WEBVTT - Todd Blanche Faces Skeptical Senators

0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.000
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:08.560 --> 0:00:12.559
<v Speaker 2>Todd Blanche came under immediate fire at his confirmation hearing

0:00:12.680 --> 0:00:16.960
<v Speaker 2>to become the next attorney general. President Trump's former personal

0:00:17.040 --> 0:00:21.680
<v Speaker 2>lawyer was repeatedly asked about his close relationship with Trump,

0:00:22.200 --> 0:00:25.720
<v Speaker 2>and his response is didn't seem to answer the concerns

0:00:25.800 --> 0:00:30.400
<v Speaker 2>about how independent the Justice Department would be under his leadership.

0:00:30.640 --> 0:00:33.960
<v Speaker 3>The Department of Justice, like every single department in the executive,

0:00:34.080 --> 0:00:36.239
<v Speaker 3>is part of the executive. I mean Article two of

0:00:36.280 --> 0:00:40.839
<v Speaker 3>the Constitution gives the power of the executive to President Trump.

0:00:41.040 --> 0:00:45.320
<v Speaker 3>So we certainly operate with integrity. We certainly operate in

0:00:45.320 --> 0:00:47.879
<v Speaker 3>the single mindset to serve the American people and do

0:00:47.960 --> 0:00:51.560
<v Speaker 3>the right thing. But I am a member. If confirmed,

0:00:52.159 --> 0:00:53.960
<v Speaker 3>I will be a member of the cabinet.

0:00:54.080 --> 0:00:57.520
<v Speaker 2>And then there was the verbal slip when Republican Senator

0:00:57.600 --> 0:01:01.040
<v Speaker 2>John Kennedy asked him about his friend with Trump.

0:01:01.320 --> 0:01:03.200
<v Speaker 1>Are you in President Trump friends?

0:01:04.720 --> 0:01:07.800
<v Speaker 3>I'm his lawyer, was his lawyer, and now I'm the

0:01:07.840 --> 0:01:08.959
<v Speaker 3>deputy Attorney general.

0:01:09.440 --> 0:01:12.679
<v Speaker 2>But perhaps there were more questions about the one point

0:01:12.760 --> 0:01:17.280
<v Speaker 2>eight billion dollar anti Weaponization Fund than any other topic.

0:01:17.840 --> 0:01:21.720
<v Speaker 2>Despite Blanche insisting that the fund to compensate allies of

0:01:21.840 --> 0:01:27.200
<v Speaker 2>Trump was not moving forward. Senators, including Republican John Cornyn,

0:01:27.640 --> 0:01:31.720
<v Speaker 2>appeared skeptical because the Trump administration has yet to commit

0:01:31.800 --> 0:01:34.680
<v Speaker 2>in writing that the fund is dead and the settlement

0:01:34.720 --> 0:01:37.720
<v Speaker 2>agreement could conceivably be resurrected.

0:01:38.560 --> 0:01:41.720
<v Speaker 4>And is a settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by

0:01:41.760 --> 0:01:42.280
<v Speaker 4>the parties?

0:01:44.200 --> 0:01:47.760
<v Speaker 3>Well, yes, it's an enforceable document. So I suppose if

0:01:47.880 --> 0:01:55.840
<v Speaker 3>President Trump's council sought to enforce it that they potentially could.

0:01:54.440 --> 0:01:56.040
<v Speaker 4>Including the weaponization fund.

0:01:56.360 --> 0:01:57.560
<v Speaker 3>Well, they can try to enforce it.

0:01:58.120 --> 0:02:01.280
<v Speaker 2>Blanche needs the support of all the Republicans on the

0:02:01.360 --> 0:02:05.560
<v Speaker 2>Judiciary Committee to move his nomination forward. Joining me is

0:02:05.640 --> 0:02:11.519
<v Speaker 2>constitutional law expert David Souper, a professor at Georgetown Law. David,

0:02:11.560 --> 0:02:15.079
<v Speaker 2>what's your general impression of how Blanche did so far?

0:02:15.600 --> 0:02:18.680
<v Speaker 4>I mean, he's a smart lawyer. There are some lawyers

0:02:18.680 --> 0:02:22.080
<v Speaker 4>in Trump's orbit who are completely incompetent. Blanche is certainly

0:02:22.120 --> 0:02:26.640
<v Speaker 4>not one of those, and he's I think, fairly quick

0:02:26.720 --> 0:02:31.799
<v Speaker 4>on his feet. But he's got a record that's very

0:02:31.840 --> 0:02:35.640
<v Speaker 4>difficult to defend, and he's got a boss who won't

0:02:35.720 --> 0:02:39.760
<v Speaker 4>let him promise to do things that any reasonable Attorney

0:02:39.800 --> 0:02:44.000
<v Speaker 4>General would do. So he's been in a box several times.

