“Todd Blanche will not be the backstop against Trump’s impulses”

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Deadline: White House – “Todd Blanche will not be the backstop against Trump’s impulses”

Host: Nicolle Wallace
Guests: Glenn Thrush (NYT), Margaret Donovan (Yale Law, former federal prosecutor), Melissa Murray (NYU Law), Teddy Schleifer (NYT)
Date: August 10, 2026

---

Main Theme

This episode delves into the consequences of Todd Blanche’s confirmation as Attorney General under Donald Trump: the impact on rule of law, the ongoing politicization and hollowing out of the Department of Justice, and the normalization of corruption in the executive branch. The conversation draws urgent connections between the new DOJ leadership’s adherence to Trump’s desires, the chilling effect on career law enforcement professionals, and the explosion of personal profiteering by the Trump family.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Todd Blanche’s Confirmation: A Symbol of Trump’s Control over DOJ

• Blanche Sworn In ([01:21]): Nicolle Wallace frames the episode with stark warnings from Ty Cobb (Trump’s former White House lawyer) — “We’re screwed” — underscoring dire concerns about DOJ’s future independence.
• Congressional Endorsement ([02:40]): Glenn Thrush highlights that Blanche's confirmation (although acting AG could have served indefinitely) was a “powerful endorsement by Congress of the philosophy that has guided him under a meddling, demanding boss”.
• Pattern of Retaliatory Actions ([03:30]): Wallace lists a string of DOJ actions — indicting political enemies, revisiting old conspiracy theories, releasing sensitive files unlawfully — all under Blanche’s oversight.

2. The “Unitary Executive” Mindset at the DOJ

• Blanche’s Philosophy ([05:15]): Thrush explains that Blanche sees himself constitutionally bound to execute the president’s orders, regardless of established norms or even his own judgment.
  • “Todd Blanche’s entire philosophy...is his belief that Donald Trump has the right to tell him whatever he wants to do.” – Glenn Thrush [05:51]
• Checks and Balances Dismantled ([07:55]): Wallace and Murray discuss how the Supreme Court has ratified an expansive view of executive power, further eroding traditional restrictions.

3. Erosion and Demoralization Within DOJ

• Mass Departures, Loss of Talent ([08:49]–[16:58]):
  • Over 16,000 DOJ employees (including a quarter of all attorneys) have left.
  • Senior prosecutors and investigators — especially those on sensitive cases — have been summarily fired.
  • Margaret Donovan: “The DOJ has lost credibility with the bench. The DOJ has entered into agreements like the Anti Weaponization Fund that are illegal on their face... it’s a legacy of loss and corruption.” [09:38]
  • DOJ’s public service mission is abandoned in favor of targeting Trump’s enemies and rewarding political loyalty.

4. Chilling Effect on Legal Careers

• Generational Impact ([16:58]–[18:13]):
  • Fewer aspiring lawyers are seeking DOJ careers out of concern for ethics and stability.
  • “The DOJ honors program...was very highly sought after...Now, young lawyers—progressive, moderate, even conservative—are staying well clear of this administration.” – Melissa Murray [17:17]

5. Weaponization and Retaliation: The Case of Will Rosenzweig

• Firing Over Political Speech ([20:54]–[24:48]):
  • Margaret Donovan details the firing of a Miami prosecutor for decade-old blog posts critical of Trump, after a right-wing influencer flagged them on social media. DOJ leadership acted within hours.
  • “Current DOJ policy actually allows current employees to do that [blog freely]...let alone does it not bar you from having done that 10 years ago.” – Margaret Donovan [22:52]
  • The firing—just before trial—compromised an ongoing fraud case and aided the defendants.
  • The broader message: loyalty to Trump, not constitutional principles, is now the career litmus test.

6. Strategic Humiliation and Weakness on the World Stage

• Cabinet Loyalty and Vulnerability ([26:00]–[28:43]):
  • Trump’s “strategic humiliation” of reluctant supporters breeds a Cabinet with little independent credibility.
  • Rapid, politically motivated firings in law enforcement leave the country less protected.

7. Trump Family Profiteering – The $100M Crypto Scandal

• Explosive NYT Investigation ([31:05]–[35:32]):
  • Trump’s family crypto company, World Liberty Financial, received $100 million from Guran “Bobby” Zhou, a British national under investigation for money laundering.
  • Up to $75 million distributed directly to the Trump family and close associates (the Witkoffs), according to NYT.
  • Teddy Schleifer: “One of the things about cryptocurrency is the anonymity...that’s why someone can have all those assets, apparently, and we can’t really answer where it came from.” [34:56]
  • In any prior administration, this would have triggered investigations—now it’s treated as routine.

