Loading summary
Transcript28 lines
- [00:02]
A
Hi, I'm Ben Parker from the Bulwark. Welcome back to Morning Shots live on the Bulwark takes feed, joined as always by the inestimable Bill Kristol. Bill, we got a lot to talk about this morning.
- [00:13]
B
We do, Ben. Fair amount of news. Congress is back and Trump is being Trump and none of it is. None of that is terribly encouraging, honestly.
- [00:22]
A
Yeah, Trump is being Trump. So lots of things are going to happen. Congress is back, so nothing is going to happen. But that's actually not true. We have to start, of course, with the Todd Blanche confirmation hearings which are scheduled to begin tomorrow. And you wrote earlier this week that the Democrats actually have an opportunity to do something here. They're constantly complaining that, you know, in the minority you don't really get that much opportunity. If the majority says you don't get to make a fuss, you don't get to make a fuss. But here that's not actually true. And you have some more details about what that hearing is going to look like, right?
- [00:54]
B
Yeah, the hearing itself, just so people know. So it's a two day hearing that's sort of traditional for a major Cabinet appointment. Usually the Cabinet nominee takes the first day and answers questions from all the senators and then the second day is witnesses, as they're called, people who can testify for or against him. Often it's a previous, you know, big shots who've held the office on his side or big shots on the other side. So what we have tomorrow is a little different. Blanche will go at begin at 9am tomorrow. Interestingly, the Republican majority which runs these hearings, the majority of committees much more powerful than the minority, has limited questioning to 10 minutes per cent or one round, I gather, 10 minutes per cent, which is less than the usual for a major confirmation. People who watch them would know that sometimes it's more like a 15 minute 1 round or 2, 8 or 10 minute rounds. It doesn't matter that much, honestly, the question. Senators will say what they say and Blanche will filibuster as he chooses. Still, it's interesting that the Republicans want to confide it as much as possible. As I put it there, what they want the least, wild cards the better. So that's, that'll go. I don't know if you do the math. 10 minutes times 21 senators and a little extra time for Blanche's opening statement. Some, you know, some stoppage time, you know.
- [02:10]
A
Yeah, exactly. Chair and ranking member of long opening.
- [02:12]
B
Yeah. And also breaks for breaks for, you know, bathrooms and bathroom breaks and maybe a little lunch break. I'm thinking five, six hours tomorrow. So that goes, let's just say 9am to 3pm Probably Thursday. That could be. So that could be interesting. The Republican senators will give Blanche questions. He's well prepared for layups really and won't challenge him. Maybe one or two exceptions. Cordon Tillis. The Democratic senators will try to challenge him. He'll try to evade and filibuster. I think the one most interesting wild card for me, the two, the lesser of the two, but still interesting, is ice. I mean with the recent developments and with what's developments, recent killings in Houston and Maine. Cordon from Houston is on the committee. From Texas is on the committee. You know, I should. DOJ has refused to really have any take any oversight, any responsibility for the behavior of ICE agents, even if they're breaking the law. That's not traditionally the case. The Justice Department has often investigated possible crimes by federal officials. In fact, if they don't do it, who's going to do it? Well, you say their own agency. Well, DHS says the inspector General is
- [03:21]
A
going to investigate dhs, certainly not local law enforcement. They've been stonewalling and they've been stonewall.
- [03:25]
B
Then DOJ has mostly cooperated with that so well. So I think it's a chance to make some news on ice. And I think even though Collins is on the committee, Collins for Maine, obviously one of the most more gettable Republican votes. Presley would be I think influenced if Blanche isn't forthcoming and doesn't promise at least to change his ways, the ways of the Justice Department under his leadership on holding ICE accountable for killing innocent people. So I think ICE is an interesting issue. Maybe the more consequential one though would be Epstein. Where Blanche has been obviously, as we all know, at the center, the very center really of the COVID up from the beginning, the COVID center of the original Stonewall. The center of the COVID up which that famous Situation room meeting on July 17, almost exactly a year ago actually, which he participated in a political spin meeting that the deputy Attorney General came to the White House to be part of. He then went to see Maxwell a week later. Week after that he put her in a cushy prison camp. So there's a lot to ask about. I think there will be some Epstein survivors at the meeting. I, I'm told be interesting to see if they, if Blanche recognizes their presence, if he acknowledges them, if he apologizes to them for the way they've been treated over the years. Maybe Democratic senators will, will introduce them. I don't know, but I think that'll adds a bit of a wild card Thursday that is the quote, witnesses also beginning I think nine in the morning probably there. I think the Republicans, the majority get three witnesses, the Democrats two. The Republicans are going to have former Attorney General Ashcroft. They're going to have a law enforcement union type spokesman who will say Blanche is tough