BREAKING: GOP Senators May Turn on Trump’s Attorney General Pick

Summary

Bulwark Takes — Episode Summary

Episode: BREAKING: GOP Senators May Turn on Trump’s Attorney General Pick
Date: July 21, 2026
Host: The Bulwark team (mainly “C”—interviewer, with guest Arthur Delaney, “D,” HuffPost reporter on Capitol Hill)

---

Main Theme

This episode is an emergency broadcast covering the political turmoil surrounding the confirmation of Todd Blanche as Attorney General. The discussion centers on unexpected Senate Republican resistance—especially from Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis—over Blanche’s handling of a controversial DOJ settlement that both created a $1.776 billion “weaponization fund” (seen as relief for “J6ers,” i.e., January 6th Capitol attackers) and granted former President Trump sweeping IRS immunity.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Todd Blanche’s Beleaguered Confirmation and Senate Dissent

• Context: Blanche, nominated as Attorney General by Trump, is under fire over a DOJ settlement that offers retroactive IRS immunity to Trump/his associates and establishes a “weaponization fund” presumably for January 6 rioters.
• Cornyn’s Skepticism:
  • Cornyn called the deal “sloppy writing and sloppy lawyering” (02:22).
  • He’s pushing for either legislation or a Justice Department decree to officially kill the “weaponization fund,” stating that Blanche’s assurances are “not good enough.” (02:30)
• Procedural Leverage:
  • With an 11-10 GOP/Dem split on the Judiciary Committee, one Republican “no” could block Blanche in committee—even if the full Senate may have recourse.
  • Cornyn, Tillis, and Curtis are seen as possible dissenters, but skepticism remains about whether they’ll follow through (05:27–06:53, 19:36–22:30).
• Notable Quote:
  • “[Blanche’s] response to his cues are, quote, not good enough. Cornyn says he wants more clarity in writing from Blanche on this fund.” (03:20)

---

2. The Controversial DOJ Settlement: Weaponization Fund & IRS Immunity

Weaponization Fund:

• What is it?: A $1.776 billion fund—to compensate individuals the government had “weaponized against,” widely understood to be January 6 defendants (06:54).
• Key Flaw:
  • The fund’s legal status is murky; Blanche insists “the anti-weaponization fund is dead,” yet the binding agreement leaves open the potential for future claims (09:00–10:23).
• Republican Senators’ Demand: Want formal, legal action (court order or legislation) to ensure the fund cannot be revived.

IRS Immunity:

• What is it?: The settlement grants Trump (and family/businesses) immunity from IRS auditing or tax liability for all years prior to the settlement.
• Blanche’s Position: Admits the “immunity” provision remains in force and refuses to call it “sweeping immunity,” sidestepping criticism (12:32–13:52).
• Potential Illegality: The judge overseeing the now-settled case suggested such a deal could be unconstitutional, citing domestic emoluments and federal anti-tampering statutes (15:04).
• Notable Quote:
  • “It’s pretty simple. Yeah. Get out of all taxes, tax immunity, giant tax break. These are all accurate and fair ways of describing it. It’s never been done before. It’s potentially illegal.” (13:56, Delaney)

---

3. Blanche’s Approach: Evasion and Deflection

• In Written Responses:
  • Blanche frequently replied, “the document speaks for itself” (12 times) and “it would be inappropriate for me to comment…” (168 times) in his 400-page questionnaire (03:20–04:22).
• Participants’ Reactions: Cornyn viewed the answers as dismissive and “rude.”
• Notable Moment:
  • “If I were a senator, I would consider that very rude.” (04:22, Delaney)

---

4. Senate Math and Likelihood of GOP Rebellion

• GOP Numbers: With Senate absences (like McConnell’s illness), a few GOP defections could sink the nomination.
• But: Both Delaney and the host are skeptical. Even with public pushback, Republican senators have a history of folding under Trump pressure (19:36–22:08).
• Notable Quote:
  • “We’re seismologists, but there’s never any earthquake. No buildings ever fall down.” (21:56, 21:59 — summary of GOP history with Trump showdowns)