8. Systemic Ethical Collapse and Lack of Oversight

• Absence of Legal Restraints ([38:52]–[41:45]):
  • Even as Trump and his family flourish from defense contracts, crypto, and rapid securities trades tied to government actions, Congress shows no appetite for new laws, and the courts have often facilitated executive overreach.
  • Melissa Murray: “Congress as a meaningful check on this president has genuinely left the building. I would also note that the court could be a meaningful restraint here, but...has actually facilitated some of this.” [40:28]
  • The normalization of corruption: laws and standards have not kept up with the scale and brazenness of Trump-era conflicts of interest.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “We’re screwed. Great. That’s what I suspected.” – Nicolle Wallace, citing Ty Cobb [01:15]
• “This then becomes this, like Escher picture...Trump claims that Blanche has autonomy, but Blanche’s entire philosophy is predicated on what Trump says.” – Glenn Thrush [05:53]
• “When you stand up in court as a prosecutor, I didn’t stand there and say, ‘I represent President Trump or President Biden.’ I said, ‘I represent the United States.’ ...the rank and file are trying to hold onto that.” – Margaret Donovan [10:17]
• “This is not a fait accompli from the framers—[the unitary executive theory] was cooked up in a hot house of conservative grievance...the framers saw an unchecked president as a true threat to democracy.” – Melissa Murray [12:54]
• “Will pledged loyalty to the Constitution, and he’s out of a job.” – Margaret Donovan [25:08]
• “Congress as a meaningful check on this president has genuinely left the building.” – Melissa Murray [40:28]
• “Imagine if Barack Obama was doing this?” – Teddy Schleifer, about the open Trump family enrichment [34:14]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Confirmation of Todd Blanche as AG, Ty Cobb’s warning – [01:21]
• Blanche’s DOJ actions and philosophy – [03:30]–[05:51]
• Impact on DOJ careers and institution – [08:49]–[18:13]
• The Will Rosenzweig firing & retaliation – [21:58]–[24:48]
• Crypto scandal and family profiteering – [31:05]–[35:32]
• Absence of legal restraints on presidential profiteering – [38:52]–[41:45]

---

Tone and Takeaways

The conversation is sober, urgent, and direct. Wallace and her guests speak with professional alarm about the magnitude and normalization of political retribution, unchecked executive power, and the collapse of traditional checks and balances. The tone is simultaneously analytical and incredulous, reflecting a belief that the scope of current corruption would have been unthinkable in previous eras of American politics.

---

Conclusion

The episode paints a troubling picture: with Todd Blanche as Attorney General and the Trump family entrenching itself in business and government, the U.S. faces a historic crisis of democratic institutions, unchecked executive ambition, and systemic corruption. In the absence of meaningful congressional or judicial oversight, the hosts and panelists warn—American democracy and the rule of law remain in grave peril.

Transcript

[Rob Lowe]

Getting ready for college comes with a lot of decisions. Choosing classes, finding housing, planning for the future. Paying for college shouldn't be the stressful part. Earnest Private student loans help students and families pay for school with low rates, zero fees and flexible repayment options so you can feel good about what's next. Get started [e-mail] go loans made by Fenwise bank member FDIC and are subject to credit approval terms apply.

[Melissa Murray]

New Lancome Absolu Longevity MD Backed by 20 years of research and five patents, the formulas combine Mitopure, the number one selling longevity supplement, with Lancome's exclusive skincare compounds. It's designed and clinically measured to work on two levels. The visible signs of aging, like elasticity and the look of fine lines, and the invisible ones, like the rate of surface cell renewal happening within the skin. Start your visible biological age [e-mail] LongevityMD.

[Nicole]

If the midterms don't go Trump's way this fall, is there any world in which Todd Blount stands up to Trump

[Rob Lowe]

if he's asked to find some fake evidence of voter fraud?

[Nicole]

Or are we screwed now?

[Glenn Thrush]

We're screwed. Great. That's what I suspected.

[Nicole]

Hi again everybody. It's five o' clock in the east. Quote, we're screwed. That was Ty Cobb, a White House lawyer during Donald Trump's first term, giving us some straight talk, hopefully waking everybody up that the man who three hours ago was sworn in as our country's 88th attorney general, Todd Blanche, will not be a backstop against any of Donald Trump's impulses and desires and insecurities that this democracy will likely need come the November midterm elections. In that lawyer's words. Instead, quote, we are screwed. As concerning as the future integrity of our democracy is of our elections, Blanche now being the country's top law enforcement official, does put America's entire bedrock principle of the rule of law under threat not just here, but around the world. Frequent guest on this show, Glenn Thrush, reporter in the New York Times, writes this quote, Mr. Blanche's confirmation in the predawn hours on Saturday was largely symbolic. As acting attorney General, he could have served indefinitely, but it represented a powerful endorsement by Congress of the philosophy that has guided him under a meddling, demanding boss that he has a constitutional obligation to execute every lawful White House order, even if it shatters long standing policy and rule of law norms or contradicts what he thinks is right. Already we have seen Todd Blanche oversee an abundance of cases be brought against Donald Trump's perceived political enemies. Former director of the FBI Jim Comey has been indicted. The FBI is relitigating the 2020 election trying to find voter fraud that Bill Barr says was bullshit and didn't exist. There's a grand conspiracy case underway in Florida going after the Obama era intelligence officials who put together the 2016 intelligence assessment about Russia. Todd Blanche was the one in charge of the very, very botched and unlawful release of the Epstein files. He was one who sat down with an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell that immediately precedes her being moved to a low security prison. On Friday, the Trump administration informed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook that it will be reviving its effort to fire her. And speaking of reviving cases, over the weekend, Trump pushed again for punishing former Olympian David Hearn for vandalizing the Reflecting Fool, a thing that Judge Jeanine Pirro says didn't happen. It's a case that was already dismissed by her. Guess her box of evidence supporting the dismissal wasn't enough to convince Donald Trump. All of this undergirds a deeply distressing concern. What more will Todd Blanche do in service of Donald Trump now that he is confirmed as the country's attorney general? The first test of that question looks like it was already put in motion. Here's Donald Trump this afternoon. The anti weaponization fund. Do you think it's still alive at this point? And are there any options that you're looking at to? Well, that will be up to Todd Blanche.

