"Todd Blanche's zeal for retribution"

Summary

Detailed Summary of "Todd Blanche's zeal for retribution" (Deadline: White House, July 14, 2026)

---

Overview of the Episode

This episode, hosted by Nicolle Wallace, delivers deep analysis into the controversial role of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche within the Department of Justice during Donald Trump’s administration. Drawing from explosive reporting, particularly by the New York Times, Wallace and her panelists discuss the orchestrated retribution campaign launched against Trump’s perceived political enemies, the internal chaos and mass purging of DOJ career officials, and the broader consequences for American democracy. The episode also touches on high-profile ICE shootings, the erosion of law enforcement norms, and the corrosive effects of politicized justice on public trust.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

---

1. Todd Blanche’s Role in DOJ’s Retribution Campaign

[04:32 – 12:03]

• Origin of Blanche’s Control: Nicolle opens with new email revelations showing Todd Blanche’s central hand in weaponizing the DOJ against Trump’s critics and public servants. Notably, Blanche took charge after Ed Martin, a right-wing lawyer with little prosecutorial experience, was installed to head the "Weaponization Working Group" (WWG).

• Quote:

  “He [Blanche] hands him the keys to the car and then supervised his driving by, quote, scheduling a check in meeting every Friday, according to this trove of internal Justice Department emails.” – Nicolle Wallace [03:00]

• Blanche’s Tight Control:

  • Blanche’s strategy: Assign key cases to loyal deputies, schedule check-ins, and keep a tight grip on retribution efforts—targeting figures such as NY AG Tish James and ex-FBI Director James Comey.
  • The WWG, initially feared as Trump’s main vehicle for revenge, was instead managed behind the scenes by Blanche, who executed Trump’s priorities while trying to contain the most outrageous impulses.

• Failures and Fallout:

  • Failed attempts to prosecute James Comey and Tish James.
  • Purge of DOJ staff who worked on Trump-related cases.
  • Mishandling of sensitive files (e.g., Epstein files).
  • Attempts at politically motivated investigations of elected officials and victims’ families.

• Uplifting Note:

  • Despite pressure, many career DOJ staff refused to participate in politically motivated cases, upholding professional standards at great personal cost.

  “We've seen so many times in these retribution cases where prosecutors wouldn't be a part of it. ... They have to support their families. ... The department, the people at draw, are so strong.” – Panelist [03:41]

---

2. The “Purge” and Public Boasting

[08:24 – 12:03]

• Blanche’s Boasts at CPAC:

  • Blanche openly bragged about firing or pushing out over 200 DOJ staff involved in Trump prosecutions.

    “There is not a single man or woman at the Department of Justice who had anything to do with those prosecutions. ... Over 200 either left before we came in ... or were fired or took early retirement.” – Todd Blanche [08:47]

• Human Impact:

  • Wallace highlights the human toll: “They’re clapping for the purging of Walt Giardino, a longtime FBI agent who was fired as his wife laid dying of cancer ... and agents with decades of knowledge.”
  • Michael Feinberg adds the purges are as much about fear and intimidation as about effective control, but notes their limited success: “These people have nothing on Stalin. They have nothing on the Stasi. ... Their motivations may be similar, but their effectiveness really leaves a lot to be desired.” [11:23]

---

3. Legal Standards Undermined: The Comey Seashells and Selective Prosecution

[12:03 – 15:37]

• Expanding Prosecution Standards:

  • DOJ under Blanche shifted from prosecuting crimes with clear evidence to targeting individuals for political reasons.

  • The bizarre case of Comey’s “8647 seashell” photo illustrates the arbitrary nature of such prosecutions.

    “He has rewritten the standard by admitting that the Comey indictment, quote, isn't about a single incident.” – Nicolle Wallace [13:03]

• Selective/Vindictive Prosecution:

  • Legal analyst Andrew Weissman denounces Blanche’s approach as “selective and vindictive prosecution.”

  “...the argument... is Todd Blanche is the least unpalatable option available as Attorney General. The next person doesn't have to be confirmed either.” – Andrew Weissman [14:26]

---

4. Charges to “Name and Shame” and Institutional Dysfunction

[15:37 – 18:42]

• Weaponizing Indictments:

  • Glenn Thrush (NYT): Blanche has been bringing charges he knows won’t hold up (“notrue bills”) simply to please Trump and damage reputations.
  • Foundation of Blanche’s actions: sweeping interpretations of Article II powers, believing Trump has the right to command DOJ prosecutions as a personal tool.

  “The one area of complete consistency in Todd Blanche ... is the through line of Article 2.” – Glenn Thrush [16:25]

• Consequences for Democratic Norms:

  • Wallace warns this behavior is transformative, making the US resemble “the Justice Department in a third world country, not in the United States.”

---

5. The Impact of the Mass Workforce Exodus

[21:29 – 24:23]

• Institutional Knowledge Loss:

  • Michael Feinberg emphasizes how DOJ hollowed out its own expertise in the course of mass purges—decisions that will have ramifications for decades.