---

5. Other Republican Concerns: The Epstein Files

• Background: Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s trafficking operation, in a letter to key senators, urged voting against Blanche due to his mishandling of the files—releasing victims’ identities while hiding those of abusers.
• Lesser Priority for GOP:
  • The weaponization fund and Trump immunity are, ironically, more animating issues for Republican senators than the Epstein controversy—even though the latter has energized parts of MAGA base for years.
  • “This was a big deal on the right… yet this seems to be somewhat of a secondary consideration for the senators.” (29:18–29:39)

---

6. Blanche’s Ideology: No DOJ Independence from Trump

• Explicit Philosophy: Blanche’s written answers and background signal he sees DOJ as part of a unified executive under the President, with no real tradition of independence.
• Comparison: Former AGs (Holder, Garland) at least pretended to keep a firewall. Blanche/Trump administration openly reject that (24:27–25:56).
• Notable Quote:
  • “That’s him saying, no, there’s no such thing as DOJ independence.” (25:08, Host)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Cornyn’s on-the-record dissatisfaction:
  • “It’s not good enough.” (02:30, Cornyn, per Delaney)
• On Blanche’s evasions:
  • “‘The document speaks for itself.’ Twelve times… ‘It would be inappropriate…’ 168 times” (03:20–04:22)
• On the DOJ settlement:
  • “Get out of all taxes, tax immunity, giant tax break. These are all accurate and fair ways of describing it. It’s never been done before.” (13:56, Delaney)
• On the likelihood of GOP revolt:
  • “We’re seismologists, but there’s never any earthquake.” (21:56, Host)
• On DOJ independence:
  • “[For Blanche,] the president rules us. We are his administration.” (25:56, Delaney)

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 01:22–02:30: Cornyn’s skepticism toward Blanche and breakdown of the problematic settlement.
• 05:09–06:53: Senate Judiciary math, committee leverage, and potential outcomes.
• 06:53–10:44: In-depth explanation of weaponization fund and IRS immunity details.
• 11:25–13:52: Further discussion on the “immunity” provision and why it’s so controversial.
• 19:36–22:08: Live updates and skepticism about whether GOP senators will actually defect.
• 24:27–25:56: Blanche’s explicit rejection of DOJ independence.
• 26:57–29:39: Epstein files issue—its waning impact on this nomination fight.
• 30:43–31:12: Reflection on the nomination as "another act of Trump humiliation of Republicans."
• 31:12–31:35: Wrap-up and thanks.

---

Conclusion

Summary Judgment:
The episode lays out the high-stakes political, legal, and ethical controversies surrounding Todd Blanche’s nomination as Attorney General. With senior Republican senators like Cornyn and Tillis signaling resistance—primarily over the unprecedented DOJ “weaponization fund” and sweeping IRS immunity for Trump—it appears there’s potential for serious GOP infighting. Yet, history (and the hosts’ skepticism) suggests the safe bet is that Republican senators won’t ultimately block Blanche. The discussion also touches on growing concerns from Epstein survivors, Blanche’s philosophy on DOJ independence, and the deepening subservience of the Republican Senate to Trump’s will.

---

For more: Subscribe to The Bulwark for ongoing, in-depth coverage and analysis.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, everybody.

[B]

Lady Luck here. And we're celebrating America's 250th birthday. Now, all summer long, I'm going to be celebrating by playing on spinquest.com which is an American owned social casino. It obviously features over a thousand slot games and live blackjack, live craps, live bubble craps. Head on over to spinquest.com get yourself a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.

[C]

Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. All right, hey, everyone. This is an emergency broadcast with my man Arthur Delaney of HuffPost there on Capitol Hill, looking fresh, looking sharp and professional. We are coming to you live because the Todd Blanche nomination or confirmation hearings are not. Is not yet resolved. I, I just kind of assumed that he was gonna coast and he probably still will get through. But top Blanche sent in his questionnaire, which is what a nominee for this post tends to do. His is over 400 pages of answers to various questions from senators on the Judiciary Committee. And they probed him on a bunch of different topics, but chief among them was this DOJ weaponization fund. And Arthur, you're there on the Hill and you got to talk to one of the senators at the heart of the deliberations, John Cornyn of Texas, and tell us what you heard.