[Teddy Schleiper]

He was our new and who will

[Nicole]

be, I think, a great attorney general. The dawn of a new, even more Trump controlled and dominated Department of Justice is where we begin the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. The aforementioned New York Times Justice Department reporter Glenn Fresh is here. Also joining us, Margaret Donovan. She was captain in the JAG Corps. She's a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, now a visiting lecturer at Yale Law. And back with us, NYU law professor and legal analyst Melissa Murray is with us for the hour. Glenn, I saw some reporting that a memo went out asking DOJ employees to clap in Todd Blanche today and that that happened. Your thoughts on what the country's in for?

[Glenn Thrush]

Well, I think what's interesting about it is let's go back to the weaponization fund question, which is interesting. Donald Trump has not gotten the memo or the two memos that Blanche signed. Actually, he only signed one of them, which were critical in getting him the two votes on the Senate Judiciary Committee to even get to a floor vote. So Trump keeps reviving this issue of anti Weaponization fund. Todd Blanche has said it's dead, dead, dead. Wrote that, Wrote that in his memos. Here's the problem. Todd Blanche is the architect of Donald Trump's criminal defense strategy, predicated on the. On the unitary executive and the dominance of Article 2 of the Constitution. Okay, so. So when Donald Trump says it's up to Todd Blanche, Todd Blanche's entire philosophy, the thing that got him into the seat that he's currently occupying, is his belief that Donald Trump has. Has the right to tell him whatever he wants to do. So this then becomes this, like Escher, you know, this Escher picture, this cycle of life in which Trump claims that Blanche has autonomy. But Blanche's entire philosophy is predicated on what Trump says. So the question is, what did we go through over the last two, three weeks? What has been achieved by these three senators who held out briefly at the moment, based on the way that Trump was talking, I would say the jury's very much out.

[Nicole]

Speaking of juries and judges, I wonder what you think will be Todd Blanche's line in terms of obeying judges. I mean, on the immunity deal, it's a judge that has said that it's unlawful. You can't be. You can't represent both sides. It's not a settlement if you are on both sides of it.

[Glenn Thrush]

Well, look, I think Blanche has been all over the map on this thing. And the General Tenor said during the administration started off in the first couple of weeks when then Chief of Staff Chad Meisel walked into the press room at the Department of Justice and handed us this extraordinary attack on a federal judge who was defying the administration. Blanche himself has been called out in the Abrago Garcia case of not obeying judges. There is an entire practice here of demonizing judges that don't agree with Donald Trump. Now, Blanche has. I think his red line is legality. In Blanche's interactions with senators, both publicly and privately, that was what he established as the line of legality. And I think one of the really interesting takeaways from the confirmation process is that when every time that Todd Blanche was asked if Trump was doing something that was right, his response was, Trump had the right to do it. And if you saw, for instance, President Obama's recent interview, Obama says, clearly, I could have done all kinds of things as president to instruct Eric Holder and the other attorney generals to do whatever I want them to do. I chose not to do that. So there's an acknowledgement that on the part of Obama and other critics of Blanche and Trump that it's not so much that you have the right. You have the right to do a lot of things when you're President. It is the restraint that one shows and the respect for norms and the rule of law that has always been assumed in previous attorneys general that one can no longer assume with regard to violence.

[Nicole]

Margaret Donovan, I want to ask you about the legacy that he assumes the mantle with under his leadership of the department. Since he became Deputy Attorney General, more than 16,000 DOJ employees have left the department, including a quarter of its attorneys. He's overseen the termination of hundreds of employees, including agents, attorneys, and professional staff that worked on the January six cases in the Mar? A Lago investigation. He is leading a department that, as Glenn said, isn't trying to do the right thing. The only line he drew for himself is that he hadn't done the illegal thing. I wonder your thoughts on what that means for the men and women still inside the Department of Justice and the FBI.

[Margaret Donovan]

No, I think the combination of former Attorney General Bondi's decisions and now Attorney General Blanche's decisions, I think it will be a legacy of loss and corruption. I think that what the DOJ has lost in terms of expertise and experience and principles and ethics from the people who have left those positions, that is going to take a lifetime to rebuild. The DOJ has lost credibility with the bench. The DOJ has entered into agreements like the Anti Weaponization Fund, that are illegal on their face. You know, to Glenn's point, his comment about legality being the red line, I mean, that case was filed well beyond the statute of limitations and wouldn't even pass the laugh test in any other administration. So I think that the reputation of doj, unfortunately, is irretrievably damaged. And to the point about, you know, Article 2 authorities and who's actually making the decisions here. As a former federal prosecutor, when you stand up in court as a prosecutor, I didn't stand there and say, I'm AUSA so and so, and I represent President Trump or President Biden. I said, I represent the United States, and that's what every federal prosecutor represents. And I think that the rank and file are trying to hold onto that. And I do think that there's a lot of principled people left in doj, but, boy, it sure makes it a difficult job when you have that lack of leadership at the top.

[Nicole]

Melissa Jack Smith said to me that his counsel for people still inside was to stay and do your job until you. You know, I think of it as PAC man, right? Like, until you run into the wall. That is Todd Blanche or any of his lieutenants, Emil Bove, before him, calling on the department to carry out Trump's political retribution campaign, acknowledging, as Glenn and Margaret have pointed out, that he talks to Donald Trump all the time, he said this. If we have discussions where we talk about a case and whether we're going to charge a case or whether we've charged a case, that's okay. No one else has ever thought that was okay. But Donald Trump demands that. And Todd Blanche has turned the department into that. A department full of the United States of America's lawyers.

