Loading summary
Transcript52 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, everyone. This is an emergency broadcast with my man Arthur Delaney of HuffPost there on Capitol Hill, looking fresh, looking sharp and professional. We are coming to you live because the Todd Blanch nomination or confirmation hearings are not. Is not yet resolved. I. I just kind of assumed that he was gonna coast, and he probably still will get through. But top Blanche sent in his questionnaire, which is what a nominee for this post tends to do. His is over 400 pages of answers to various questions from senators on the Judiciary Committee. And they probed him on a bunch of different topics, but chief among them was this DOJ weaponization fund. And, Arthur, you're there on the Hill, and you got to talk to one of the senators at the heart of the deliberations, John Cornyn of Texas, and tell us what you heard.
- [00:52]
B
So John Cornyn has been asking tough questions to Todd Blanche about this fund, which was created by Blanche on behalf of Trump to resolve a lawsuit that Trump filed against his own government. So this whole thing is pretty crazy. Part of it actually frees Trump from any back taxes, so we got, like, a broad grant of tax immunity. Cornyn doesn't like this. None of them like this, but most are too shy to complain. So Cornyn complained to Blanche at the hearing. Blanche is just like, you know, whatever, it's fine. And so senators asked Blanche about this in written questions that were follow ups to the hearing. And in the responses, Blanche basically stonewalls them again. Says, for example, well, the text of the agreement speaks for itself. When it didn't, they were all like, what does this mean? This agreement appears to free Trump not just from owing taxes, but potentially from any other agency investigation besides the irs. And. And so it doesn't speak for itself. Cornyn called it sloppy writing and sloppy lawyering. And so I talked to him today,
- [01:59]
A
and what did he say?
- [02:00]
B
Reporters were all like, well, so where are you on this? Because you wouldn't say you'd vote for this guy. And he said he still has the same questions that he had before. He would like either Congress to pass legislation to kill this settlement or he wants something in writing from the Justice Department. So I said, well, Senator, you just got something in writing from the Justice Department. It did not provide the clarity that you're looking for. And he said to me, it's not good enough. And the elevator closed, and he went up. Now he's not going to say he's voting yes or no until he actually has to do it, I don't think. Or, you know, he's at least going to Wait a while.
- [02:43]
A
But you can see Igor Boba's tweet right there summarizing what I presume is your exchange with Cornyn or Blanche's response to his cues are, quote, not good enough. Cornyn says he wants more clarity in writing from Blanche on this fund. Your point about Blanche's questionnaire is valid. I went through the document. I did not read all one, all 404 pages. But I did use this thing called Control F, which allows you to find things in a document. And I put in quotation marks. The document speaks for itself. How many times do you think that was in the document?
- [03:16]
B
If you had to guess, is it more than once?
- [03:20]
A
12 times. 12 times. He says the document speaks for itself. How many times do you think in this document, in his questionnaire, do you think Todd Blanch used the phrase it would be inappropriate, as in, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on internal deliberations.
- [03:36]
B
So I read a good chunk of it and I read that phrase, I think, think more than a dozen times. And I, I made no effort to read all 400 pages. So how many times?
- [03:47]
A
168 times. He says it would be inappropriate.
- [03:52]
B
Yeah. So saying the document speaks for itself. You know, if I were a senator, I would consider that very rude. In his questioning. Yeah. Hornin blew up the agreement, the text of the agreement, and it was like pointing to lines in there that he did not think were clear what they meant. And so if senators were still questioning the meaning of the document, it's weird for that to be the answer. Unless, of course, you're blowing off this question, you don't consider it serious. You know, these guys are going to do what Trump wants, just like you're doing, and so you'll be confirmed. Now, Cornyn could sink him single handedly because Mitch McConnell's out sick and they have a narrow majority and he's on the Judiciary Committee.
- [04:39]
A
But nobody stop for a second because I want to talk about both the, the numbers and then the issue of the weaponization Fund the numbers, because this establishes why Cornyn has leverage. The Judiciary Committee currently has a, what, 11 to 10 ratio of Republicans to Democrats.
- [04:57]
B
Right, Right.
- [04:58]
A
Okay. So if one Republican votes against Blanche in that committee, he cannot get through committee, Correct?
- [05:06]
B
That's right.
- [05:08]
A
And that doesn't kill the nomination. They could still bring it directly to the Senate floor. Correct?