on crime and they'll have a mom of someone who's killed by an undocumented immigrant. So that plays to that's their issue. And Blanche is tough on that. Presumably. The Democrats, I think planned to have two witnesses, Liz Oyer, who was the pardon attorney at justice, whom Blanche fired pretty early on and who's a very trenchant critic of Blanche's custody of the Justice Department. I did a bull work on Sunday with her about two or three weeks ago. And then an Epstein survivor, Dandy Bensky, whom I've seen actually on other you know, she's spoken out before a little bit very eloquent, very moving, totally mistreated by Blanche's handling of the Epstein files, the redactions and the non redactions. So she has a powerful story to tell. And I do think that could be the most interesting moment actually of the two days. Not anything Blanche says but what Danny Bensky says and how senators react to that. I assume Republicans will just try to kind of close their eyes and wish that that part ends as quickly as possible. I don't think they'll have the stupidity to actually attack an Epstein survivor, though. Who knows, you know. So that's the two days of hearings and we'll be covering it on the bulwark and throughout. And I think it'll be pretty more interesting than a typical confirmation hearing. Little less predictable, a little more of a wild card because of the Epstein issue. And I do think there's a chance he could they could lose a Republican or two on the committee. There's a chance he could answer in a way that lets him get through the committee but then loses enough Republicans on the floor. And I think the even if he gets confirmed, I think the hearing does can help really convey remind voters that the Trump administration and the Justice Department under Blanchett's leadership and close coordination with Donald Trump has covered up the Epstein files. The Epstein and mishandled, refused to prosecute anyone sort of wraps Epstein a little bit around their neck I think honestly, as it were and there are a bunch of people running for reelection in somewhat tough Senate races, bunch of Republicans who will presumably be voting to confirm Blanche in Florida and Ohio. Maybe Susan Collins in Maine. And so I think brings Epstein back as an issue in 2026.
- [07:20]
A
Yeah. You know, I'd want to comment on a couple of these things. One is, I think it's worth pausing for a moment on the fact that they are limiting. You're talking about this offline, maybe like the least amount of overall questioning for a major cabinet or at least for an attorney general nominee that like anyone can remember, I don't want to say of all time, because I'm sure there was a time where they didn't, you know, question them at all or whatever, but really they're, they're cracking down. You know, each senator gets 10 minutes, which means that they ask one question and Blanche drones on and generalities and platitudes for 10 minutes and then he gets off scot free. Right. So that is really depressing. And it shows you that the Republicans know they're doing something unpopular and their solution isn't to do something more popular. The solution is let's just try to hide it. It's really shameful and cowardly. I mean, it's just the only word that comes to mind is it's just, it's embarrassing. It's, it's awful. And they deserve to be really, I mean, criticized for that. And it's just, it's, it's, there's no redeeming argument for why there shouldn't be more questioning of Todd Blanche. It's not like, you know, if you, if this were a, even if this were Bill Barr, right, from Trump's first term, I could sort of understand them saying, you know, I could sort of imagine, you know, the, the senators in the back rooms, the Republicans saying, the Democrats in private, look, you know, this is kind of an adult. You know, you might not like him, you might not agree with his policies, but like, let's just kind of wave him through because that's kind of the best compromise for everyone. This is not that this is trying to get a guy through who is like the worst. You know, it's still not Matt Gaetz, but like, in some ways comparable in terms of the things he's responsible for. Just, you know, an awful, I, I'm droning on that, but an awful nominee they're trying to wave through with as little accountability as possible. It's shameful.
- [09:06]
B
You know, just on that, I'll let you get to the next point. But just to add one footnote. I mean, he's been Deputy Attorney General, then acting Attorney General for pretty much 18 months. He's got a big record. And so just in terms of responsibly letting him defend, if he, you know, what he's done, asking him, raising things, he said, raising things from court cases where he's been rebuked by judges and so forth, let him respond. That takes more than the amount of time they're, they're allocating. So even if he doesn't drone on, even if senators succeed in interrupting him and making him answer a little bit, it's just not enough time. No one would do this for any normal position. Right. In the private sector or in life, you know, if you had a major appointment to make, one of the most important parts of the federal government, charge of tens of thousands of employees, very, very sensitive matters. A controversial figure who's been sort of running the place for 18 months. So a real record to examine. No one would hire such a person to run your organization or any other organization, you know, with, with a bunch of rapid fire 10 minute questioning periods. So it's really, I agree with you, it's, it's a little more of a disgrace than it seems at first almost. You know.