[Glenn Thrush]

Right.

[Nicole]

They're not Trump's lawyers. They're not Todd Blanche's lawyers. They're the country's lawyers. And they're supposed to be used to punish enemies of this country, to punish the worst of the worst, to punish child sex traffickers and drug dealers and terrorists. And they're now being used very publicly to punish Trump's enemies. What does that do?

[Melissa Murray]

Well, at a very real level, Nicole, it means that the Department of Justice and all of those field offices, the U.S. attorney's offices throughout the country aren't doing the basic work of public safety. They're all occupied doing Donald Trump's bidding. And this isn't just an erosion of norms, as Glenn suggests. Like, I actually would take issue with the characterization that this unitary executive theory that gives the president the right to do anything like that, this is somehow uncontroversial or incontrovertible. It is not. I mean, having spent two years working on a book explaining the constitution, having spent 10 years teaching constitutional law, this idea of the military executive that gives Donald Trump this unfettered power, this was something that was cooked up in a hot house of conservative grievance that was the Reagan Department of Justice. This is not a fai accompli that was given to us by the framers. They saw an unchecked president as a true threat to democracy, as a prospect for tyranny, and they were right to think so. As we are now learning, there are significant checks on the president, we're just not observing them. And one of the reasons we're not observing them is that the Supreme Court has ratified this theory of the unitary executive. So as we think about Todd Blanch, the new Attorney general, as we think about whether we should applaud Susan Collins for weighing in against him, maybe it's a net zero for Senator Collins, given that her vote for Brett Kavanaugh helped usher in this robust and muscular vision of executive authority that we now live with.

[Nicole]

Glenn I'll let you jump back in. And I'm not sure. I think you're saying basically the same thing. This is the. This is what has been ushered in and seemingly ratified by the Supreme Court.

[Glenn Thrush]

I was just shaking my head vigorously in agreement with Melissa. Look, I think the big tell here was who did Bill Cassidy consult at the very end of this process?

[Unnamed Guest (possibly a commentator or another reporter)]

Bill.

[Nicole]

Right. Bill Barr.

[Glenn Thrush]

Bill Barr may have said Donald Trump's election claims were bullshit, but Bill Barr very much supports Donald Trump's vision of executive power. And that's the takeaway. My big takeaway from the entire Blanche

[Rob Lowe]

saga in the Senate is this is

[Glenn Thrush]

a party divided on all kinds of different lines. Most of these people in private don't really like Donald Trump. They don't like the direction he's taking them in. But what are they united by? They are united by a shared faith in a powerful executive. I think that's something that's hiding in plain sight that most observers of the current political scene aren't really looking at. Margaret.

[Nicole]

What's interesting, though, is as they hollow out the Department of Justice and the FBI, they leave the country vulnerable to threats in a way it hasn't been. I would say we were more fortified even on 9 11. I mean, what do you understand from the kinds of folks you represent in terms of all of our lost capacity to protect the country?

[Margaret Donovan]

Well, I think that's something that people maybe don't appreciate is when you read these headlines in the news, you know, five people fired at the FBI, a bunch of J6 prosecutors summarily fired. That is a true summary firing. That is like pencils down. Whatever you were working on, if you were about to go to trial, if you were in the middle of, you know, 12 different investigations, if you were about to arrest somebody, you're gone. They're cutting off your government phone, they're not letting you back on government property, and you're not able to transition any of those cases. And so it's really just sort of disappears a bunch of really serious criminal investigations. What we have seen is that the people getting fired are, ironically, the best of the best, because they were the very best investigators, the very best prosecutors who were put on these highly sensitive cases that, by the way, Todd Blanche was a defense attorney on throughout. So, you know, there's probably some level of conflict there. If he's making personnel decisions based on people that he was adversarial to at one point. And so you see this talent that was used and this experience that was harnessed in the past to take care of these sensitive investigations, investigations involving the storage of classified evidence, investigations involving the attempted overthrow of the U.S. capitol. And the result now with this administration is that the most talented people who were put on those investigations are the first to go. And so you're left with a bunch of really serious other cases that those people were people were working on, sort of left in the wind. And that loss of talent that just can't be replaced. We're talking about decades, probably centuries worth of experience across all of the people who have been fired.

[Nicole]

I mean, Melissa, it also takes a career at DOJ or a career as a prosecutor, maybe off the wish list for the kinds of bright law students that you teach. I mean, just talk about the generational damage that they're doing in real time.

[Melissa Murray]

So I think that's true. This used to be a career path that was among the most desirable for young lawyers heading out into practice. And the DOJ honors program was something that was very highly sought after and coveted. Now, I think we are seeing a lot of young lawyers, not just progressive lawyers, lawyers who are in the middle, lawyers who are more conservative, but who believe in the rule of law. Staying well clear of this administration and the Department of Justice that it is engendered does mean that state departments of justices are perhaps getting the pick of the litter at this point. That's been great for some of these states. And so, you know, it's not as though there was a dearth of legal talent for them. But it does mean that if we're looking for the best people, as you know, we are. Nicole, I don't know that they're necessarily considering federal service at this point, certainly not in the numbers that they were even five years ago.