[D]

So John Cornyn has been asking tough questions to Todd Blanche about this fund, which was created by Blanche on behalf of Trump to resolve a lawsuit that Trump filed against his own government. So this whole thing is pretty crazy. Part of it actually frees Trump from any back taxes. So we got like a broad grant of tax immunity. Cornyn doesn't like this. None of them like this. But most are too shy to complain. So Cornyn complained to Blanche at the hearing. Blanche is just like, you know, whatever, it's fine. And so senators asked Blanche about this in written questions that were follow ups to the hearing. And in the responses, Blanche basically stonewalls them again, says, for example, well, the text of the agreement speaks for itself. When it didn't, they were all like, what does this mean? This agreement appears to free Trump not just from owing taxes, but potentially from any other agency investigation besides the irs. And so it doesn't speak for itself. Cornyn called it sloppy writing and sloppy lawyering. And so I talked to him today

[C]

and what did he say?

[D]

Reporters were all like, well, so where are you on this? Because you wouldn't say you'd vote for this guy. And he said he still has the same questions that he had before he would like either Congress to pass legislation to kill this settlement or he wants something in writing from the Justice Department. So I said, well, Senator, you just got something in writing from the Justice Department. It did not provide the clarity that you're looking for. And he said to me, it's not good enough. And then the elevator closed and he went up. Now, he's not going to say he's voting yes or no until he actually has to do it, I don't think. Or, you know, he's at least going to wait a while.

[C]

But you can see Igor Boba's tweet right there summarizing what I presume is your exchange with Cornyn.

[D]

Yeah.

[C]

Or Blanche's response to his cues are, quote, not good enough. Cornyn says he wants more clarity in writing from Blanche on this fund. Your point about Blanche's questionnaire is valid. I went through the document. I did not read all one, all 404 pages. But I did use this thing called Control F, which allows you to find things in a document. And I put in quotation marks. The document speaks for itself. How many times do you think that was in the document?

[D]

If you had to guess, is it more than once?

[C]

12 times. 12 times. He says the document speaks for itself. How many times do you think in this document, in his questionnaire, do you think Todd Blanch used the phrase it would be inappropriate, as in, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on internal deliberations.

[D]

So I read a good chunk of it and I read that phrase, I think, think more than a dozen times. And I, I made no effort to read all 400 pages. So how many times?

[C]

168 times. He says it would be inappropriate.

[D]

Yeah. So saying the document speaks for itself, you know, if I were a senator, I would consider that very rude. In his questioning. Yeah. Hornin blew up the agreement, the text of the agreement, and it was like pointing to the lines in there that he did not think were clear what they meant. And so if senators were still questioning the meaning of the document, it's weird for that to be the answer, unless, of course, you're blowing off this question. You don't consider it serious. You know, these guys are going to do what Trump wants, just like you're doing, and so you'll be confirmed. Now, Cornyn could sink him single handedly because Mitch McConnell's out sick and they have a narrow majority and he's on the Judiciary Committee.

[C]

But nobody stop for a second because I want to talk about both the, the numbers and then the issue of the weaponization fund, the numbers, because this establishes why Cornyn has leverage. The Judiciary Committee currently has a, what, 11 to 10 ratio of Republicans to Democrats.

[D]

Right, Right.

[C]

Okay, so if one Republican votes against Blanche in that committee, he cannot get through committee. Correct?

[D]

That's right.

[C]

And that doesn't kill the nomination. They could still bring it directly to the Senate floor. Correct.

[D]

I'm less sure about that. I know that that is true with many things and with some other committees, I'm not certain. I just have to admit I don't know if that actually would work in this situation.

[C]

Okay, well, let's find a guest who actually knows what they're not.

[D]

Just.

[C]

I think I'm pretty sure that you can still bring to floor, but it might be a 60 vote threshold at that point in time, and they clearly don't have that vote. So Cornyn does have leverage here. Right. So he could say, you know what? This is not good enough. Not gonna. Not gonna vote for this guy. And then suddenly you're in a world of pain if you're the White House. Now, let's talk about the fund itself. So let's back up a little bit. Trump sues the IRS for the leak of his taxpayer data. Okay. Trump becomes president, he now runs the irs, and he's suing the irs. The Justice Department decides to intervene and create a settlement, even though there's no adverse parties here. And the settlement is, we're going to do two things. One, we're going to create this fund, which is $1.776 billion that will go to people who were, you know, the government was weaponized against. And that's. Everyone assumes it's going to be J6ers.