    “The number of individuals...no longer there for completely spurious reasons...add up to centuries of subject matter, expertise and institutional knowledge...” – Michael Feinberg [22:23]

• Historical Judgment:

  • Feinberg: “Every single thing he does cements his place in American history as a villain...an unprincipled underminer of the very institution he was supposed to safeguard.” [23:30]

---

6. The Stakes of Blanche’s Confirmation

[24:23 – 28:26]

• Confirmation Hearing Context:

  • Weissman warns confirming Blanche would legitimize and greenlight further abuses: “It gives him a green light to continue doing all of the things...that federal judges...have talked about his engaging in wrongful, illegal, unethical conduct.” [25:00]
  • Implications for midterms: lack of a “bottom” to what Blanche may do in pursuit of Trump’s goals.

• Republican Reaction:

  • Glenn Thrush reports limited Republican appetite for real accountability; focus will instead fall along partisan lines.
  • If Democrats take back the House, Blanche could face significant scrutiny in the future.

---

7. ICE Shootings and the Erosion of Law Enforcement Norms

[30:22 – 41:17]

• Recent Tragedies:

  • Recap of ICE agents killing innocent civilians (Johan Sebastian Guerrero in Maine, Lorenzo Salgado Arujo in Houston) while serving questionable warrants.

  • Local outrage and protest, ICE pausing vehicle stops for retraining.

    “I heard a howl that came from your soul, that your whole life had just changed and it was never going to be the same.” – Maine resident [30:22]

• Panelist Reaction:

  • Tim Miller: “...stopping or pausing, some kinds of vehicle stops, changing policies around vehicle stops ... is like, basically the bare effing minimum that we can expect from a government.” [32:33]

• Political Context and Accountability:

  • Maine’s political leadership, notably Susan Collins, coming under fire for funding ICE after previous abuses.

  • Michael Feinberg: Even absent the shootings, the climate of “masking, unmarked cars, ramming, executing citizens” is undemocratic.

    “This is not what is supposed to happen in a functioning democracy.” – Michael Feinberg [35:39]

• Pete Buttigieg’s Experience:

  • Tim Miller recounts a Child Protective Services “swatting” incident targeting Buttigieg’s family, and Buttigieg’s anger and skepticism about whether Blanche’s DOJ would pursue accountability.

    “There used to be a unit at DOJ and FBI that investigated [swatting] … Can you trust that this administration or this Department of Justice will actually do what they should do to go after that person?” – Tim Miller [41:17]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On DOJ’s Decline:

  “Do we still live in the United States of America or is this somewhere else?” – Nicolle Wallace [18:42]

• On the Human Cost:

  “To ruin their lives because they followed the chain of command is not just malicious. It goes against this administration's very emphasis on that chain of command.” – Michael Feinberg [10:28]

• On Historical Legacy:

  “Someday this administration is going to end...and there is no way that in any of those volumes, Todd Blanche comes out as anything other than an unprincipled underminer of the very institution he was supposed to safeguard.” – Michael Feinberg [23:30]

• On Selective Prosecution:

  “He has rewritten the standard by admitting that the Comey indictment, quote, isn't about a single incident.” – Nicolle Wallace [13:03]

---

Timeline/Timestamps for Key Segments

• Todd Blanche's Email Trove and WWG Control: [00:18 – 06:29]
• Backroom Politics and GOP Hesitation: [06:29 – 08:24]
• Blanche Boasts about DOJ "Purges" at CPAC: [08:24 – 10:28]
• Legal Standards and Comey Seashells Case: [12:03 – 15:37]
• Article 2 Powers Argument and Its Consequences: [15:37 – 18:42]
• Bleeding Institutional Knowledge: [21:29 – 24:23]
• Confirmation Hearing Stakes and GOP Response: [24:23 – 28:26]
• ICE Shootings and Democratic Norms: [30:22 – 37:24]
• Buttigieg's Swatting Incident and Federal Accountability: [40:05 – 41:17]

---

Conclusion

In a searing dissection of Todd Blanche’s tenure as Acting Attorney General, this episode traces the deliberate politicization, intimidation, and undermining of the DOJ’s independence. Through detailed reporting and panelist analysis, listeners are presented with a portrait of an institution under siege—battered by purges, incompetent leadership, and weaponized prosecutions in service of Trump’s personal vendettas. The session ends with a broader reflection: the stakes are existential, not just for the DOJ but for the rule of law and the future of American democracy.

---

Note: This summary omits advertisements, intros, and outros to focus on core content. All notable quotes are attributed and timestamped as per podcast guidelines.

Transcript

[A]

There's a lot of news to cover.

[B]

Money.

[A]

The economic fallout from the war. Is it temporary power? Is this White House for sale?

[B]

Politics.

[A]

What is your message to the country right now?

[B]

Money, Power, Politics With Stephanie rule, weekdays at 9am Eastern on Ms. Now.