[Nicole]

Yeah. I mean, so it takes out the people that are already there with all this expertise, and it maybe keeps the person who is going to crack, you know, the next big threat or the next big case away from serving their fellow Americans at the Department of Justice when it looks like it can flip around at the whim of a presidential election result. All right, no one's going anywhere. When we come back, there's more. How victims of Trump's retribution are fighting back, including a former DOJ attorney fired just hours after a MAGA influencer raised issues about his loyalty to Donald Trump. His lawsuit against DOJ is our next story. Also ahead, stunning new reporting about a $100 million windfall for Donald Trump and his two sons from a foreign businessman under investigation for money laundering. And any other time it would set off alarm bells and a bipartisan congressional investigation. But it's the new normal. And it's just the latest example of the grift and corruption that is the hallmark of Trump 2.0 deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[Teddy Schleiper]

Shell V Power Nitro plus fuels every drive with a fuel like no other. It removes up to 100% of performance, robbing deposits to rejuvenate your engine's performance. That means more power when you need it and more performance with every drive. Shell V Power Nitro Plus Premium Gasoline More power, more performance formulation unique to Shell in gasoline direct injection engine fuel injectors with continuous use of Shell V Power Nitro Plus Premium Gasoline compared to lower octane fuels. Actual effects and benefits may vary.

[Julian Barnes / Dave Farenthal / Mark Elias (various reporters)]

Normally in these ads you expect somebody to ask you to buy something, but this is something different. I'm Julian Barnes and I'm a reporter for the New York Times. I'm a national security reporter and that means I'm reporting on military operations. These are fast paced, quickly moving situations. What exactly is happening on the ground is often shrouded in mystery, but we turn to trusted sources, satellite imagery and expertise built up over years in order to ferret out the facts that wouldn't otherwise come to light. I'm here to ask you to seek out a news source that does firsthand fact based reporting. If it's your local paper, great. If it's the Times, thank you. Because where you go for your information, matters.

[Nicole]

Nothing beats tradition like weekly game nights

[Unnamed Guest (possibly a commentator or another reporter)]

at Mom's house and Tostitos crafted with

[Nicole]

masa made the traditional way, starting with

[Unnamed Guest (possibly a commentator or another reporter)]

whole corn kernels with flavors worth gathering

[Nicole]

around like a hint of lime and Mexican street corn and no artificial colors, flavors or preservatives. That's the Tostitos way. Bring Tostitos to your next game night and you'll be winning either way. Tostitos tradition matters. This past Friday, a fired DOJ prosecutor, Will Rosenzweig, sued his former employer. He was fired last September, not because he is one of the prosecutors who investigated the president or prosecuted January 6th rioters, but because a right wing influencer named Natalie Winters called him out for once writing criticisms of Donald Trump. The prosecutor had been overseeing a fraud case in Miami and just hours after this influencer posted that DOJ should fire him. DOJ fired him. We're back with Glenn, Margaret and Melissa. Margaret is representing this prosecutor, Will Rosenzweig in this case. Is that really all there was to it, to the firing that someone posted something mean about him and he was fired?

[Margaret Donovan]

Margaret so, Nicole, this case is just completely shocking, even in a sea of shocking activity by Todd Blanche and the Justice Department. So there's really three remarkable aspects about the case. The first is, as you pointed out, he was fired for what appears to be his blog posts from almost a decade ago. So he authored a blog from 2016 to 2019 before he ever worked for DOJ. So this is a private citizen publishing criticisms of his government in a public forum. That is core First Amendment speech. That is a textbook first year of law school. This is protected. The government cannot retaliate against you for it. That's what he was fired for. And as we note in our complaint, current DOJ policy actually allows current employees to do that, let alone does it not bar you from having done that 10 years ago. So that's the first remarkable aspect that this is clearly protected speech that the government has retaliated against. The second is that, as you note, it was prompted by an online social media post on X that the Department of Justice responded to less than three hours after the influencer posted it. And we know that because they didn't erase the metadata from the PDF termination memorandum that they gave my client. So. So it was really hours after an influencer posted it. The third most remarkable thing about the case is that by firing Will, who at the time was basically a rising star in the Miami US Attorney's office, he was a really experienced and respected fraud prosecutor. He had gotten plenty of convictions and actually had gotten really millions in restitution orders of stolen money returned to the public through the work he had done at the U.S. attorney's office. So he's a really excellent attorney, consistently getting great reviews from his superiors. His firing, which occurred two weeks before a trial, ended up benefiting the defendants who tried to get an advantage by ignore or by contesting the government's attempts to continue its own case. So in other words, when Will was fired, the office basically had to scramble to try to restabilize the case after their lead prosecutor was axed by the very department that was trying the case. And so it's really just a remarkable turn of events where DOJ leadership did not stick up for one of its own. In fact, they very much threw him under the bus to the benefit of criminal defendants that he was prosecuting. And, you know, in many ways, it's. It's really a shocking story, and we are looking forward to vindicating his rights in court.

[Nicole]

I mean, J.D. vance called Donald Trump quote, America as Hitler and, quote, cultural heroine. I mean, what is the Standard that they'll argue for firing a person doing what sounds like a stellar job in their post for the Department of Justice.

[Margaret Donovan]

Yeah, that's an excellent point. You know, you could look at JD Vance at Pete Hegseth at Marco Rubio. In that same timeframe from 2016 to 2019, they made any number of statements about the president that were way more inflammatory than what this, you know, pretty thoughtful and reasoned blog posts were about. And I think my theory on this would be that those individuals pled loyalty to a person and so they now have a job. Will pledged loyalty to the Constitution and he's out of a job. So there is a difference, it seems. And unfortunately, the fact that my client is, you know, an ethical and experienced prosecutor was not enough to save him from DOJ's knee jerk reaction to an online influencer's post.