0:02:44.560 --> 0:02:47.760
<v Speaker 4>Some of the Democrats have done a pretty good job

0:02:47.960 --> 0:02:52.200
<v Speaker 4>of pinning him down, some of them have done a

0:02:52.560 --> 0:02:54.840
<v Speaker 4>less good job of pinning him down, and some of

0:02:54.880 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 4>them have just talked.

0:02:56.600 --> 0:02:59.600
<v Speaker 2>There are a lot of questions about whether Blanche would

0:02:59.639 --> 0:03:03.920
<v Speaker 2>be independent from President Trump, and in response to a

0:03:04.000 --> 0:03:08.760
<v Speaker 2>question from Democratic Senator Chris Coons, Blanche basically said that

0:03:09.360 --> 0:03:13.600
<v Speaker 2>the Justice Department is part of the executive branch. If confirmed,

0:03:13.639 --> 0:03:16.360
<v Speaker 2>he'll be part of the cabinet and we all serve

0:03:16.440 --> 0:03:18.920
<v Speaker 2>at the pleasure of the president. I don't know that

0:03:19.000 --> 0:03:23.200
<v Speaker 2>he ever really asserted independence from the president.

0:03:23.560 --> 0:03:26.000
<v Speaker 4>Well, he really didn't. I mean, at one point he

0:03:26.160 --> 0:03:30.440
<v Speaker 4>said that we will act with integrity. At another point

0:03:30.600 --> 0:03:34.800
<v Speaker 4>he made the predictable statement that, of course, if he

0:03:34.920 --> 0:03:37.800
<v Speaker 4>was asked to do something illegal, he would resign, but

0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:42.200
<v Speaker 4>that would never happen with this president. But he is

0:03:42.400 --> 0:03:47.640
<v Speaker 4>part of a Justice Department that is asserting a historically

0:03:48.240 --> 0:03:53.160
<v Speaker 4>broad reading of presidential powers, which includes no independence for

0:03:53.320 --> 0:03:58.560
<v Speaker 4>anybody in the executive branch, himself included. So he can't

0:03:58.640 --> 0:04:02.840
<v Speaker 4>claim to be independence without having that used against his

0:04:02.880 --> 0:04:06.720
<v Speaker 4>own lawyers when they're asserting their unified executive theory.

0:04:07.360 --> 0:04:11.000
<v Speaker 2>So everyone knew that a big point was going to

0:04:11.080 --> 0:04:15.400
<v Speaker 2>be the so called Anti Weaponization Fund. He said several

0:04:15.480 --> 0:04:19.760
<v Speaker 2>times the fund is dead, but Republican Senator John Cornyn,

0:04:19.880 --> 0:04:23.679
<v Speaker 2>who's a key vote, pinned him down, and Blanche admitted

0:04:23.680 --> 0:04:26.680
<v Speaker 2>that the settlement agreement is a contract and it could

0:04:26.720 --> 0:04:28.480
<v Speaker 2>conceivably be resurrected.

0:04:29.000 --> 0:04:32.120
<v Speaker 4>That leads me to believe that the President is not

0:04:32.240 --> 0:04:37.960
<v Speaker 4>comfortable with the Weaponization Fund being dead, because mister Blanche

0:04:37.960 --> 0:04:40.480
<v Speaker 4>could have gotten himself out of a lot of trouble

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:46.240
<v Speaker 4>by agreeing to provide a letter declaring that and he

0:04:46.240 --> 0:04:50.599
<v Speaker 4>wouldn't do it. And when he was pressed on whether

0:04:51.520 --> 0:04:57.000
<v Speaker 4>they could sue for breach of contract, he more or

0:04:57.080 --> 0:05:01.760
<v Speaker 4>less acknowledged that they could and didn't really have much

0:05:01.760 --> 0:05:05.840
<v Speaker 4>of an answer to that. So I think President Trump

0:05:05.880 --> 0:05:09.560
<v Speaker 4>has made a firm decision that he wants to help

0:05:09.680 --> 0:05:13.920
<v Speaker 4>the January sixth rioters, and mister Blanche is trying to

0:05:13.960 --> 0:05:18.080
<v Speaker 4>avoid saying anything that will burn bridges that he knows

0:05:18.080 --> 0:05:19.240
<v Speaker 4>he's going to have to cross.