[C]

Hi there everyone. It's four o' clock in the east when the history of the Trump era is written. What happened to Todd Blanche will be in the discussion questions at the end of the weaponized Department of Justice chapter. There is no retribution campaign against Donald Trump's perceived political enemies, who, by the way, aren't enemies at all, but merely public servants doing their jobs in every instance without Todd Blanche's zeal for carrying out that retribution campaign. Brand new reporting in the New York Times, based on newly released emails from a Freedom of Information act request, revealed just how much Todd Blanche has controlled and caused trust turmoil in the Department of Justice and his mission to fulfill Trump's wish of punishing all those perceived enemies. According to the Times, what led to Blanche putting himself in the driver's seat of the DOJ's retribution retribution efforts last May was this. He was, quote, handed a migraine in a Detective Colombo trench coat by the name of Edward R. Martin Jr. Martin, a right wing lawyer who championed the cause of the January 6th rioters, had just been forced out as the Acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia. The White House then installed Ed Martin as the head of the Weaponization Working Group. Martin put on nothing less than a show for Donald Trump, like when he showed up at the Brooklyn home of New York's Attorney General Tish James in that Detective Colombo trench coat while he tried to cook up a mortgage fraud case against her. The New York Times reports that Todd Blanche, quote, didn't believe that Martin, a provocateur with minimal prosecutorial experience, had the chops and know how to do the job. That's according to current and former officials who spoke anonymously. Notably, Blanche doesn't fire him though. No, he hands him the keys to the car and then supervised his driving by, quote, scheduling a check in meeting every Friday, according to this trove of internal Justice Department emails. The emails also revealed that Todd Blanche, quote, created an organizational plan for the Weaponization Working Group that assigned key investigative lanes to some of his own deputies. That ensured, among other things, that he had tight control over one of the most sensitive issues on his plate, demands from Trump and his supporters to identify, investigate and punish those who have once pursued them. Since exerting control within doj. Here's what Todd Blanche has directed and managed to, all of which he should have to answer for at his confirmation hearing tomorrow. Failed retribution cases against New York Attorney General Tish James and former FBI Director Jim Comey. A renewed effort to target Jim Comey over a picture of seashells that spell out the numbers 8647. The purging of hundreds of career Justice Department employees who worked on cases against Donald Trump. The mishandling of the Epstein files, which we'll dive into in depth in the next hour. The subpoenas served to Minnesota officials amid the Trump administration's immigration occupation, which were later quashed by a judge. And the attempted investigation into the widow of Renee Nicole Goode, who was killed by ICE agents in Minnesota. Now, if there is one bright spot in the wake of all of this, as former special counsel Jack Smith told us earlier this month, it is those within the Department of Justice who have resisted Todd Blanche and his efforts.

[D]

We've seen so many times in these retribution cases where prosecutors wouldn't be a part of it. You know, prosecutors in Minnesota who are like, I'm not going to investigate the family member of a shooting victim. I'm not doing that. Prosecutors who wouldn't go through with retribution prosecutions. And those people give up a lot. This is their whole career, a lot of them. You know, this isn't a lucrative sort of profession for a lawyer in terms of what you could do in private practice. They have to support their families. And one thing I have hope about is I think the traditions in the department, the people at draw, are so strong that we're going to have to rehabilitate the department for sure. But there's a lot of people still there, still in place, wanting to do the right thing, wanting to follow the facts in law, not be a part of any retribution campaign.

[C]

Todd Blanche's role in the perversion of justice is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. The journalist bylined on that piece, New York Times Justice Department reporter Glenn Thr, is here. Plus, former top DOJ official and general counsel for the FBI. Our legal analyst Andrew Weissman's back with us. Also joining us, former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI, National Security and intelligence analyst Michael Feinberg's here. Glenn Thresh, first tell me how you got migraine wrapped in a Detective Colombo trench coat into the pages of the New York Times. I squealed with delight when I read those words.

[E]

Well, I think my editors must have been on vacation and I got lucky. Sometimes it's like that final shot at the end of the first Star wars, when the missile gets to the heart of the Death Star,

[C]

it's perfect.

[E]

I want to do the prayer hands emojis to my bosses on that one. But it illustrates essentially the catalytic, the catalytic event that really prompted Todd Blanche to take control of the so called Anti Weaponization Working Group inside the Justice Department. It wasn't necessarily Blanche's firm belief in any one of these principles. Right. He is broadly motivated by a desire to execute Trump's wishes. It's not like Todd Blanche doesn't think, doesn't agree with Donald Trump that the Justice Department had been mobilized against him and some of his supporters. It's bl a general sense of wanting to control it. I think what these emails and it's 392 pages and it was provided to me by American Oversight, a watchdog group. What they really show here is Blanche really trying to assert control inside the department, probably because he has so little control outside of it.

[F]

Right.