[D]

Right, right.

[C]

Okay. The other one is everything prior to the leaking of this taxpayer, it wasn't just Trump's data, but Trump and his family will not be audited by the IRS for any tax information prior to the leaking of this data.

[D]

That's right. No, no, not prior to the leaking of the data. Prior to the date of the agreement, which was.

[C]

Okay, date of the grammar.

[D]

Okay. Any tax enforcement that had been ongoing against Trump, his family, his businesses, any affiliates. Like it's very broad in the text. This is another disagreement. Blanchard saying it's only the parties to the lawsuit that benefit from this one. Clearly, it's actually much broader than that. And they are freed from essentially owing any tax that they may have owed that they were going back and forth with the irs. And Trump reportedly was fighting an adverse. A potential adverse ruling that could cost him $100 million.

[C]

Okay.

[D]

Because the IRS did not like how he had deducted business losses in order to reduce his liability. And this is something that was going back like 15 years now at least.

[C]

Now what has Blanche done to say that the weaponization fund itself is just kaput? Is it all, is all he's done is said it's done, it's dead. Or is there anything actually, can he do anything more than that?

[D]

All he's done is said it's not moving forward. And then he said it's moot. He said it's dead. In his questionnaire, he used the word dead. It's not dead.

[C]

You can see it right there. Let me read it quickly. This is the response. It would be inappropriate for me. That's one of the 168 place to comment on internal deliberations that may or may not have occurred in conjunction with any official act by the Department of Justice. As I testified at my confirmation hearing and as the department has repeatedly represent in court, no commissioners have been appointed to the fund. No funds have been transferred to the fund, the Amputee Weaponization fund. No claims have been received by that fund, and no claims have been paid. The anti weaponization fund is dead.

[D]

Right? So the, the text of the agreement itself says only the parties to the settlement can modify the terms. And so Cornyn was like, if it says that, how do you kill it? Just by declaring that it's dead or not moving forward, it's possible someone else could sue and say that they would be covered by this agreement. And Blanche is like, well, we would, we would, we would fight that off. But that's, that's one of the things the senators were following up on. How can that happen? And in his follow up questions, Blanche is just like, well, it won't. I said it's dead.

[C]

So if I'm understanding this, I'm a J6 here. Not really not reality, but let's say I am. And I was like, hey, actually this thing is created and it, by statute it is. I mean, it was part of the settlement and therefore it's part of the law. I don't care what Todd Blanche is saying. That thing is still legal and I deserve a portion of that. Give it to me. They, the concern here is that that person, me, would have a actionable claim for those funds because of the settlement.

[D]

I think theoretically, I mean, those people are, are suing the government for this already. And another thing, Blanche says, well, anyone can sue. You know, we'll, we'll take their cases case by Case. But this was their idea to create this pot of money dedicated to them specifically.

[C]

And what's. Okay, it's a freaking pot of money, right? Like, if, if, if I'm Joe Schmo J. Sixer again, I, I can still sue the government and say I want reparations for how you treated me.

[D]

Right.

[C]

I don't care if it's paid from this pot of money. Give me some other DOJ fund from. For what I did. That would be kosher. Right?

[D]

I mean, that, that's, that's what they, in fact, had set in motion many months ago, hundreds of them. They got lawyered up with Mark McCloskey, who you may remember as the guy with the machine gun. Yeah, yeah. With the assault rifle. Excuse me. And, well, his wife, he's told me that that's all still in the works. One reason this fund was such an own goal is that that process has always existed and they were using it. And then you bring massive attention to it with a unprecedented and frankly, weird settlement with the President. So the fund is dead. The tax part of it that gives the president tax immunity, though, he has said is still alive.

[C]

Right. That I'm going to get to in a second. I'm going to get to that in a second. Back to the weaponization fund. Is there anything, Blanche, Is there anything Corny has said he needs to see from DOJ that would be satisfactory?

