarative and simple. Blanche says, "I met with them last week. It's been done."

[00:05:35]The survivors were not satisfied with the meeting.

[00:05:38]Saying that Blanche was indignant, he was rude, abrasive, not helpful, non-responsive, and that was noticed.

[00:05:44]>> The very first question I asked him was, "Did you read the files? Did you personally read the files?"

[00:05:50]>> And he said no.

[00:05:52]>> Personally, he did not review the files.

[00:05:54]And then I said to him, "Well, wouldn't you consider that a moment where you misspoke when you said that there were no investigative leads, that this this case is closed, and that we would not find any more evidence of other men?"

[00:06:10]And he said to me, "I didn't say that."

[00:06:12]And I And And [clears throat] that was when everyone in the room was like, "We've We've seen you on media say it.

[00:06:17]You've repeatedly say it." And then I literally gave him files, and I showed them to him, and I said, "How can [clears throat] you say that? There are names right here on these pages."

[00:06:32]And he says, "Well, that that's not how I can open a case. I I need evidence, and then I need cooperation, and then I need testimony, and you shouldn't be talking to me. You should be talking to the FBI."

[00:06:45]That that was his answer.

[00:06:47]And everybody's response was, "We did.

[00:06:50]We did, multiple times." And the the FBI reports are missing in the files.

[00:06:56]They're not there.

[00:06:58]Um It was It was I I don't even have the words for it.

[00:07:06]I think we knew he was going to respond that way. It's what he's been doing, but for him to actively do that to our faces, it was just shocking and re-traumatizing for every everyone. I think >> Here at the Capitol, January 6th was more than 5 years ago, but it is still a pain, a visceral pain for the victims, for those who were traumatized that day. The police were here defending the Capitol against a riotous mob of Trump supporters. Some of them wounded gravely, some of them who could never return to work. There were multiple officers who died by suicide in the immediate days after January 6th, and the lack of acknowledgement about January 6th, the lack of honoring of the victims and the heroes, it just lands wrong. Not just with members of Congress, with the people who work here, the civil servants, the staff, people who work the food service, the custodians, the cops. It lands wrong when January 6th is not acknowledged, when the truth of it is not acknowledged. One thing I will note, though, Todd Blanche when asked in this 400-page stack of questions, "Who won the 2024 election?" responded with this new phraseology being used by MAGA and Trump, that President Trump was certified the winner in 2024. Kind of symmetrical to how a Trump loyalist here, a Trump nominee here say Joe Biden was certified as the winner in 2021. Thank you for subscribing to Scott McFarland Reports and joining me on a putridly swampy hot day here at the US Capitol. We're on duty 7 days a week tracking all things that are a threat to democracy, all things happening in the Congress, at the Department of Justice, in the administration, all things that are relevant to the trajectory of our democracy and our country. We will stay on this until things return to normal.

[00:08:50]Really want to thank you for watching.

[00:08:52]You can comment, share, and subscribe for exclusive reporting, breaking news, 365 days a year, right here.