0:05:19.800 --> 0:05:22.680
<v Speaker 2>A federal judge had asked for a sworn statement from

0:05:22.760 --> 0:05:26.880
<v Speaker 2>Blanche that the fund was really did and he refused

0:05:26.880 --> 0:05:30.200
<v Speaker 2>to submit that. His explanation was that there's a long

0:05:30.279 --> 0:05:35.279
<v Speaker 2>standing precedent that judges can't ask cabinet secretaries or people

0:05:35.480 --> 0:05:37.920
<v Speaker 2>like me to put in declarations.

0:05:38.360 --> 0:05:43.200
<v Speaker 4>Is that true, not in the form that he is suggesting. Typically,

0:05:44.040 --> 0:05:48.480
<v Speaker 4>decisions in administrative agencies are made well below the cabinet member,

0:05:48.800 --> 0:05:53.279
<v Speaker 4>and it's not appropriate to ask a cabinet member to

0:05:53.640 --> 0:05:57.280
<v Speaker 4>put in declaration about a decision where they weren't in

0:05:57.279 --> 0:06:01.559
<v Speaker 4>the room. And very commonly there is someone else who's

0:06:01.640 --> 0:06:04.039
<v Speaker 4>more important, who was in the room, and you should

0:06:04.040 --> 0:06:07.880
<v Speaker 4>get the statement from them. But where as here you

0:06:08.080 --> 0:06:12.320
<v Speaker 4>have the very top officials in the Justice Department signing

0:06:12.360 --> 0:06:16.480
<v Speaker 4>this thing, it's entirely appropriate to ask why they did

0:06:16.520 --> 0:06:20.359
<v Speaker 4>it and ask them to explain what appears to be

0:06:20.480 --> 0:06:23.719
<v Speaker 4>highly unethical conduct. I would just add that we have

0:06:23.800 --> 0:06:28.360
<v Speaker 4>seen in this administration more examples of papers that are

0:06:28.440 --> 0:06:33.000
<v Speaker 4>only signed by top officials than I believe we've ever

0:06:33.080 --> 0:06:37.200
<v Speaker 4>seen before. When I litigated against the Justice Department, you

0:06:37.240 --> 0:06:40.680
<v Speaker 4>never even saw the Attorney General or the deputy Attorney General,

0:06:41.040 --> 0:06:44.559
<v Speaker 4>or even usually the assistant Attorney general's name. You would

0:06:44.600 --> 0:06:47.880
<v Speaker 4>see various names of lower officials typed and then an

0:06:47.880 --> 0:06:52.920
<v Speaker 4>actual signature by aligne DOJ lawyer. And what we're seeing

0:06:52.960 --> 0:06:56.800
<v Speaker 4>now again and again is mister Branch, mister Woodward, and

0:06:56.800 --> 0:07:01.200
<v Speaker 4>mister bow other senior Justice Department official being the only

0:07:01.240 --> 0:07:03.960
<v Speaker 4>one to sign papers. So who was a judge to

0:07:04.040 --> 0:07:08.640
<v Speaker 4>ask something from if it is explicitly being handled by

0:07:08.680 --> 0:07:09.680
<v Speaker 4>the senior lawyers.

0:07:10.080 --> 0:07:14.120
<v Speaker 2>And on Monday, a Florida federal judge wrote a scathing

0:07:14.160 --> 0:07:19.320
<v Speaker 2>opinion saying that Blanche shouldn't have been representing Trump in

0:07:19.840 --> 0:07:23.640
<v Speaker 2>settling his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, that it

0:07:23.760 --> 0:07:28.600
<v Speaker 2>raised conflict of interest concerns because he was Trump's former

0:07:28.680 --> 0:07:32.000
<v Speaker 2>defense attorney, and the judge ordered a copy of her

0:07:32.040 --> 0:07:34.760
<v Speaker 2>decision to be sent to the State Bar of New York,

0:07:35.120 --> 0:07:38.720
<v Speaker 2>where Blanche is licensed to practice law. When he was

0:07:38.800 --> 0:07:42.960
<v Speaker 2>confronted with that, Blanche said, well, that's not a referral.

