Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. It's Monday, August 10th, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. As is so often the case, we come out of the weekend with so much to think about and talk about. I'll begin domestically. And so I want us to look at the fact that the United States of America now has an attorney general. Todd Blanche was confirmed over the weekend as Attorney General of the United States. That means that he is no longer the acting att. He had served in that role for several months. Now, behind his confirmation, which, by the way, was a very close vote, it was 50 to 49 behind. That was an awful lot of political maneuvering. That political maneuvering included the fact that there were two Republican senators who were holding out their vote in order to gain negotiating power with the White House. That was Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. By the way, neither of them will be in that office a year from now. So that gives them a certain amount of, let's just say, flexibility in terms of their dealings with the Republican Party, with their Republican colleagues in the Senate, and especially with the White House. And so both of them had requirements, and without going into detail, the fact is that over the course of the last several days, both of them said they would vote for the confirmation of Todd Blanche as attorney General. Now, there were two Republicans who did not vote for him and instead voted against him. And that would include Lisa Murkowski, Republican from Alaska, and Susan Collins, Republican from Maine. Of course, Susan Collins up right now for reelection in Maine, facing a very difficult reelection bid. And of course, the big story there has been the chaos on the Democratic side to oppose her. But the fact is that both Murkowski and Collins are, you can put quotation marks around this. They're often referred to as moderate Republicans, which means that on social issues, let's just say abortion in particular, they are not consistent with the convictions of the Republican Party, but they do count in the Republican count in the Senate. That turns out to be very important. It turns out that when the vote was 50 to 49, that meant that Todd Blanche could not lose one Republican vote of those who would be in the room. And that's because Senator Mitch McConnell, former Republican leader in the Senate, US senator from the state of Kentucky, was unable because of physical condition to be in the Senate chamber. And thus the nomination simply had to go 50 to 49 if it were to be successful. And it was. So here's the other thing. When it comes down to the math. Yes, history will record the vote was 50 to 49. But history will record far more importantly, that Todd Blanche was confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States. Okay, so behind that are some big questions, because there's been so much media attention to this, and a lot of Christians are aware of this. And it's very important for us to recognize that the Attorney General is one of the most powerful positions in the United States government. But as you think about it, you would say, well, what does the Constitution say about the Attorney General? The office of Attorney General is not in the text of the Constitution. Instead, what is in the text of the Constitution is the President's ability to appoint officers of the United States. And the Attorney General is one of those officers subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. It is also true that the Judiciary act of 1789. So you're talking about something that happened very close to the ratification of the US Constitution itself. The Judiciary act of 1789 created the Office of Attorney General of the United States. Now, the Attorney General of the United States has several very clearly defined responsibilities. The Attorney General is the chief legal officer of the United States of America. Now, even in 1789, that was a massively important job. And the necessity of it was made clear by the fact that so soon after the ratification of the Constitution, the President and Congress saw the need for this kind of role. Now, the very title Attorney General, where does that come from? Well, it is based in the British tradition as well. And thus, when you look at the office of Attorney General, that person, that individual, is the chief law enforcement officer of the entire realm, in our case, of the entire government. That is also a role that includes being the legal advisor to the President of the United States. So the Attorney General is a counsel, you might say, in one sense, to the President, a counselor, an advisor, not a member properly of the President's personal staff. So this is where in our political system, there's some interesting distinctions, and one of them is that members of the Cabinet serve at the President's pleasure period. So there is no doubt there's a sense in which the Attorney General of the United States is a part of the staff of the executive branch, but not of the White House particularly. And so it is a very interesting position, and it's one that has been filled with controversy at so many points in American history. So you look at those two big roles. To be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States and then to be a legal advisor to the President. There are moments in which that can get pretty complicated. So let's just talk about the Attorney General. In the United States right now, the Attorney General has under his control