- [10:10]
A
Yeah, it seems procedural and minor, but it's really, I mean, we've just now been talking for about 10 minutes. It's like that's it. Imagine if that's the whole job interview for like Attorney General. Obviously, you know, it's multiple senators, whatever, but it's really not a lot of time to dig into something that's this important. Important. I am intrigued by what the Republicans are going to ask the Epstein survivor witness. I'm sorry, I forgot her name. But it, that is a good move by the Democrats because that really does put the Republicans in an awkward position. Do they just ignore, do they say, you know, no questions, pass, or express sympathy?
- [10:41]
B
I don't know.
- [10:42]
A
I'm so sorry this happened to you. But also, I don't care because I'm going to vote to confirm this guy. I mean, there's, there's sort of no good thing for them to, and you know, they can't deny Epstein's crimes. That's not going to fly. What do they say?
- [10:55]
B
You don't think they probably shouldn't take Donald Trump's line that it's all a hoax, the whole thing's a hoax, Democratic hoax. Kind of hard to say that to one of these women. It's, it's, yeah, Danny Bensky and who I think has been very effective and a few times I've seen, I mean, she's not someone who came forward early and she's someone who wanted to keep her privacy and live her life, as many of them do. The courage it takes. I've gotten to know a little bit more about them, you know, in the last year and a half, as many of us have, and the courage it takes to come forward is really impressive.
- [11:29]
A
Yeah. And on, you know, not just to come forward. We were talking earlier about the. The PSA video that they released, which, you know, takes an amount of courage, too. Right. You're putting yourself out there in public, but specifically to come forward in front of a Senate committee and expose yourself to. I don't know what'll happen. Some ridicule, some grilling, some pats on the head that are very, you know, could be very sort of dismissive. It does take courage to come forward and say, like, I'm, you know, I'm going to put myself out there for this. Even though it's likely. You're likely to lose. I mean, you're not likely to actually do real dissemination. We should be clear.
- [12:05]
B
I think Chris and Connor may have got. Our colleagues may have gotten the. It's a little complicated technologically. Get. Gotten the PSA video that we get to show it here. Let's see if they. Let's see if I'm looking at. At the. At their. At the Slack release.
- [12:18]
C
My phone was released where I went to school, where I live. My students can now search me and read about my abuse. I am an Epstein survivor. I am an Epstein survivor. I am an Epstein survivor. We were exposed. Nude pictures of victims were released. Our family safety was put at risk.
- [12:40]
A
Now Todd Blanche wants to be the Attorney General of the United States.
- [12:44]
C
Todd Blanche had a duty to protect us. Instead, he protected the people who committed crimes against us. 30 years, 1200 victims, and 6 million files. A mountain of evidence. But Todd Blanche says there are no investigative leads. Todd Blanche failed us. He failed victims everywhere. We deserve better. Our country deserves better. Better. Vote no on Todd Blanche for Attorney General. Vote no.
- [13:10]
B
No, no, no.
- [13:12]
C
Vote no on Todd Blanche for Attorney General.
- [13:19]
A
It's a striking video.
- [13:20]
B
Yeah. Yeah. And honest. And we'll see if it has some effect.
- [13:25]
A
I mean, as you said, you know, these. These senators can't go and say like the whole epsy thing was a hoax. The Democrats invented it. They can't tell their constituents that. Right. And as. As you hinted, the. The only ones who are likely to not care what their constituents think. John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy. I don't know how. I think. I think two of them are on the Judiciary committee. That's right. So corny.
- [13:51]
B
Until us are on untillist. Certainly.
- [13:52]
A
Okay. Yeah. And I'm not sure, but they're, I mean, they can't lose that many Republicans voting no in the Senate, in the full Senate, I imagine John Fetterman is going to vote yes. Who knows? I don't know. So, you know, the math gets a little tricky. But, yeah, they can't go home and say, you know, it didn't happen, especially when there are videos like this out there. That's just, that's just electoral suicide, because this is the thing that Republican voters also care about, as we know from our colleague Sarah Longwell's focus groups. So I'm very depressed, in summary, about, about day one of the hearing, and I think it's going to be a real, a real shame on the country. But day two, they too, could be spicy.
- [14:29]
B
Agreed.
- [14:31]
A
And I do think you're right. I think, I think they have to talk about ICE as well, because that is another thing that we really saw change. The whole arc of the second Trump administration is when I started just shooting people in the streets, just committing sort of extrajudicial executions for essentially no reason. And now we've seen more of that. Two more this week, one in Houston and one in Maine. Yeah, I think, I think, absolutely. Todd Blanche face questions not only about, like, why is he can't really face questions directly about why is ICE doing this? Because ICE isn't part of the Justice Department, but he should certainly face questions about is it a violation of federal law, Are there going to be investigations? Has the Justice Department cooperated with investigations, or is it stonewalled? What else have you stonewalled? You know, that kind of thing. Because, I mean,