[D]

Cornyn is not making a specific demand. You know, today he said he wanted it in writing, and it. You know what? It's actually not clear if he wants some further statement from Blanche or if he means he wants Blanche to put. And put out an order superseding the old one or countermanding the old ones. These are basically Blanche orders that created these, These, this pot of money and this settlement for Donald Trump. So it's, it's. Maybe he wants Blanche to take some more official action than simply, you know, reiterating what he said before. But he's resisted putting this in writing, I think, perhaps until now, because there was a lawsuit in court and the. Justice Verne fought it saying we're not. We don't have to do anything. We, this. We said in a congressional hearing that the fund's not moving forward, so we don't need to make any other written formal declaration besides that.

[C]

All right, let's get to the immunity portion of this, and let's put that part of the questionnaire at the very bottom of our prep.

[D]

Doc.

[C]

Sweeping immunity. Here's. They're asking him about this part, which is the immunity part. Is this release order still in effect? Response yes.

[D]

Yes.

[C]

Okay. So we now have established that the, the immunization fund is dead, as Blanche says, although we don't think it's particularly dead. It could become in different forms. But the immunity part, he's very clear. That is still in effect. Will you withdraw this sweeping immunity order? And if not, why not? Blanche, I do not agree with your characterization of the document as a, quote, sweeping immunity order. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on internal deliberations that may or may not have occurred conjunction with any official act of the Department of Justice. So this, this baby's. This baby's a live wire. This is definitely still here.

[D]

That response is just a pile of words. It doesn't mean anything. It's gibberish.

[C]

But we can establish that. It's very clear. Donald Trump, according to no matter what, according to Blanche, will have immunity for all. All and all of his family and associated entities and whatever. They will have immunity from IRS auditing for everything prior to the issuance of this settlement. That's clear.

[D]

Yep.

[C]

Damn. And no one has problems with that?

[D]

Everyone has problems with this. Has actually received less attention than the fund because that's like January 6th rioters. And this is taxes. It's a little bit more obscure and boring, but it's, it's pretty simple. Yeah. Get out of all taxes, tax immunity, giant tax break. These are all accurate and fair ways of describing it. It's never been done before. It's potentially illegal. The judge in the case, she said she couldn't rule. You know, the case that they settled out of court. The judge said you may never refer to this as a settlement in any official proceeding. And that order potentially could hamper their ability to use this, for example, in an IRS proceeding.

[C]

Okay.

[D]

Should the IRS try to come after them? Well, we don't know. I mean, maybe. Maybe it wouldn't.

[C]

I mean, is this, Is it possible that you can continue this order indefinitely? Like, let's say Trump eventually leaves office, they're going to be like, ah, we. Hands are tied. You know, we can't really do anything. I mean, I suppose it's. It is a part of a settlement of a case. Right? It's part of law.

[D]

It was never. It's not a settlement in the sense most people understand, because court settlements are typically approved by the court. And this one.

[A]

Right.

[D]

The judge.

[C]

This was not a.

[D]

The judge was going to throw this out. She had a hearing scheduled, and they raced to announce this before that hearing so they could withdraw the case. But she said in a. She brought it back after the fact just to rebuke the Justice Department, send its lawyers for sanctioning by bar associations in their states, and say this was an abuse of the court. You use this court to try to put legitimacy on this sham settlement, which is essentially a shakedown. She said also that this IRS settlement could be unconstitutional because if the president is getting a monetary benefit, that violates the domestic emoluments clause, which says a president can't get any money from the US Besides his salary. And also, there's a federal law that forbids, specifically forbids the president or anyone working for him from pressuring the IRS to undertake an audit or influence an audit. And you may have seen this Wall Street Journal scoop the other day, that a top official in the IRS was forced out for having objected to something that violated that statute. And that story, very interestingly, did not mention this IRS settlement. But that's, That's, That's a rumor. What's going on? Yeah.

[C]

You think that's why he did it?

[D]

I don't. It could have been. Maybe Trump was asking for an audit on somebody he doesn't like. I don't.

[C]

That was the interpretation, was he was getting pressured to do some politically motivated audits. But it's interesting that you bring that up. Hey, look, before we. I'm not letting you go. But I do have an unrelated question. You're a healthy guy. You work out, right?

[D]

Yes.

[C]

Do you ever need to go see a doctor?

[D]

I've seen a doctor.