and direction the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the dea, the United States Marshals. Many Americans just, frankly, don't know a whole lot about the U.S. marshals and what they do. It's very important. And the Attorney General is also the cabinet officer over the Federal Bureau of Prisons. So you can look. That's a huge responsibility. It's a lot of Alphabet soup. US Marshals, FBI, dea, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Okay? So even if you go back in American history, you had the fact that there were federal law enforcement officers under the Attorney general. Now, when you look at the earliest period after the ratification of the Constitution, there weren't that many people who represented law enforcement on behalf of the United States of America. A lot of it had to do with port cities and other things in which there was a federal interest. But There was no FBI until the 20th century and the war on organized crime. That's basically something many Americans don't understand. If you go back, for instance, to the time of President Abraham Lincoln, there were federal law enforcement officers, but many of them were deployed in other kinds of departments doing other work, such as having to do with immigration and harbors and things like that. The westward expansion of the United States has a great deal to do with the fact that one of the most common law titles known to many Americans was the United States Marshal. And of course, the United States Marshals were served by deputy marshals. And so there, of course, in television, movies, and all the rest, it's a U.S. marshal. And then often the person on the ground, on the scene would be a deputy marshal, deputy U.S. marshal. And such a person has vast law enforcement responsibility, particularly in the age of expansion when there could be a lot of territory and very few deputy marshals. But by the time you get to the 20th century, as I said, you have the FBI created because of the acknowledgment of gangs and gang warfare and criminal syndicates and all the rest. You could think of someone like Al Capone and the gang wars of, say, the 1920s. Eventually, you end up in the 20th century with the FBI. And it was a bit late to the game that the FBI at least publicly acknowledged even the existence of something like the Mafia. But by the time you get to the 1950s and the 1960s, the mafia is very clearly a part of the focus of the FBI. The other thing is that as the United States developed over time and the states developed over time, overlapping but distinct legal responsibilities really came very much into play with different jurisdictions. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the entire United States government. So all those law enforcement agencies, especially the FBI, the dea, and the marshals, are directly under the Attorney General's purview. As I said, this could get pretty complicated. It can get pretty controversial. Just over the course of the last several presidents, you had all kinds of issues related to the relationship between presidents and attorneys general. And yes, that's the way you put it in. It's not attorney generals, it is attorneys general. Go figure. But it is also true that if you look at some of the moments in American history, it can get really complicated, such as the fact that during the administration of President John F. Kennedy, his own brother, Robert F. Kennedy, was Attorney General of the United States. Let's just say it's a good thing that the President and the Attorney General have a close relationship. Let's also say brother is way too close. Having the same last name is a problem. As I said, there is no reference to an Attorney General in the constitution. But by 1789, the need for such a role was very clear. Under the Authority of Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution, Todd Blanche began serving as Deputy Attorney General in the second Trump administration. Pam Bondi, the former Attorney General in Florida, was the Attorney General. President Trump basically removed her from office, put in Todd Blanche months ago as the Acting Attorney General. And so you ask the question, what's the difference between an acting Attorney General and the attorn? And the most important thing is simply the status and the respect of the office. And so when it comes to powers, it's not so clear. There's a great distinction. But when it comes to influence and authority, it's real clear there is a distinction. Another interesting fact about Todd Blanche, clearly he's been closely associated with President Trump. And by the way, that is very, very common, particularly in the modern presidency. It would be rare for a president to appoint an Attorney General with whom he did not have a vision. Very clear level of trust, and when that happened, sometimes led to disaster. But nonetheless, Todd Blanch is a graduate of the American University. He's also a graduate of the Brooklyn Law School. Okay, so there aren't that many graduates of schools like the Brooklyn Law School who go on to be Attorney General of the United States. That's another reminder that when you look at law schools, there used to be a very clear pecking order, and there still is in one sense, in terms of hiring. It's also clear that in the city of New York, you have something like the Brooklyn Law School, which has a very clear influence and a lot of respect and provides an awful lot of the people who would end up serving as attorneys in various functions and capacities. And