[E]

And Ed Martin was inserted really against Blanche's wishes because he had flopped as the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia. He had no prosecutorial experience. Experience. Ed Martin, he was doing all this crazy performative stuff. And really Blanche needed a way to neutralize Martin because he couldn't have this operation, the Anti Weaponization group, in the hands of somebody he couldn't control. Now, what is interesting is this mechanism, this group, this task force, we had all anticipated that this would be the primary conduit for this vengeance campaign by Trump. It has turned out largely through the design of Todd Blanche, not to have played that role. Instead, Blanche has kind of dealt with these issues, Blanche and before him, Pam Bondi. But we should remember that Blanche, before he was acting Attorney General, was Deputy Attorney General, really running the day to day operations of the department. And Bondi, while an active player, was never really as clued in to President Trump as Blanche was for the 19 months of this administration. So Blanche has essentially tried to manage Donald Trump's demands in a way that allowed him to assert some level of control over this. And I think the argument that Blanche has been making more suggested than explicit to Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee is I have stopped a lot of bad things from happening. I know I've had to agree to a bunch of of prosecutions, including the Comey Seashells prosecution. But the suggestion, or at least the belief among Republicans on the committee, is that Blanche is the least unpalatable option available to them as a permanent Attorney General.

[C]

So I'm going to Michael Feinberg. I'M going to call BS on that and show you Todd Blanche bragging to right wing activist Matt Schlapp about the DOJ purge. Because Glenn Thrush is correct, he's going to present himself tomorrow as the least offensive option. But I take Matt Gaetz over this guy. Watch.

[G]

There is not a single man or woman at the Department of Justice who had anything to do with those prosecutions.

[H]

Over how many, how many have been canned?

[G]

Over 200. Over 200 either left before we came in because they knew it was coming or were fired or took early retirement. They are no longer employ by this department. And when it comes to the FBI, which takes a lot of criticism, especially because of what happened over the past several years, Director Patel has cleaned house there too. There isn't a single man or woman with a gun federal agent still in that organization that had anything to do with the prosecution of President Trump.

[C]

Now, Michael Feinberg, thanks to Glenn Thresh's great reporting and some of the things you've shared since you left. I mean, they're clapping for the purging of Walt Giardino, a longtime FBI agent who was fired as his wife laid dying of cancer. Brian Driscoll, someone with decades of experience in counterterrorism, a real national security asset to the United States government under Democratic and Republican presidents. They're applauding the purging of agents who had no say on which cases they worked on. But they got involved in the Trump cases because Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco appointed a special counsel and they needed agents and they needed prosecutors. So that's what those people are clapping for. And those were the applause lines that Todd Blanch fed them. I take Matt Gaetz seven days a week over that guy.

[I]

Look, choosing between Matt Gaetz and Todd Blanche as a boss or as a political leader is sort of like flipping a coin between self administered poison and the self inflicted gunshot wound. I wouldn't wish any of them up on my friends and I wouldn't wish either of them upon my country. But the mere fact that Todd Blanche was willing to go to his partisan and performative an exercise as CPAC and brag about firing people for doing their jobs that they had been assigned. Because you are absolutely correct, FBI agents do not pick the cases on which they work. Half the time they're sitting at their desk when the supervisor walks by looking for anybody to throw at a problem. So to ruin their lives because they followed the chain of command is not just malicious. It goes against this administration's very emphasis on that chain of command. As Kash Patel himself has repeatedly stated, the chain of command is part of what makes the FBI. But I also want to note something. And like, I'm not trying to, you know, throw fuel on the fire. Todd Blanche is wrong. There's actually quite a few people who worked on all those investigations still at DOJ and still at FBI. These people can't even carry out their purges. Effect like, these people have nothing on Stalin. They have nothing on the Stasi. Their motivations may be similar, but their effectiveness really leaves a lot to be desired.

[C]

I mean, that is the hallmark and that is sort of the gallows humor, Andrew Weissman, that the only thing standing between us and authoritarianism is their stupidity and incompetence, which is cold comfort. But I do want to show you Todd Blanche's inability to even have a consistent message around his own retribution campaign against Jim Comey.

[A]

It is worth noting that on Amazon.com, we looked this up. There are dozens of products with the same terminology. We're showing it right here. 8647 being sold and purchased right now. Should individuals selling or buying 8647 merchandise be concerned that they're going to be Prosecuted by the DoD?

[G]

This isn't about a single incident. Okay? This isn't. I mean, of course not. That's posted constantly, phrases used constantly. There are constantly men and women who choose to make threatening statements against President Trump. Every one of those statements do not result in indictments, of course.

[C]

I mean, Andrew Weissman, an indictment is about a, quote, single incident. It's about a single crime that you believe. I mean, until Todd Blanche, the standard was a single crime for which you had enough evidence to confidently believe that you could convict somebody beyond a reasonable doubt. That has always been the standard. He has rewritten the standard by admitting that the Comey indictment, quote, isn't about a single incident. I mean, what is the basic law of criminal justice that he has announced on television under his watch at doj?

[F]

Well, what he's announcing is selective and vindictive prosecution as a way to differentiate James Comey from everyone else who uses the phrase 86 or 8647. And to be fair, a federal judge threw out the Abrego Garcia case that was spearheaded, according to the judge, by Todd Blanche, on the ground that it was a vindictive prosecution. And this is where we are in the discussion that you are having with Glenn and Michael, which is Todd Blanche should be confirmed, because I can think of somebody who might be worse. That's the argument for the standard for why we should have Todd Blanche as the Attorney general.

[C]

Well, you know what?