[C]

Okay, good, because we have a message from a sponsor here. Sock document. Message is brought to you by Zocdoc. So this summer, in the midst of our family trip, swim meets, trying to get work done around the house, I'm trying to make the doctor's appointment that fits my schedule. It feels kind of impossible, honestly. And you know how it goes. You got that nagging thing you've been meaning to get checked out, but first you have to actually remember to call, and then you're sitting on hold, or worse, you're playing phone tag for three straight days, leaving voicemails. It's all going into the void. You just don't know what's going on. It's enough to make you slide into another week, another month. Look, we've all done it. I don't want you to get stuck in that loop. And honestly, I'm kind of tired of being stuck in it myself. That's why I want to talk zocdoc. Zocdoc lets you search and compare local and network doctors, you get to see actual appointment openings and click to instantly book a visit. Appointments happen fast, usually within 24 to 72 hours and you can even score same day appointments. Zocdoc is free to use your health matters and taking care of yourself shouldn't be complicated. Find a book the right doctor today with Zocdoc. Head to zocdoc.com bulwarktakes to get started and check that appointment off your to do list. That's z o c-o c.com bullortakes. Zoc Doc Arty in case you're ever in an ailment and you just need a doctor, go to zocdoc. That day when I recorded the ad, I was clearly suffering from some some sort of chills because I had a huge hoodie on. I did not go to Zach Doc for that, but I probably should have. All right, let's talk about the politics here. So corn is a live wire. Tillis here, you're not well, we'll get back to corn a second. Tillis, let's put up the Burgess tweet if we can. All right, here we go. Burgess Everett says and Burgess, people should know he's at Semaphore. Great reporter. Till this is still undecided on Blanche wants weaponization fund dead, dead, dead. That's three Dads, in case you couldn't see the first one. I don't know why Burgers needed three of those before he'll vote for him. Quote still in the process. I mean, last time I checked, the 1776 fund is still alive and well. So that's really it. In the project management parlance, that's called a finish to start relationship. You've got to finish getting rid of that. That's where we are. So if it's not resolved by next week's Judiciary Committee vote, then quote, we just have to talk about the timing of the markup and then this one, a little bit of a unexpected one, I suppose. Let's put up the Laura Weiss tweet. Senator Curtis still non committal on Todd Blanche's ag Nam saying he's quote, waiting to see how he goes through committee. Curtis is not on judiciary. I believe Judiciary is Corn. And until trying to force Blanche action on anti representation funding Trump's audit deal before the committee vote. Look, of those three, I think you and I probably in agreement. Cornyn's the most interesting. But what else are you hearing?

[D]

Well, I expect them all to fold. They all had Blanche in for a meeting and they were basically yelling at him after this fund was created in May. And Tillis even was forcing amendment votes on legislation to kill the slush fund on legislation that they were one of their budget bills that they passed. And he ultimately backed down from that. He's, he had said, I won't vote for this bill if one of these amendments doesn't get in there. And then none of them got in there and he voted for it anyway. So that's, that's who we're dealing with here. And Cornyn has never been one of the guys who wants to stand out against his own party, though he is now sort of free man. Free man. Because he's not running for reelection due to having.

[C]

Well, Tills is a free man. Cornyn is a free man. Curtis, he's talked about how much he's like kind of over the Senate, but I don't think he's that free man. You got Murkowski unlikely to vote for Blanche, but you never know, maybe she will. She, she did vote for the big beautiful bill so she can be won over. Collins is in a bit of a tough spot. Right. Like she's got that election she's got to think about. So maybe Mitch McConnell, we don't know where he is. If he, I assume he's alive. I'm not like trying to make light of it. It's, it is like a real question. There's some photos that he's been sending from the hospital. No one's actually heard from the guy.

[D]

I believe the photos.

[C]

I believe the photos too. I'm not, I'm not like one of those AI truthers. Right. But like we still haven't like heard from the guy.

[D]

Right.

[C]

Have you heard from him?

[D]

I haven't talked to Mitch.

[C]

Okay, good. Okay. And so that leaves What? You have 52 Republicans. Without Mitch, you can lose two and you get a tie breaking vote. So you can't lose three. That's where we're at in the math.