when it comes to Todd Blanche, after he graduated, he went to work for the Department of Justice, and he worked at the Department of Justice as a very young lawyer in several different ways. He eventually became an Assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. Now, that's the most powerful U.S. attorney's office in the United States, just in terms of the fight against organized crime and so many other things. The Southern District of New York, that's an incredibly powerful U.S. attorney office. He served there as a prosecutor. He then went into private practice, and it was as a private attorney, he became an attorney on behalf of Donald Trump in different legal contexts and clearly won the confidence of the president. After the removal of Pam Bondi, the Deputy Attorney General was appointed Acting Attorney General. And then, as I said over the weekend, he became the Attorney General of the United States. A good reminder that we need to think about such cabinet offices and be reminded of the vast responsibility fulfilled by the one who would hold that role. We also need to understand that in our government, there are three and only three branches of government. There's the judiciary, and there is the legislative, and then there is the executive. The key issue to think about with the executive is that everyone in a responsibility like this ultimately works for the President of the United States. And it has been very clear that President Trump looks at it just that way. Christians should also just be reminded in all of this that when you elect a president of the United States, when Americans go to the polls and elect a president, we are also electing an entire branch of government, at least especially in terms of the highest levels of a policy and executive authority within the US Government. And especially you look at a role like the Attorney General of the United States. Thus, another clear affirmation of the importance of elections and the importance and the stewardship of voting. Okay. In the last days of last week, I spoke at a conference at Moscow, Idaho. More on that later. But I flew with a colleague into Spokane, Washington. And of course, you're thinking, there are the fires. We certainly were as we landed. I can just tell you that the effect of the fire is very, very clear, very sad, very devastating. A level one danger there in the Spokane area. And it was really something to see. And it is also, by the way something you could just smell and the air itself was showing a great deal of smoke, so much so that at times you couldn't see very far at all. And we're talking about fires that were deliberately set. We're talking about arson. We're talking about a criminal act. And just over the last few days, law enforcement officials there in Washington state arrested Aaron Faranasi. He was arrested on Monday of last week on suspicion of first degree arson. Now, there's a lot behind this. For one thing, it turns out that this young man had been in prison in Arizona for killing his own father. And that eventually was redefined as a manslaughter charge. He served a period of time and he was released. He ended up with relatives there in the Washington state area. And he became fascinated with fire. And he made some amazing statements. One Spokane law enforcement official in the sheriff's department said he feels fire is powerful, beautiful, and things that go through fire experience a kind of rebirth. End quote. So you add all this together, clearly we're talking about a very disturbed individual. We're also talking about a law system, a legal system that allowed this person to be convicted of manslaughter and then to spend just a relatively brief time in prison and then to be released. And, of course, the rest of the story begins to unfold. You learn more and more. For instance, you also have major news reports that he had planned this for weeks. And as a matter of fact, he was basically caught doing it, not by law enforcement, but by some people, people living in the area who noticed suspicious activity. And it turns out that he had really thought this through. He had followed the example of some historic arsonists, one in particular that has imagination. And so he was thinking about how to set the fire for maximum effect. He chose a windy condition, and he very much premeditated everything that he would use and the way that he would set the fire in multiple places in order to have the greatest chance of a devastating fire, which is exactly what happened. Something like 600 structures, including many private homes, absolutely destroyed by the fire. As I say, the local media, reporting as law enforcement, is giving information that he had planned this for weeks. The New York Times, just at the national level, also ran a major story saying that detectives in Spokane county said the man accused of starting the fire that destroyed almost 700 buildings, so the numbers going higher told him he planned the arson two weeks in advance and was responsible for lighting two dozen other fires since last year. So someone saw him doing this suspicious activity, reported him to police. By the time the police and fire authorities knew what was happening due to the winds and also the very effective way the man had set the fire by arson. The reality is devastating fires resulted. And when you see this beautiful territory in eastern Washington state there right on the border with Idaho, you look at this beautiful, beautiful territory, you look at these beautiful forests, you