[F]

The next person doesn't have to be confirmed either. There is a track record here, up one side and down the other, of what Todd Blanche has done. James Comey in the 8647 is just. Is just the tip of the iceberg. We could, as you mentioned, you're going to talk about the Epstein matter. You can talk about trying to indict six members of Congress. You can talk about indicting Letitia James. You can talk about grand jury subpoenas to the sitting governor of Minneapolis, the sitting mayor of. I'm sorry, sitting governor of Minnesota, the sitting mayor of Minneapolis of a grand jury subpoena about election fraud in Fulton county, all of which were quashed. The grand jury subpoena with respect to the Federal Reserve was quashed. All of this was under the leadership of Todd Blanch. And so the argument, which is Bill Barr's argument, which is, well, there could be somebody worse. I don't buy that. Not just because, yes, there could be somebody worse. But the Senate does not have to confirm either Todd Blanche or somebody who was.

[C]

I mean, Glenn, let's put aside that, that all of the presumptions of good faith, conduct and regularity are gone. That is what Top Blanche has ushered in in 18 seemingly endless months, but 18 short months. He also sucks at the criminal justice part. The whole you can indict a ham sandwich is. Is gone. He now can't indict US Senators. He failed to indict Jim Comey two times, Failed to indict Tish James two times, Wasn't able to provide enough evidence to even proceed with a criminal investigation of Jerome Powell, something Trump's been obsessed with since he waved around papers at a construction site wearing a hard hat. I mean, the department doesn't function under Todd Blanche. What about the incompetence argument against having him serve in the big boy role as permanent Attorney general?

[E]

I mean, that's. I think that's a point that's going to. Going to be raised. I mean, there seems to be, and I've heard it from political appointees in the department who aren't there any longer, that there is this idea, and you see this at the state level and in other countries, that you bring charges to name and shame the individuals with full knowledge that you're not gonna be able to obtain a conviction in some cases that you're not even gonna be able to obtain an indictment. You know, and We've seen this proliferation of notrue bills, particularly under Jeanine Pirro in Washington D.C. i think one of the most infamous one was the sandwich chucker. And there's a sense that allows you to tell Trump, who is the immovable object in this system, that you did the best that you possibly could. And really that is the whole ball game here. Todd Blanche, in defending Donald Trump against the charges made by the special counsel, made a maximalist argument about Article 2 of the Constitution extending to former president. And that has just completely been the foundation of Blanche's interpretation of Trump's role in dictating terms to the Department of Justice. So I think the one area of complete consistency in Todd Blanche over the past couple of years is the through line of Article 2. He has justified all of those firings that he referred to at CPAC and so many of the other of the other decisions, particularly essentially filling you know, executing Trump's list of people to go after by saying it was Trump's right under Article 2 of the Constitution to tell Todd Blanche what to do. And the one thing I want to say is we have at least one senator, two actually, Cornyn and Tillis on the Senate Judiciary Committee who have explicitly said that independents, the independents of the Justice Department are the primary motivator in what their vote would be. The question that I have is if they examine the record that we have discussed here, how does that not justify at this point in time, a no vote?

[C]

Well, I also would suggest that Bill Barr was as big a fan of Article 2 as ever walk the planet. And even he had to navigate attorneys general like, or US Attorneys like Jeff Berman, who refused to bring some of these political cases. So it isn't always interpreted as meaning you indict whoever you want to. I mean, that is the Justice Department in a third world country, not in the United States of America. So I think those two senators and frankly all of them are going to have to decide where we live. I mean, do we still live in the United States of America or is this somewhere else? We haven't dealt with Minnesota yet, but there was also an attempt to investigate elected officials there on the family members of shooting victims crimes. We'll talk about that part of top Blanche's record. Also ahead, he once declared, quote, it's not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein. Yes, we're still talking about Todd Blanche. We'll have much more on his confirmation hearing tomorrow and how his cover up and obstruction of the Jeffrey Epstein files could also get in the way or at least tarnish his opening act as attorney general. But first, we'll get to the latest spring of ICE shootings, one in Texas than one in Maine yesterday. And why now. The Trump administration is making some very public changes to its deportation policies. Plus, Trump is going to be escalating his 2020 election lies live in prime time on Thursday. The weaken confidence in our country's upcoming midterm elections. He's going to do that with a big assist from his housing person, the guy named Bill Pulte, who he promoted to the head of the nation's national intelligence agencies. We'll talk about what we should expect to hear on Thursday coming up. All that and much more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[B]

Have you ever wanted to share Your opinions with MSNow about our TV programs, podcasts, live events and more? Now's your chance to have your voice heard. Join the MSNow Insights community at MSNow.

[J]

You don't need to take my word for it. You can listen to exactly what Donald Trump is saying and he's saying and many of those that work for him are saying this is about some form of retribution. We would be getting targeted, in fact, are getting targeted for doing one of the most basic things that we are required to perform as public servants. And for me, that's speaking on behalf of my constituents. I take that responsibility very seriously and that somebody would be investigated for it. This, of course, should be deeply concerning not just for me, not just for Minneapolis, but that is concerning for the endurance of our republic.