- [05:13]
B
I'm less sure about that. I know that that is true with many things and with some other committees, I'm not certain. I just have to admit I don't know if that actually would work in this situation.
- [05:24]
A
Okay, well, let's find a guest who actually knows what they're not.
- [05:26]
B
Just.
- [05:28]
A
I think I'm pretty sure that you can still bring to floor, but it might be a 60 vote threshold at that point in time, and they clearly don't have that vote. So Cornyn does have leverage here. Right. So he could say, you know what? This is not good enough. Not going to. Not going to vote for this guy. And then suddenly you're in a world of pain if you're the White House. Now, let's talk about the fund itself. So let's back up a little bit. Trump sues the IRS for the leak of his taxpayer data. Okay. Trump becomes president, he now runs the irs, and he's suing the irs. The Justice Department decides to intervene and create a settlement, even though there's no adverse parties here. And the settlement is, we're going to do two things. One, we're going to create this fund which is $1.776 billion that will go to people who were, you know, the government was weaponized against. And that's. Everyone assumes it's going to be J6ers.
- [06:23]
B
Right, right.
- [06:24]
A
Okay. The other one is everything prior to the leaking of this taxpayer, it wasn't just Trump's data, but Trump and his family will not be audited by the IRS for any tax information prior to the leaking of this data.
- [06:41]
B
That's right. No, no, not prior to the leaking of the data. Prior to the date of the agreement, which was. Okay.
- [06:47]
A
Date of the agreement.
- [06:47]
B
Okay. Any tax enforcement that had been ongoing against Trump, his family, his businesses, any affiliates. Like it's very broad in the text. This is another disagreement. Blanchard saying it's only the parties to the lawsuit that benefit from this one. Clearly, it's actually much broader than that. And they are freed from essentially owing any tax that they may have owed that they were going back and forth with the irs. And Trump reportedly was fighting an adverse. A potential adverse ruling that could cost him $100 million. Okay. Because the IRS did not like how he had deducted business losses in order to reduce his liability. And this is something that was going back like 15 years now, at least.
- [07:35]
A
Now, what has Blanche done to say that the weaponization fund itself is just kaput? Is it all. Is all he's done is said it's done, it's dead. Or is there anything actually, can he do anything more than that?
- [07:48]
B
All he's done is said it's not moving forward. And then he said it's moot. He said it's dead. In his questionnaire, he used the word dead. It's not dead.
- [07:59]
A
You can see it right there. Let me read it quickly. This is the response. It would be inappropriate for me. That's one of the 168. To comment on internal deliberations that may or may not have occurred in conjunction with any official act by the Department of Justice. As I testified at my confirmation hearing, and as the Department has repeatedly represent in court, no commissioners have been appointed to the fund. No funds have been transferred to the fund, the Amputee Weapons Issue Fund. No claims have been received by that fund, and no claims have been paid. The anti Weaponization fund is dead, right?
- [08:32]
B
So the, the text of the agreement itself says only the parties to the settlement can modify the terms. And so Cornyn was like, if it says that, how do you kill it? Just by declaring that it's dead or not moving forward, it's possible someone else could sue and say that they would be covered by this agreement. And Blanche is like, well, we would, we would, we would fight that off. But that's, that's one of the things the senators were following up on. How can that happen? And in his follow up questions, Blanche is just like, well, it won't. I said, it's dead.
- [09:04]
A
So if I'm understanding this, I'm a J6 here. Not really. Not reality, but let's say I am. And I was like, hey, actually, this thing is created and it. By statute it is. I mean, it was part of the settlement and therefore it's part of the law. I don't care what Todd Blanche is saying. That thing is still legal and I deserve a portion of that. Give it to me. They. The concern here is that that person, me, would have a actionable claim for those funds because of the settlement.
- [09:36]
B
I think theoretically, I mean, those people are suing the government for this already. And another thing, Blanche says, well, anyone can sue. You know, we'll. We'll take their cases case by case. But this was their idea to create this pot of money dedicated to them specifically.
- [09:52]
A
And what's okay, it's a freaking pot of money, right? Like if, if I'm Joe Schmo J. Sixer again, I, I can still sue the government and say I want reparations for how you treated me, right? I don't care if it's paid from this pot of money. Give me some other DOJ fund from. For what I did. That would be kosher, right?
- [10:14]
B
I mean, that, that's, that's what they, in fact, had set in motion many months ago, hundreds of them. They got layered up with Mark McCloskey, who you may remember as the guy with the machine gun.