[Nicole]

Glenn, there is a weakness brand that all these guys have, right? So Blanche, I mean, Cassidy was on TV bragging about almost opposing him, you know, and Trump seemed to be strategically humiliating, humiliating him with the child vaccine announcement today, the first business day after getting him to vote for Todd Blanche, someone he obviously didn't believe was fit for the job. Hegseth has bipartisan opposition, the, you know, first ever DNI on a straight party line vote. I mean, the Republicans sort of capitulating is part of the, the Trump taking out the soul of the Republicans. But the Cabinet themselves are the least supported cabinet officials in the country's history. Does that amount to any sort of weakness on the world stage or among judges or. I mean, I know we talk all the time about judges rebuking this Department of Justice Todd Blanche specifically in the Abrego Garcia case, but many others in many other cases since the first days when Emile Bove was running the department.

[Glenn Thrush]

Strategic humiliation. I am totally going to steal that. It really gets to something. And I don't know if you've seen this or mentioned this before, but who swore Todd Blanche in today? Judge Emil Beauvais iii. Again, the circle of life. Look, and Bove was during the first six months, as you know, of this administration, the one who lowered the boom on a lot of these, a lot of these very, very qualified career officials. Look, we've seen them fire individuals for posting gay pride flags in their cubicle. We have seen, as Margaret well knows, we've seen FBI agents completely, after having long distinguished careers and being veterans who were entitled to additional protections, being just summarily fired by Cash Patel because they. Because what? Because they put handcuffs on Peter Navarro. So. So I think the question is now it gets all gets back to sort of Blanche. Does Blanche feel more empowered to resist Trump? Does he feel less empowered to resist Trump? I think history shows that this immovable force will only stop when it's when it's met by resistance. And we are, we're racing up to the midterms. We might have an antithetical political result for Trump. That was part of the subtext of the whole Blanche Blanche thing. But until there is someone who possesses actual constitutional power to oppose Trump, I just think we're going to keep seeing this.

[Nicole]

Glenn Thresh, Margaret Donovan, thank you so much for joining us today. Melissa sticks around for the hour. When we come back, how a foreign businessman under investigation for money laundering funneled $100 million to the Trump family through their cryptocurrency venture. Brand new reporting on that after a short break.

[Rob Lowe]

Hey, everybody, it's Rob Lowe here. If you haven't heard, I have a podcast that's called Literally with Rob Lowe. And basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire, like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J. Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe, please, and listen. Wherever you get your podcasts, lots of places can expose you to identity theft. Oh, no. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity, which is way more than anyone can do on their own. If we find anything suspicious, like new loans or changes to your financial accounts, we alert you right away, all through text, phone, email, or the LifeLock app. Get the alerts that could make all the difference. Save up to 30% your first [e-mail] podcast terms apply.

[I]

Normally in these ads, you'd expect someone like me to ask you to buy something, but I want to ask you to do something different. I'm Dave Farenthal, and I'm a reporter for the New York Times. I'm an investigative reporter, which means that I follow the money inside of government and outside of government. The point of my job is to find things people are trying to hide. It involves talking to lots of people. It involves looking through lots and lots of documents. And if there weren't folks like me to go beyond the surface to understand who was really shaping what the government does, the public will be left in the dark about what the government's doing with your tax money, what the government's doing to you through regulations and spending. If you're like me and you think this kind of journalism is important, seek out a news source that does firsthand fact based reporting. If that's the New York Times, thank you. If that's your local paper, that's great too, because where you get your information matters.

[Nicole]

There is some astounding new reporting in the New York Times today that puts the spotlight on the types of individuals who the Trump family crypto venture is doing business with. They include a foreign national with massive red flags, to say the least. The New York Times is reporting that Trump's crypto company, it's called World Liberty Financial, received $100 million from Guran Bobby Zhou, who the New York Times describes as, quote, a failed hardwood flooring retailer in Britain who had come under investigation there for money laundering and presided over the collapse of a small crypto startup. His transaction with World Liberty, the Trump company, raises questions as to how he was able to access so much money and how fully the company followed anti money laundering laws in any prior era. A windfall for the president of that size from a foreigner with no public signs of access to that level of wealth would have certainly gone against norms and might have spawned a congressional investigation. The New York Times reports that much of that investment is set to directly benefit Donald Trump's sons, writing that under World Liberty policy, as much as $75 million of that money was distributed to a company controlled by the president and his three sons. The money also benefited the family of Steve Witkoff, the Trump administration's special peace envoy, and the father of Zach Witkoff. The New York Times reports that the money laundering investigation into zhou began in 2019, and as of late last month, it is ongoing. Zhou has not been charged with a crime. A White House spokeswoman named Anna Kelly said Trump has no conflicts of interest and, quote, only acts in the best interest of the American public. End quote. I want to bring in New York Times reporter contributor Teddy Schleiper. He covers billionaires and their impact on the world. Melissa is still with us. So, Teddy, I know we've sort of adjusted. Everything has been sort of downshifted to tolerate deviant ethical behavior. But this seems outrageous even in that new normal.

[Teddy Schleiper]

Yeah, look, I mean, the Trump family says this is a Trump family issue and not a Trump administration issue. But obviously the lines here are pretty clear.