[C]

Rebecca, Glenn, Andrew and Michael. So Michael, the public officials, public elected officials having the presence of mind to couch the retribution campaign in their sort of tectonic context in the moment is one of the extraordinary hallmarks of these first 18 months. It's also one of the hallmarks of Todd Blanche's tenure that everything was so hyper cartoonized that that these efforts led to these mass resignations. New York Times the time that he attempted to investigate Mayor Fry and Governor Waltz and the widow of Renee Nicole Good reported that, quote, six prosecutors quit over a push to investigate ICE shooting victims. Widow. Just talk about the hollowing out around the country of DOJ under Todd Blanche.

[I]

Yeah, well, that's actually one of the things that gets mentioned less in light of the other scandals involving direct litigation is Todd Blanche's either intentional or incidental utter destruction of the Department of Justice's workforce. The number of individuals who are no longer there for completely spurious reasons add up to centuries of subject matter, expertise and institutional Knowledge that has served presidents of both administrations for decades. In a weird way, he's shooting himself in the foot because he has all these political ambitions for what the department should be doing. But he's getting rid of the very people who would most likely ensure his success. Success in doing so. But I do want to point out one thing about the actions Blanche is taking. Every single thing he does cements his place in American history as a villain with more and more firmness to the people who care about the rule of law. He has time and time again abandoned constitutional norms in service of political errands for his president. To the people who support that president, nothing Todd Blanche does will ever be enough. And as a result, someday this administration is going to end. Someday memoirs are going to be written, and a generation after that, monographs, and a generation after that, narrative history. And there is no way that in any of those volumes, Todd Blanche comes out as anything other than an unprincipled underminer of the very institution he was supposed to safeguard.

[C]

So, Andrew Weissman, just put into context the stakes. I mean, tomorrow's hearings, if they are anything like anything that's happened over the last nine years, will be a charade where even Republicans who are on the fence will pretend to be concerned about the things that everyone on earth one sees clearly. But in the end, it would require a first in nine years event for Republicans to block what Donald Trump wants. What are the stakes of Todd Blanche taking over as the country's Attorney general with this as his record?

[F]

So I think that's a great question, because I think there's, there's two ways to think about that. One is rather than think about, oh, there might be somebody worse in the wings if we don't confirm him, it is blessing what he has done. It gives him a green light to continue doing all of the things and more that we have talked about, all of the ways that federal judges up to just yesterday have talked about his engaging in wrongful, illegal, unethical conduct. These are federal judges who have found that. And this would be a green light saying that you now have the Senate saying, go forward. I know you're going to talk about Epstein, but it's a way of saying, you know what? We don't stand with the Epstein Transparency Act. We don't stand with the Epstein victims. We stand with the people who are obstructing the turning over and disclosing pursuant to the law, millions of documents that still exist that have not seen the light of day. Second, it's really important to think about what this means for the midterm elections, because so far we publicly do not see any bottom in terms of what Todd Blanche is capable of. We have seen that he has tried to do a grand jury investigation into Fulton county that was struck down by a judge appointed by Donald Trump, no less, in his first term. And so what this would mean is that Todd lynch has a green light not just to do what he's done in the past, but for the midterm elections. We've had Bill Barr willing to have a line and saying, no, I am not going to engage in obstruction of justice. But it's not clear at all that Todd Blanche will have that same line because nothing he has done so far publicly suggests that he will.

[C]

Glenn Thrush, any reporting on what to expect from Republicans in these hearings?

[E]

Well, Thom Tillis, one of the two Republicans on the committee who's expressed some issues with this, just gave a hallway interview in which he said that he wants Blanche to give a categorical, a categoric rejection of the weaponization fund. I have to tell you though, it does seem that the Republican senators are operating on a very narrow strip of beach here. I mean, what we have just gone over this like the record that Blanche has of fundamentally, along with, we should refer to Emile Beauvais, his right hand man who's now a federal judge, was a big part of this in the first six months of the administration last year. I mean, he's fundamentally transformed the administration. And it doesn't seem like on the Republican side they're gonna ask a lot of questions about this larger pool and arguably the more significant issues here. I think that's gonna fall back into that Republican Democratic binary and the public is gonna kind of, kind of tune out. The one thing I wanna say is I don't think we're gonna have to wait too terribly long if the Dems take back the House. I think we're gonna have Todd Blanche sitting in front of a committee or some sort of a commission answering a lot of these questions or not answering a lot of these questions real time. If the Democrats take power.

[C]

Yeah, no, it's a good point. I think we'll have to talk about in the coming days is that he's also a huge political loser. I mean, the resistance basically wakes up when Bruce Springsteen descends on Minneapolis and writes a song and then goes on a national tour. I mean, to the degree that Trump now has an approval rating on immigration below his. His approval rating as president, which is also very, very low, is because of all the excesses that Kristi Noem and Todd Blanche permitted greenlit and executed. Glenn Thrush Amazing reporting. Andrew Weissman, thank you so much for starting us off. Michael Feinberg sticks around a little bit longer. Coming up for us, public outcry continues after a string of deadly shootings by ICE agents. The very latest on what appears appears to be a consistent and disturbing pattern.