[D]

Yeah. They voted for him before to confirm him to Deputy ag And it's, it's, we're always looking for the next instance of trouble between Trump and the Republican Party. And we've, we're like seismologists. This the subtlest shaking. We say, oh, wow, but basically nothing ever really happens.

[C]

Yeah, we're seismologists, but there's never any earthquake.

[D]

No buildings ever fall down.

[C]

No.

[D]

And I, I would be, it would be surprising if that happens this time. But all the ingredients are there.

[C]

What if it was like, what if it was like Darlene Graham. Who? Not gonna happen. Darlene just didn't ask. She wants to be a senator. Let's put up the Manu Roger tweet. Latest on Tom Tillis. This is. Folks, this is live. This is better than live television. This is live YouTube. We're just getting the tweets and they're throwing them up there and we're having already react to them. Artie has not seen this. This is new.

[D]

He says the corn in demand is for it to be killed in court. Which.

[C]

How is that possible?

[D]

Well, so they fought off the law. They refused to say it was dead in any formal way when they were fighting off this lawsuit. And a judge put an injunction on it. So that's a venue.

[C]

No, he says he wants a bill. Had said before. He wants. Oh, he. The corn in demand is to have the court kill it. Okay, I got you.

[D]

I mean, he would also be happy to do legislation, but that just seems like a real.

[C]

So would the case here be that the DOJ went back to the judge.

[D]

Yes.

[C]

In this case, amended the agreement that set up this fund to say, we would like to, you know, have you rule on this amendment to some sort of settlement we had. And the judge then would say, agree to.

[D]

I see. We don't know what the procedure would be because this is completely new. New situation that's never happened before. So clearly what they're looking for is some sort of official action, including possibly in a courtroom that makes it official. The fund is dead. They don't want to go by Todd Blanche's word, especially when the president himself is like, oh, yeah, it's great. It's a great idea. You know, he's not on board with.

[C]

Yeah, it's not like. It's not like you can say to try. You can trust Trump to not use this fund like that. It seems very much like he's open for and he thinks it's right. So that seems like a problem here, especially because Todd Blynch also in this questionnaire, I'm going to find it about independence. Let's see if I can. There was a question where he was asked about if there's. How do you spell it?

[D]

Depends.

[C]

Why am I not kidding?

[D]

Yeah. Is he going to be independent from the president? Is he going to serve the Constitution and the country?

[C]

And what did he say?

[D]

Well, he says, of course, that being said, I am part of the president's cabinet. You know, I. I thought that that was a sort of standard way of parsing that question. Although maybe you'd want him to be more enthusiastic about saying I.

[C]

Here's, here's the question. I found it. I found it. I'm going to read it to you. The department department's website lists, quote, independence and impartiality as core values of the department. What do you believe department independence means? Question mark, response from Blanche. At the Department of Justice, all decisions regarding investigations and prosecutions must be made based on the facts and the law. Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President the executive power, making him the head of the executive branch. The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. That's, that's him saying, no, there's no such thing as DOJ independence.

[D]

Well, that's the, the ideology of the second Trump administration is that the executive in chief is in charge of everything. And they have waged a full scale assault on the entire concept of independent agencies. Right. Firing people who had agencies that he doesn't like. And this was contested in court, and the Supreme Court has sided with Trump. He can fire anyone he wants. He's in full control of his personnel with the sole exception of the Federal Reserve Board chair. So that's, I mean, Blanche does sound like a toady there. And he is President Trump's former personal lawyer, but that's all. That also happens to be their ideology, which is that the president rules us. We are his administration.

[C]

Yeah. But no president. Yeah. And that we should note, that is the ideology. That's why they have fired all the heads of these independent agencies. Where I try to get rid of Jerome Powell, the court has mostly given them the Runway to do so, except in the case of the Fed. But it's not normal. Right. Like, this is, this is totally, I will say, like, obviously, you know, Eric Holder was, you know, ally Barack Obama, but they did at least try to uphold at least the appearance of independence and criticize them all you want, and there's plenty to go around. Mayor Garland operated with the mindset that the DOJ had to be independent from the Biden White House, and he went after Hunter freaking Biden. So, you know, there. This is just. We're in uncharted territories here. Let me ask you to close this bad boy out, because I know you got a foul story. Are you surprised that the weaponization fund is like the. Seems to be so central to the GOP concerns and not the Epstein, the handling of the Epstein files?