0:07:43.440 --> 0:07:45.640
<v Speaker 2>But it is in essence a referral, isn't it.

0:07:46.600 --> 0:07:49.960
<v Speaker 4>That's a referral. I'm quite convinced that New York State

0:07:50.040 --> 0:07:53.240
<v Speaker 4>Bar can spring for a online search and get a

0:07:53.280 --> 0:07:56.000
<v Speaker 4>copy of the opinion on their own. The fact that

0:07:56.040 --> 0:07:59.240
<v Speaker 4>she is sending it to them suggests that she independently

0:07:59.280 --> 0:08:02.760
<v Speaker 4>believes there's material in there that they ought to see,

0:08:02.800 --> 0:08:05.920
<v Speaker 4>and given how scathing it is, that's obviously correct.

0:08:06.720 --> 0:08:10.480
<v Speaker 2>There are also multiple bar complaints filed in New York,

0:08:11.200 --> 0:08:16.960
<v Speaker 2>one by hundreds of former judges that alleged serious ethical breaches,

0:08:17.720 --> 0:08:23.240
<v Speaker 2>abuses of power, conflicts of interest, etc. Misconduct during his

0:08:23.400 --> 0:08:27.040
<v Speaker 2>tenure as acting Attorney General. So those are at the

0:08:27.080 --> 0:08:31.840
<v Speaker 2>initial stage. Are they important in considering his nomination?

0:08:32.520 --> 0:08:36.240
<v Speaker 4>The Attorney General is the highest law enforcement official in

0:08:36.280 --> 0:08:40.400
<v Speaker 4>the country, has many responsibilities to the American people, and

0:08:40.480 --> 0:08:43.360
<v Speaker 4>certainly one of them is to set a standard for

0:08:43.520 --> 0:08:48.040
<v Speaker 4>ethical behavior. Now, anyone can file a complaint, and the

0:08:48.040 --> 0:08:50.920
<v Speaker 4>mere fact that a complaint has been filed should not

0:08:51.040 --> 0:08:55.280
<v Speaker 4>be pivotal. But the fact that some fairly serious people

0:08:55.360 --> 0:09:02.760
<v Speaker 4>whose reputations matter and who's value presumably their reputations, have

0:09:03.200 --> 0:09:06.320
<v Speaker 4>filed complaints should give us cause, and I would think

0:09:06.360 --> 0:09:08.360
<v Speaker 4>the committee should get to the bottom of them. If

0:09:08.440 --> 0:09:11.640
<v Speaker 4>mister Blanch has not done anything on fl complaint, shouldn't

0:09:11.640 --> 0:09:15.720
<v Speaker 4>stand in his way. But there's certainly are reasons to

0:09:15.840 --> 0:09:19.200
<v Speaker 4>question some things that have happened. I will also note

0:09:19.440 --> 0:09:24.560
<v Speaker 4>that you made the same slip that mister Blanche did,

0:09:24.760 --> 0:09:29.040
<v Speaker 4>and you talked about him representing President Trump, and it's

0:09:29.080 --> 0:09:32.560
<v Speaker 4>a little confusing in that context because both sides are

0:09:32.600 --> 0:09:36.000
<v Speaker 4>working for President Trump, so if he's involved in the

0:09:36.040 --> 0:09:39.400
<v Speaker 4>case at all, he's representing President Trump on one way

0:09:39.480 --> 0:09:39.920
<v Speaker 4>or the other.

0:09:40.920 --> 0:09:44.840
<v Speaker 2>I stand corrected. I believe it was Democratic Center Sheldon

0:09:44.920 --> 0:09:49.120
<v Speaker 2>white House who pointed out that the Justice Department filed

0:09:49.160 --> 0:09:52.679
<v Speaker 2>no pleadings in that Florida case to try to make

0:09:52.720 --> 0:09:56.840
<v Speaker 2>sure the Department didn't come under the authority of that court.

0:09:57.480 --> 0:10:01.400
<v Speaker 4>That's something where I was sorry there wasn't more follow

0:10:01.520 --> 0:10:05.920
<v Speaker 4>up because mister Blanche said they didn't give us a

0:10:06.000 --> 0:10:12.400
<v Speaker 4>chance to respond. And yet the judge explained very carefully

0:10:12.480 --> 0:10:16.160
<v Speaker 4>what she was considering, what the issues were, and took

0:10:16.200 --> 0:10:19.079
<v Speaker 4>a very long time to write her opinion. The Justice

0:10:19.080 --> 0:10:22.880
<v Speaker 4>Department had a very long time to submit things. As

0:10:22.960 --> 0:10:25.960
<v Speaker 4>a lawyer, when i have something to say to the court,

0:10:26.120 --> 0:10:29.720
<v Speaker 4>unless I've been explicitly ordered not to, I file papers.