[Nicole]

That's what they say, right?

[Teddy Schleiper]

And look, I mean, the line trust that Trump loves to talk about. But look, this is happening the exact same time the Trump family has chosen to go into Crypto around the same time that Donald Trump became president. No one made him do this. And these conflicts, you know, Trump was not involved in crypto, or the Trump family was not involved in crypto. There wouldn't be these kind of wide open doors that people like Bobby Joe could walk through that give him access to at least the Trump inner circle, at least the Trump family. I mean, the lead of our story in the Times today is about how the Wyckoff kids are also really involved in this. So there's so many opportunities for potential corruption and potential conflicts of interest. And that is why, you know, we're talking about on the show. And that's why these possible new types of conflicts have arisen in a very, very Trump way.

[Unnamed Guest (possibly a commentator or another reporter)]

Right.

[Teddy Schleiper]

Where you have the arm's length distance doesn't really extend that far. And can you imagine if Barack Obama was doing this?

[Nicole]

Well, I don't even think they try to say that there's any distance. I mean, they're defense contractors now, for Pete's sake. And Trump made more money than he ever made as a businessperson, and he ran as a successful businessperson, which your other colleagues actually. And I think one of the reporters on the story has debunked that myth as well. What is the Times reporting on how Mr. Zhou got a hold of $100 million after failing as a hardwood floor salesman?

[Teddy Schleiper]

It's totally unclear, Nicole. I mean, the red flags here are. Can't even fit them even in my colleague's extensively long story. Look, I mean, this is somebody who is under investigation for money laundering $100 million that he's obtained. Baffled, apparently, a lot of his associates. And look, I mean, one of the, one of the things about cryptocurrency is the anonymity is. Is the point, right? I mean, it's hard to assess where exactly all this cash came from. And that's why we're in this position where someone can have all those assets, apparently, and we can't really answer where it came from.

[Nicole]

Did the investment in Trump's crypto company happen after Mr. Zhou knew he was under investigation criminally?

[Teddy Schleiper]

The question, I don't actually know exactly when. When all these things came together, but clearly the. The world refinance was comfortable enough with this guy, or maybe comfortable enough with the idea that he wouldn't be outed as sort of the financier behind World Liberty Financial, that they took the money. Right? I mean, there was no, you know, Eric Trump, and the Trump family was comfortable enough with this guy. I mean, he was even on an extreme that World Liberty Financial hosted. And, you know, maybe the full scale of kind of his unsavory past was not explained publicly. But this is somebody who the Trump family certainly wasn't running away from, I'll tell you that.

[Nicole]

Well, let me bring Melissa Murray in. I mean, I would hearken back to a quote from Todd Blanche that I read in the last block. Sure. I talked to Donald Trump about cases and who to charge. I mean, this is like corruption of the rule of law in plain sight, potentially

[Melissa Murray]

bigger than even that, Nicole. I mean, this is about, you know, one person who is under investigation. It's also about these broad rules that financial services like World Liberty have to observe, and whether or not those kinds of rules were being observed here. You know, one of the people quoted in the story noted that these kinds of red flags would have triggered a documentation requirement that just wasn't triggered in this case. And you have to wonder, you know, why wasn't that the case? Why weren't those standard protocols followed? And again, this is part of this entire administration's antipathy for regulation of any kind. And this is the kind of deregulated environment where rules and laws just don't matter.

[Nicole]

I want to read some more of this reporting. It is really exquisitely detailed. I have to sneak in a quick break before I do that. I'm ask both of you to stick around. We'll be back on the other side.

[Unnamed Guest (possibly a commentator or another reporter)]

My dad in. In 1972 took a vow that he would never own a stock or a bond. And he kept that vow since 1972, in over 50 years of public life. And he retired from the presidency as having probably the lowest net worth of anyone that had ever entered the presidency. And meanwhile, he got tagged with this idea that he, you know, is the Biden crime family and that, you know, all of all of that crap. But my point being is this is that how is it that we have not been able to pass a law?

[Julian Barnes / Dave Farenthal / Mark Elias (various reporters)]

I couldn't agree more.

[Unnamed Guest (possibly a commentator or another reporter)]

I know you do agree, but how is it possible? And it's not just Republicans pass a

[Teddy Schleiper]

law that prohibits members of Congress.

[Unnamed Guest (possibly a commentator or another reporter)]

Yes, of course.

[Margaret Donovan]

Yeah.

[Unnamed Guest (possibly a commentator or another reporter)]

I mean, it's the most common sense thing in the world. And it should be in the administration, too. It should be anybody with access to the most valuable insider information of all. And meanwhile, not only are we not passing the law, Donald Trump is selling $100,000 early access to his true social tweets, which is just a front running for insider trading literally in the open.

[Nicole]

Rebecca, Teddy and Melissa. Melissa, the. That was obviously Hunter Biden talking to Tucker Carlson. Let me read you the Atlantic summation of the Trump corruption. Sort of this is the most concise description of are right now. Within a few days of inauguration, the Trump administration fired 17 inspectors general, dismantling oversight of taxpayer funds, quid pro quo business ventures and ethics law violations. President made $2.2 billion last year, according to the New York Times, a windfall that came mostly from crypto deals, a new source of income that now forms the bulk of his net worth. He booked up to $117 million mostly with major tech and media companies and $125 million from foreign golf and real estate deals, roughly twice the revenue generated from such deals in 2017. He's also made more than 21,000 securities trades, often in quick bursts tied to market moving moments he sparks. That's according to Bloomberg. And his son's portfolio of defense technology companies has collectively generated more than 3 billion with a B dollars in direct government business since Eric and Donald Trump Jr made their investments. That's sourced to the Washington Post reporting corruption is their game. It is their brand. Crypto is one of the centerpieces of it. And to Hunter Biden and Tucker Carlson's point of agreement, why are there no laws making all of this illegal?