[B]

Listen to your favorite Ms. Now shows anytime As a podcast. Enjoy new episodes of Morning Joe, Deadline, White House and the Rachel Maddow Show.

[H]

Every small d Democratic muscle that we have is flexing.

[B]

Plus the Last Word with Lawrence o', Donnell, the Beat with Ari Melber the week night and more on the Go wherever you get your podcasts for ad free listening to all of your favorite shows. Subscribe to Ms. Now Premium on Apple Podcasts.

[K]

I heard the kind of shotgun and you know, I just came out to see what happened, you know, and first thing I saw was him and a lot of ISA hands over there and I saw his wife and his daughter crying. I mean, they are killing our people, you know, and it's kind of scary, you know. They doesn't care. They don't respect life, you know.

[C]

That was a witness account. One of the witnesses to the horrific ICE shooting of Johan Sebastian Guerrero. He's a Colombian immigrant in Bideford, Maine, earlier this week. The shooting has sparked massive protests by residents there who are outraged by the killing of one of their neighbors. Boston Globe is reporting this about Guerrero. Neighbors described him as a hardworking father who was trying to build a stable life for his family. He was often seen driving a small white sedan, which he used to make doordash deliveries. He was behind the wheel Monday morning when the immigration agent opened fire, shooting into Guerrero's car, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Immigration agents were trying to serve a deportation order, according to Maine Senator Angus King's office. However, Guerrero wasn't even the target of that deportation warrant. And it is the second fatal shooting by ICE agents during a vehicle stop this week after ICE agents shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Arujo in Houston last week. In both that shooting and this 1 In Maine, ICE agents have attempted to blame the victims for their own killings and deaths. Earlier today, ICE announced that it would be pausing some vehicle stops until the officers can be retrained on vehicle stops. For their part, neighbors are still reeling from the killing of their neighbor, one of them telling the New York Times this, quote, I heard agony, said a local resident who said she saw a screaming woman on her knees next to a young Girl, quote, I heard a howl that came from your soul, that your whole life had just changed and it was never going to be the same. I want to bring in political analyst, host of the Bull Work podcast, Tim Miller. Michael is still here. I mean, the thing about this is there's coverage and conversations about policies that are abhorrent, and then there are killings that are happening in all of our name, regardless of who we vote for, regardless of the old trope, elections have consequences. These two have been killed in our names as Americans. This is American policy, and they're being killed on American streets by Trump's immigration officials. Tim Miller, your thoughts?

[H]

Yeah. Well, it's the second state murder this week of the wrong person. So I think that stopping or pausing, some kinds of vehicle stops, changing policies around vehicle stops in the short term while they get more training is like, basically the bare effing minimum that we can expect from a government. After the agents of the state, like you said, people we pay with our tax dollars, killed the wrong person twice in Maine. They killed Mr. Guerrero. He was fleeing. They didn't even do the thing that they did with Renee Goode and pretend like she was a threat and that she was turning her car at the agent, which we all saw with her eyes. She didn't. They didn't even say that. Like, they said, he was driving away, he's fleeing. Well, in what possible world does it make sense to fire on the wrong person when their car is driving away? And, like, you have the license plate, like, you know, you don't have to be a policing expert to understand the options here. You can show up to the person's house if you're worried about it later, give them a ticket. If that's a crime that requires detention, you could even serve them a warrant at their house. Right? They had to open fire six times. The dad in front of the kids, and it's the wrong person. It's totally, totally unacceptable. And to do it in Biddeford, Maine, in the name of immigration enforcement, it's like, what? This killing on the street, this murder was about 20 minutes. I googled it this morning from the Bush compound in Kennebungport. I'm sure you visited Nicole. It's like, this is a peaceful hamlet, a place people summer in Maine. Like, this is not the border. Like, this is not cartel country. So it's totally crazy that they're armed officials of the state there at all, so. And the thing is nuts, the one political thing I think is worth mentioning, there's been a lot of discussion about the Maine Senate race and the Democrat and the issues with him over the past few weeks. But Susan Collins is the chair of the Appropriations Committee in January. And there have been a bunch of examples of this, but there's one example particular. I did an interview on the block, YouTube with a guy who had witnessed a correction officer who's here legally. He was an agent of the state himself, he's a correction officer in Maine get detained and bullied and manhandled and by ICE officials wrongfully sent. There's this big controversy in Maine, like the correction officers, the local sheriffs, there are press conferences about it. This was all five months ago saying that ICE is acting with malice in the state, acting wrongly going after Maine citizens. After that incident, Susan Collins was fighting for more funding for ice. She wanted to give more money for people to go into her state and menace the citizens. And so that's what she's running on as we look at to November.

[C]

I mean the politics are terrible and the predicate is non existent. I mean the political promise was to go after, quote, the worst of the worst. This was a father and a driver and not even the subject of the warrant. Michael Feinberg.