0:10:29.840 --> 0:10:33.600
<v Speaker 4>And I've certainly seen the Justice Department filed papers numerous

0:10:33.600 --> 0:10:36.559
<v Speaker 4>times without being invited to do so. If they felt

0:10:36.600 --> 0:10:39.480
<v Speaker 4>their behavior was ethical, they had all the time in

0:10:39.520 --> 0:10:42.839
<v Speaker 4>the world to explain to the judge through a declaration

0:10:43.160 --> 0:10:46.760
<v Speaker 4>or a brief why that was. And if the Justice

0:10:46.800 --> 0:10:50.760
<v Speaker 4>Department didn't defend their behavior. I can only conclude that

0:10:50.760 --> 0:10:55.040
<v Speaker 4>that's because their behavior was not defensible and Democratic.

0:10:55.120 --> 0:10:59.520
<v Speaker 2>Senator Sheldon Whitehouse grilled Blanche about the current reputation of

0:10:59.559 --> 0:11:01.240
<v Speaker 2>the Justice Department.

0:11:01.800 --> 0:11:06.959
<v Speaker 5>Between judges appointed by every president harshly criticizing the department's

0:11:07.000 --> 0:11:11.520
<v Speaker 5>work in your tenure, grand juries, rejecting indictments, judicial findings

0:11:11.559 --> 0:11:17.920
<v Speaker 5>of outright misconduct, capable lawyers fleeing the stinking ship. This

0:11:18.040 --> 0:11:21.720
<v Speaker 5>seems to be the most troubled Department of Justice in history.

0:11:22.040 --> 0:11:26.000
<v Speaker 2>I've been talking to Georgetown law professor David super David,

0:11:26.000 --> 0:11:31.280
<v Speaker 2>we've talked before about how federal judges are repeatedly finding

0:11:31.440 --> 0:11:36.000
<v Speaker 2>fault with the Justice Department and its attorneys. Blanche denied

0:11:36.040 --> 0:11:40.080
<v Speaker 2>that when he was questioned, but that is true. The

0:11:40.200 --> 0:11:43.920
<v Speaker 2>Justice Department has lost credibility with a lot of federal judges,

0:11:43.960 --> 0:11:47.120
<v Speaker 2>and there have been orders that have not been followed,

0:11:47.160 --> 0:11:49.680
<v Speaker 2>and judges have found a lot of problems. They've found

0:11:49.720 --> 0:11:53.520
<v Speaker 2>problems with grand jury proceedings. I mean, this Justice Department

0:11:53.800 --> 0:11:56.720
<v Speaker 2>has I think lost credibility with the judiciary.

0:11:57.120 --> 0:12:01.559
<v Speaker 4>I think it's unfortunate that this part of the hearing

0:12:01.720 --> 0:12:05.720
<v Speaker 4>is played so theatrically. I would have loved to see

0:12:05.760 --> 0:12:10.600
<v Speaker 4>a senator take a list of orders, read from this order,

0:12:11.200 --> 0:12:14.880
<v Speaker 4>ask mister Blanche, why did your Justice Department do that?

0:12:14.960 --> 0:12:17.440
<v Speaker 4>Then read from the next order, Why did your Justice

0:12:17.480 --> 0:12:23.840
<v Speaker 4>Department do that? And show by repeated questions, just how

0:12:23.960 --> 0:12:28.559
<v Speaker 4>prevalent this is, which is enormous and utterly unprecedented. As

0:12:28.600 --> 0:12:31.760
<v Speaker 4>someone who is litated against the Justice Department, their lawyers

0:12:31.800 --> 0:12:34.880
<v Speaker 4>are a total pain in the next But they don't why.

0:12:35.240 --> 0:12:38.720
<v Speaker 4>They say nasty things, But they don't why, except now

0:12:38.840 --> 0:12:39.200
<v Speaker 4>they do.