- [10:26]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [10:26]
B
With the assault rifle. Excuse me. And, well, his wife, he's told me that that's all still in the works. One reason this fund was such an own goal is that that process has always existed and they were using it. And then you bring massive attention to it with a unprecedented and frankly, weird settlement with the President. So the fund is dead. The tax part of it that gives the president tax immunity, though, he has said is still alive.
- [10:55]
A
Right. That I'm going to get to in a second. I'm going to get to that in a second. Back to the weaponization fund. Is there anything, Blanche, Is there anything Cornyn has said he needs to see from DOJ that would be satisfactory?
- [11:07]
B
Cornyn is not making a specific demand. You know, today he said he wanted it in writing. And you know what? It's actually not clear if he wants some further statement from Blanche or if he means he wants Blanche to put. And put out an order superseding the old one or countermanding the old ones. These are basically Blanche orders that created these, these, this pot of money and this settlement for Donald Trump. So it's, it's. Maybe he wants Blanche to take some more official action than simply, you know, reiterating what he said before. But he's resisted putting this in writing, I think, perhaps until now, because there was a lawsuit in court and the Justice Verne fought it, saying we're not, we don't have to do anything. We, this. We said in a congressional hearing that the fund's not moving forward, so we don't need to make any other written formal declaration besides that.
- [12:02]
A
All right, let's get to the immunity portion of this, and let's put that part of the questionnaire at the very bottom of our prep.
- [12:08]
B
Doc.
- [12:08]
A
Sweeping immunity. Here's. They're asking him about this part, which is the immunity part. Is this release order still in effect? Response yes.
- [12:18]
B
Yes.
- [12:18]
A
Okay. So we now have established that the, the immunization fund is dead, as Blanche says, although we don't think it's particularly dead. It could become in forms. But the immunity part, he's very clear, that is still in effect. Will you withdraw this sweeping immunity order? And if not, why not? Blanche, I do not agree with your characterization of the document as a, quote, sweeping immunity order. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on internal deliberations that may or may not have occurred conjunction with any official act of the Department of Justice. So this. This baby's. This baby's a live wire. This is definitely still here.
- [12:53]
B
That response is just a pile of words. It doesn't mean anything. It's gibberish.
- [12:59]
A
But we can establish that it's very clear. Donald Trump, according to no matter what, according to Blanche, will have immunity for all. All and all of his family and associated entities and whatever. They will have immunity from IRS auditing for everything prior to the issuance of this settlement. That's clear.
- [13:22]
B
Yep.
- [13:23]
A
Damn. And no one has problems with that?
- [13:26]
B
Everyone has problems with this. Has actually received less attention than the fund because that's like January 6th rioters. And this is taxes. It's a little bit more obscure and boring, but it's. It's pretty simple. Yeah. Get out of all taxes. Tax immunity, giant tax break. These are all accurate and fair ways of describing it. It's never been done before. It's potentially illegal. The judge in the case, she said she couldn't rule. You know, the case that they settled out of court. The judge said, you may never refer to this as a settlement in any official proceeding. And that order potentially could hamper their ability to use this, for example, in an IRS proceeding.
- [14:07]
A
Okay.
- [14:07]
B
Should the IRS try to come after them? Well, we don't know. I mean, maybe. Maybe it wouldn't.
- [14:13]
A
I mean, is it possible that you can continue this order indefinitely? Like, let's say Trump eventually leaves office, they're going to be like, ah, we hands are tied. You know, we can't really do anything. I mean, I suppose it is part of a settlement of a case. Right. It's part of law.
- [14:28]
B
It's not a settlement in the sense most people understand, because court settlements are typically approved by the court. And this one wasn't the judge.
- [14:35]
A
This was not appropriate.
- [14:36]
B
The judge was going to throw this out. She had a hearing scheduled, and they raced to announce this before that hearing so they could withdraw the case. But she said in a. She brought it back after the fact just to rebuke the Justice Department, send its lawyers for sanctioning by bar associations in their states, and say this was an abuse of the court. You used this court to try to put legitimacy on this sham settlement, which is essentially a shakedown. She said also that this IRS settlement could be unconstitutional because if the president is getting a monetary benefit, that violates the domestic emoluments clause, which says a president can't get any money from the US Besides his salary. And also, there's a federal law that forbids specifically forbids the president or anyone working for him from pressuring the IRS to undertake an audit or influence.