understand this is something that just represents what one of the darkest things you can do. Just look at all this and say, I want to set it ablaze. I mentioned what he had said, that fire is powerful, beautiful, and the things that grow through fire experience a kind of rebirth. It was interesting that when he was apprehended, and by the way, he did not get very far, at one point, he told law enforcement that he wanted not to be caught alive and had made that plan. But he was apprehended, he was arrested, and before long, he had basically told the story, admitted to the fact that he had set the fires, and just basically revealed his strategy. And that strategy was something, as I say, he had planned for weeks. And he had researched weather conditions, he had researched humidity, he had researched winds and all the rest. And so when you talk about sin and when we talk about a crime, one of the words that is used in the criminal code and you hear this is premeditated, as in the distinction between, say, murder that happened in a fight or. Or premeditated murder. The premeditated murder is rightly considered to be not a different category. There's still two murder charges. But you're looking at the fact that premeditation adds a moral element that the law has long acknowledged. Premeditation and planning means that you're talking about someone plotting to do an evil thing, a criminal thing, an illegal thing, and then carrying it out in that premeditated fashion. And premeditated in this case meant he had to have the equipment, he had to have the knowledge. And when he was apprehended, it was also clear that he basically not only confessed to these things, but he did so in a way that he thought was going to make sense to those who arrested him and furthermore would point to his intelligence. And that's something that has been mentioned by some law enforcement. That's something that's also very interesting. It's interesting how many criminals want to be considered clever. But it's also clear there's more here. When he talks about fire and rebirth, it's a dark story, and it's one that we're going to have to continue to watch as we pray for the folks there affected, especially in Eastern Washington. And we come to understand that when you look at a fire like this, not only does it destroy structures and all the rest, it destroys trees that will take, in many case, generations to replace, if ever. One final thought about all of this in biblical terms, when the law enforcement officials talked to this man, Aaron Faranasi, and they got his story and he started giving his philosophy of fire, let's just remind ourselves that what we as Christians had better keep in mind, and that is fire as a visual representation of the reality of the judgment of God. There are many things, of course, about God's dealing with us and his justice that are beyond our understanding. God, out of his kindness, has revealed his justice to us, and he himself has referred to his own power and authority in judgment. And, and the result of that judgment as fire. Indeed, is a fire that never ends. All right, looking at the international scene, it is clear Iran continues to be at the very center of international concern. The biggest thing to recognize here is that when you talk about the Iranian government, you're not talking about one thing. Thus the Wall Street Journal's absolutely right front page article. Iranian divisions undercut talks on Hormuz. And that is, of course, reference to the Strait of Hormuz and to the fact that Iran has basically shut it down and is using that as leverage not only against the United States, not only against President Trump and US Military power, but also against even our allies there in the Gulf. And of course, you're looking at much of the world that is dependent upon the energy. About 20% of the world's petroleum that goes through the Strait of Hormuz or in a situation right now, doesn't go through the Strait of Hormuz, leading to great economic difficulty all over the world. I mean, right down to the price that Americans pay at the pump. But the other big story there in the same region we need to talk about is the fact that over the weekend, just as the weekend came to an end, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that his government is going to reject President Donald Trump's 15 point plan for Gaza. Most importantly, the plan has to do with Hamas. And the Israeli prime minister basically said that he rejects it out of hand because there is no way that Israel is going to, to withdraw from Gaza in terms of its military until Hamas is demilitarized. Now, of course, Hamas takes the opposite position. They're not going to demilitarize until Israel withdraws from the Gaza area, the entire Gaza Strip. And looking at this, you recognize this means that both sides are basically saying, we're not going to do this now. This is a political reality in Israel. This is something that many Americans don't recognize. There was a time when in Israeli politics you would have had an Israeli left, it might not even call itself that, but you would have more liberal authorities there in Israel who would be arguing for a different course. But after the October 7th attacks, there's simply no way that becomes plausible. This gave enormous credibility to the position undertaken by the right in Israel and in particular by Benjamin Netanyahu, by the way, who is Prime Minister based on a coalition in, in the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, that includes