[D]

No, because this is something that we know had been infuriating Republican senators specifically from the very instant it was created. And it's, it's not really hard to see why? You know, sure, Trump was personal friends with Epstein. They've done a bad job releasing the files. They're still withholding stuff that's damaging or embarrassing to the President. But this settlement is like giving the President a monetary benefit. It's a further undoing of the January 6th prosecutions, going past the pardons and all the way toward funneling money toward them, which is something that they had been publicly lobbying for for the past year. So it was really egregious and they're only sort of standing up to it. I mean, I, I, I think the Blanche vote itself will be when we find out whether they do want to make a stand. But I'm skeptical that they will.

[C]

I'm just asking because simultaneous to all this, Epstein survivors did write Thom Tillis and John Cornyn urging them. You have the letter there. It's a little hard to read. I'll read a bit of it. Dear Senators, we write you as survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Galaine Maxwell self sex trafficking operation to urge you to vote no on top Blanche's confirmation as Attorney General. We understand that both of you remain open to opposing his nomination and we are asking you to stand with survivors of human trafficking and sexual assault at this critical moment. Under Todd Blanche's leadership, the Justice Department released survivors names, identifying information and images while the names of alleged abusers and enablers remained hidden. More than a thousand women and girls were abused, yet no one beyond Epstein and Maxwell has been prosecuted. Blanche did meet with survivors. They note that in there. But they said he, quote, showed no remorse for the horrific release of materials that exposed survivors identities and images. He also gave no indication that he believed there were investigative leads worth pursuing or that he intended to seek accountability beyond Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell. I will say I was, I actually am a little bit surprised. I know that you weren't as surprised that this was not the main thing the thrust of the argument. But this was a big deal on the right for years and years and years. There is plenty of reporting to show that Todd Blanch was knee deep in trying to figure out how little to release on this stuff. And from everything we know, this animates like the MAGA pilled conservatives more than the weaponization stuff. Like they, they think that the administration did a poor job with how they handle this. And yet this seems to be somewhat of a secondary consideration for the senators.

[D]

Yes, but I think the most important thing about this in terms of whether Blanche gets confirmed, Tillis demanded that Blanche meet with these survivors and he did it immediately right and so that in that knowing that you could interpret Cornyn's statements today as an attempt to get further concessions from Blanche that he believes he can get, Blanche has shown that he's willing to do what the senators want. And so I, I think that's, that may be his goal here, to get the administration perhaps to support legislative language or besides that, to make some sort of more official statement.

[C]

I guess the other thing that I is worth at least touching on and then I'll let you go, is that Blanche is currently the Attorney General. He's the acting Attorney General, obviously can only serve in that post for so long. But, you know, he, it's not like if you defeat this confirmation that he's gonna go bye bye, he'll continue in the role and then they'll have to figure out what to do after that. But like that is lingering over this. Right. And also, who would come after Blanche?

[D]

Also, Trump nominated Blanche for this position after he'd created the, the slush fund and infuriated the Republican senators. So the nomination itself is yet another act of Trump humiliation of Republicans in Congress. And they, they push back so much, they take it and they've always taken it, and maybe they won't take it, but I think it's most likely that they will.

[C]

We'll have to check back on that. Arthur Delaney, hardest working man on the Hill. So they say. Thank you so much for doing this, brother. Appreciate it.

[D]

Thanks for having me.

[C]

All right, take care. Hey, wait, wait. Before you go, don't sign off. Tell people they should subscribe to the Bulwark.

[D]

The Bulwark's great. I subscribe to the Bulwark. I recommend.

[C]

Thank you, everyone. Subscribe to the Bulwark. Bye.

[A]

What's up, everybody? It's Bretzky. And America is turning 250. And I can't think of a better way to celebrate that than playing on an American owned social casino. Spinquest.com with all of your favorite games. Live. Live craft bubble craps, live blackjack, there's no better place to play for free and win real cash prizes. Spinquest.com Spin Quest is a free to

[C]

play social casino, Boyd.

[B]

Where prohibited.

[C]

Visit spinquest.com for more details.