[Melissa Murray]

This is the grip that keeps on giving. Nicole. We have a Congress that's supine that I think in the past recognized that presidents exhibited some restraint. But now we have a president that doesn't observe those kinds of restraints. So maybe this is an opportunity for legislation to issue some kind of formal restraints. And we have a Congress that doesn't feel bestirred to do that in this moment. So you know, there's that aspect of it. Congress as a meaningful check on this president has genuinely left the building. I would also note that the court could be a meaningful restraint here, but the court in many of its decisions just from the last term has actually facilitated some of this. So those decisions like Trump versus Slaughter, that allow the president to replace the members of multi member agencies at his will, at his liking, that's basically an open door for the president to use these agencies to push through policies that favor him or to take away policies that do not adhere to his interests. So again, we have an environment in which the executive has a wide open lane and the restraints that we would normally expect in a constitutional system to restrain him just don't exist.

[Nicole]

You know, Teddy, there's a thing that people used to say about how 911 happens and they said it was a failure of imagination. I'm not saying there is anything along the lines of 9, 11 happening here, but it feels like part of the reason none of the laws capture them is that no one could have imagined that a president and his sons would enrich themselves and would take from the government they're supposed to lead. But it feels like you said before, imagine Obama doing that. No one could. No one would. And to Hunter Biden's point, much was made of Hunter Biden's role on a Burisma board, which was so hollow that Tucker Carlson sitting across from him, essentially pandering to him, saying, I believe you, I believe you. I'm with you. You sure?

[Teddy Schleiper]

I mean, Trump is the first billionaire president and there's all these kind of unique business interests that he is kept alive or, you know, as he's passed off to his family allegedly for, you know, to basically keep him in the game, right? To keep him as a billionaire or make him more of a billionaire. And, you know, presidents after the presidency typically write books or they go on the speaking circuit. And Trump after his first term as president, you know, maybe he's preparing to run a second time at the time, but he got more and more involved in kind of business and he got, obviously his family started these companies, you know, in between term one and term two. So you have this unique situation where you have a really, really rich guy who basically wants to run for president again, but still wants to be able to be involved in the business world. And that's how you end up in the situation where, you know, the laws have not caught up to a president like Donald Trump where he has, as he's gotten older, you know, this is somebody in his late age who you would think would be comfortable moving on and retiring and, you know, maybe just doing public service as somebody who is, I guess, to his credit, wants to keep on staying in the game and his family is carrying the torque from right now. So I get your point here, Nicole. I mean, there's, there's clearly, I don't think Congress 10 years ago or 20 years ago would have thought this needed to be regulated.

[Nicole]

I mean, also I don't think Congress three years ago thought it needed to be regulated. And I don't know that it's credit for staying in the game. The game seems to be gripped. I mean, these aren't, these aren't like well run companies that do a public good. I mean, this is trading on his position of power and influence to get rich quick. Melissa.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, I mean, that certainly is what the reporting suggests so, you know, the reporting just even a few weeks ago about the drone business that the Trump sons were involved in, you know, talked about how, you know, those investors recognized that they had unparalleled access to the highest ranking members of the government. Like the Suns obviously dispute this, say that they don't have these contacts, but the mere fact that the imprimatur of the presidency surrounds them is enough to attract these investors. And that obviously has real repercussions for them and their bottom lines

[Nicole]

is endlessly interesting to me. And now increasingly a top tier issue for the voters, this apparent corruption all around the president. Thank you, Teddy, for joining us on the Times. Incredible reporting on this topic. Melissa, thank you for spending the whole hour with me me today. Quick break. We'll be right back. My guest on this week's new episode of the Best People podcast is someone who understands better than anybody else the existential threat that Donald Trump and his administration present to our democracy. It is exactly what democracy docket founder Mark Elias fights for every case he takes. Listen to what he told me.

[Julian Barnes / Dave Farenthal / Mark Elias (various reporters)]

We're not fighting within the 40 yard lines. We're not even within like the 20 and the 20. Like what Donald Trump wants to do is transform the country in a way that will make democracy no longer function in the way needs to function. And therefore to me it becomes an existential fight. It is. And so I don't engage. You will never find me in like a, I don't do bipartisan panels, I don't do talks. I don't chum it up. You won't find me clapping for the president or laughing at his jokes. I don't go to events. I understand the stakes and I understand that this is seriousness. And I don't, and I don't drop that. That's no different in my personal Persona and my professional Persona and my public Persona. And I think that that is what is so dangerous in this era is that too many people actually just think this is just business as usual.

[Nicole]

This is the most powerful and forceful and clear eyed I've ever heard. Mark, you don't want to miss this conversation. Just scan the QR code on your screen or download it wherever you get your podcast to listen right now. Be sure to let me know what you think on Instagram or Bluesky. One more break. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes tonight. We are grateful.

[Rob Lowe]

Hey everybody, it's Rob Lowe here. If you haven't heard, I have a podcast that's called literally with Rob Lowe. And basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire, like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J. Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe, please, and listen wherever you get your podcasts.