so called far right parties who aren't about to allow any kind of military withdrawal from Gaza until there is a complete demilitarization of Hamas. This gets to the point that it's important that we consider who in the world we're talking about here. The other big story also has to do with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is in Syria and also in Lebanon. Israel is still engaged against not only Hamas there in terms of Gaza, but also it's very much engaged against Hezbollah taking military action there in Syria and in Lebanon. Iranian authorities say that they will not sign any peace agreement. And of course this is an extortion. In one sense. It's going on that they're not going to agree to any kind of peace that doesn't require basically not only Iran to achieve its aims, but also Hezbollah to achieve aims there in Lebanon and in Syria. No more Israeli military incursions into that area. Israel's not likely to agree to that at all. We're talking about a very complex situation. But I think it's a good moment for us to be reminded of who Hezbollah and Hamas are. And both of them serve in a certain way as proxies of Iran and as extensions of Islamic terrorism. You think of Hamas just in terms of being that kind of organization. And of course it is. It emerged in 1987 and it grew out of the Islamic Brotherhood. It was very much committed to the Palestinian cause and to the establishment of a Palestinian state. And the goals of Hamas historically have been the elimination of Israel. More recently, Hamas has at least tactically agreed to some situations in which Israel would remain for some time. But the reality is Hamas is dedicated to the elimination of Israel as the Jewish state. Hezbollah is, is in Syria and southern Lebanon more directly a proxy of Iran. And in order to understand this, we need to see that Hezbollah is Shiite, as is the theocracy in Iran. Hamas is Sunni Muslim and really grows out of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt and of Course, there are far more Sunnis in Islam, and you have the conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites, which helps to explain at least a part of the dynamic going on in the Gulf right now and in the conflict. But it's also true that when it comes to Iran, Iran has Hezbollah as its direct proxy, and it's been that at least since about 1982, and then Hamas more distantly. But, you know, the position of Iran certainly seems to be that any enemy of Israel is a friend of Iran. It's also interesting to see that when you're talking about the Shiite theocracy there in Iran, it is absolutely Shiite, and that really does matter. But it is also true that it will work with others when it finds that cooperation convenient. When it comes to Hezbollah, a Manifesto adopted in 1985 committed the organization to destroy Israel, also to eliminate Western influence, to align with Iran, and to create an Islamic theocracy modeled after that of Iran. You can understand why Israel can't allow that to happen right on its border. But it's also clear that the news formally coming from Israel that they reject the 15 point plan pushed by President Trump. The issue is, is that a final word? And at least in terms of the way foreign relations works, it is often not an announcement that this is a final word. But it is going to be very interesting to see both in terms of the relationship between the United States and Israel, historically very close, and I would argue it just must be very close. That relationship is going to be strained by this. But it's also clear that in so many of these situations, there might well be communications between Washington and Jerusalem that will lead to something different if indeed there is a way found to go forward on this. And President Trump seems to be very clear in wanting to have a big American involvement in a future for Gaza. But at the end of the day, Hamas, Hezbollah, yes, they're in Syria and Lebanon, but Hamas in Gaza is an existential threat to Israel in its very existence. Just think of the date October 7th. But the reality is there's been a vast political change in Israel since October 7, 2023. That political shift means that even the people who would not have been aligned with Benjamin Netanyahu and his party and his hardline approach, they are increasingly now the clear majority in Israel. That means that Benjamin Netanyahu has to be concerned not only with what this means for Israel, just in terms of the nation and foreign policy, but what it means for the future of government there in Israel and the prospects of him continuing as prime minister, but for the nation, the nation of Israel, in which case this is what's most important. The nation of Israel sees this issue as an existential threat. Getting this wrong could mean the destruction of Israel. Thus, there's a very clear understanding that the stakes could not be higher on this kind of issue when it comes to how Israel looks at either Hezbollah or, in this case more pointedly, Hamas. And what the Israelis increasingly understand is that this is not just a political battle. It's not just a world battle of ideologies. It is an existential threat. And for Israel, it's not just a matter of right and wrong, left and right. It is a matter of life and death. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmoeller.com you can follow me on X or Twitter by going to X. AlbertMohler. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. for information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.