[I]

Yeah, I don't want to minimize what I will refer to as state sanctioned murders, but I do want us to think about them in a larger context. Even if these shootings never happened, everything leading up to the moment when the ICE officer pulls the trigger and everything afterwards in terms of how they behaved is not remotely in line with best law enforcement practices or the norms of a democracy. I just want to pause and think about how utterly unimaginable it would have been even five years ago to contemplate the notion of masked federal agents obfuscating their identity, driving unmarked cars, ramming individuals for whom they do not have warrants, and then when it goes south, executing those citizens. This is not what is supposed to happen in a functioning democracy. There are cities in the United States that for admittedly temporally limited time periods, but still like, you know, Minnesota, if you're a Latino, during certain times of the past year, it's no different than being a political dissident in Romania under the Iron Guard or being a Uyghur in China. Like, we should not let our outrage at the murders, and that is what they are, and the outrage is deserved, but we should not let that outrage eclipse the equally justified outrage at the entire environment that is leading to these murders.

[C]

Such a good point. We'll dig into that. Tim has a fantastic new interview with Pete Buttigieg and he addresses these ICE killings and those issues. I'll show you that on the other side of the break. Stay with us.

[L]

This administration's Homeland Security Department has already been caught in another case saying that somebody was trying to ram federal agents and that turning out not to be true. Right. So I think we have more questions at a moment like this than we would if we could trust our federal government. And then you think about people who are caught up in this. I mean, if these reports turn out to be true about a three year old child on the scene,

[H]

six shots,

[L]

just like what could possibly and whatever else anybody winds up learning or saying or claiming, for God's sake, obviously she does not deserve to be mixed up in any of this. And I don't know, we'll learn more, but it's so upsetting. And again, it's happening in this context where we keep hearing word of this kind of violence that is not making anybody safer or better off. It's not making America a better place. And it doesn't have to be like this.

[C]

A really important interview at a really important time. Tim, your thoughts?

[H]

Yeah, we were talking kind of right as the news of Maine was starting to come out. And so I think that he was kind of broadening out a little bit like Mike was in the broader context of what we're seeing from this administration and how it's not making us safer. And we got to talk a bit about the experience he had with CPS and coming to his house based on that lie, based on that criminal prank. And I think connecting all these things together is this notion that you aren't in a democracy, you aren't in a free country, you aren't feeling safe if the government is going to use state violence against you or your neighbors or the government would separate you from your kids. And you can't even trust that after something like that happens, if they make a mistake that they will try to own up to it. Administration, every police force, everything in history has made mistakes. That happens. What is happening now is that you can't trust that the guys in power, that the guys with the guns will even be honest about their behavior and that they could go and menace you based on your skin color or based on your political orientation and not have any accountability for that. I mean, that is not how things should be in a free country. And I think that Pete was pretty compelling on both of those topics.

[C]

Tim, just share with us what he said about the basically like the child Protective service version of swatting against him. And Chastain and their kids.

[H]

He's angry. Pete doesn't get that angry. You know, I get. My emotional range is like, you know, all the top and bottom of your TV screen, which is probably not good for a leader. You know, Pete's a little more even keel, but he cussed. He was really upset. You could tell that it had really upset Chastain and his family and that they're still kind of recovering from it and processing it. He talked about how there's part of him that made him just want to go step away from this stuff and hug his family and hug them tight and care about that. And then there's the other part of him that's like, you know, something like this makes him want to fight even harder. So, you know, and I think that's kind of what a lot of us are going through and thinking about it. It just was really acute and tragic in his case. And I guess the other thing he said was that he does, you know, he could only say so much because he does want there to be an investigation of the person that did this. It was criminal. And again, it's like, it's a little disheartening to think, can you trust that this administration or this Department of Justice will actually do what they should do to go after that person? And I guess that remains to be seen.

[C]

Right? Like swatting is a crime. And there used to be a unit at DOJ and FBI that investigated it and followed up if you'd been swatted and told you about it. Tim Miller, thank you so much for talking to us today. Michael Fabric, thank you for spending the hour with us. After the break, some good news for EG and Carol to tell you about. That's next. If you're looking for something to cheer about today, we've got you. It is payday for E. Jean Carroll, more than three years after her legal battle against Donald Trump began. Three decades after Donald Trump allegedly sexually abused her. Court records released today show that more than five and a half million dollars have been transferred to E. Jean Carroll's legal team. Her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, confirmed the news in a statement saying this, quote, three years ago, a unanimous nine person jury found President Trump liable for sexually assaulting and defaming Eugene Carroll. Today, we are pleased to report that she has received the damages payment the jury awarded her as a result of that verdict. The larger potential payout, the $83 million award in a separate defamation lawsuit filed by Eugene Carroll, is still working its way through the courts as Donald Trump continues to appeal. It so far to no avail. We'll stay on top of that as well. When we come back, Jonathan Swan joins us on the extensive reporting he has done on how connected Todd Blanche is to the COVID up of the Jeffrey Epstein files. We'll bring you the latest when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[B]

Have you ever wanted to share Your opinions with MSNow about our TV programs, podcasts, live events and more? Now's your chance to have your voice heard. Join the MSNow Insights community at Ms. Now Insights.