0:12:40.440 --> 0:12:45.120
<v Speaker 2>Blanche was also pressed on the Justice Department's bungle release

0:12:45.200 --> 0:12:50.720
<v Speaker 2>of the Epstein files, a process that was beset by problems,

0:12:50.760 --> 0:12:56.160
<v Speaker 2>including redaction errors that left exposed some nude photos, names,

0:12:56.320 --> 0:13:01.640
<v Speaker 2>email addresses, an other identifying information of victims. What do

0:13:01.720 --> 0:13:04.840
<v Speaker 2>you think about Blanche's response to that? He acknowledged that

0:13:04.920 --> 0:13:08.800
<v Speaker 2>mistakes were made and at one point even apologize to

0:13:08.840 --> 0:13:09.520
<v Speaker 2>the victims.

0:13:10.480 --> 0:13:12.880
<v Speaker 4>The questions on Epstein that we've had so far have

0:13:12.960 --> 0:13:17.160
<v Speaker 4>not been very clever. They've been sometimes bombastic, but not

0:13:17.280 --> 0:13:23.360
<v Speaker 4>very probing. Even still, even with pretty bad questioning, I

0:13:23.559 --> 0:13:28.160
<v Speaker 4>was struck by his assertion that he's not allowed to

0:13:28.200 --> 0:13:31.160
<v Speaker 4>meet with people who have lawyers. The rule is that

0:13:31.280 --> 0:13:36.800
<v Speaker 4>a lawyer cannot meet with opposing parties who are represented

0:13:37.360 --> 0:13:42.000
<v Speaker 4>without the permission of the opposing lawyer. But no one

0:13:42.080 --> 0:13:45.760
<v Speaker 4>is saying that the lawyers for the Epstein victims are

0:13:45.840 --> 0:13:49.280
<v Speaker 4>unwilling to come to such a meeting or unwilling to

0:13:49.360 --> 0:13:51.840
<v Speaker 4>allow such a meeting. They've been begging for such a

0:13:51.880 --> 0:13:55.560
<v Speaker 4>meeting for many, many months. So that was an absurd

0:13:56.080 --> 0:13:59.160
<v Speaker 4>and not very honest statement. I'm sorry he wasn't pressed

0:13:59.240 --> 0:14:03.560
<v Speaker 4>on source of this supposed rule, And of course he

0:14:03.640 --> 0:14:07.120
<v Speaker 4>had no problem meeting with ms Maxwell, who is represented

0:14:07.240 --> 0:14:11.840
<v Speaker 4>by counsel and an active litigation against DOJ, which the

0:14:11.840 --> 0:14:15.360
<v Speaker 4>Epstein victims, for the most part, are not, So that

0:14:15.440 --> 0:14:19.240
<v Speaker 4>was an absurd and dishonest statement. I wish they're being

0:14:19.280 --> 0:14:21.200
<v Speaker 4>a senator who then better prepared on that.

0:14:21.880 --> 0:14:26.400
<v Speaker 2>Senator Booker, Democratic Senator Booker from New Jersey did press

0:14:26.520 --> 0:14:30.920
<v Speaker 2>him on that meeting with Glaine Maxwell, and then suddenly

0:14:31.000 --> 0:14:34.560
<v Speaker 2>a few days later, she's transferred to a prison camp.

0:14:34.840 --> 0:14:37.760
<v Speaker 2>Convicted sex offenders are not supposed to be allowed to

0:14:38.480 --> 0:14:40.680
<v Speaker 2>serve their term in that kind of a prison camp.

0:14:41.080 --> 0:14:44.960
<v Speaker 1>All of these women have reported their crimes decades ago,

0:14:45.640 --> 0:14:48.440
<v Speaker 1>but yet you won't meet with them. What you will

0:14:48.480 --> 0:14:51.680
<v Speaker 1>do is meet with Gleane Maxwell over a year ago.

0:14:51.720 --> 0:14:54.200
<v Speaker 1>You sat with her, and you publicly said you were

0:14:54.240 --> 0:14:57.400
<v Speaker 1>seeking the truth. So let's talk about what that two

0:14:57.480 --> 0:15:01.960
<v Speaker 1>day meeting produced. Interview with miss Maxwell lead to a

0:15:02.000 --> 0:15:08.520
<v Speaker 1>single additional person being charged, yes or no.

0:15:06.880 --> 0:15:11.520
<v Speaker 4>No, Senor Booker did get him to state explicitly that

0:15:11.600 --> 0:15:15.560
<v Speaker 4>he had no involvement in the transfer. I don't particularly

0:15:15.640 --> 0:15:18.760
<v Speaker 4>believe that. You don't sound like you particularly believe that,

0:15:19.520 --> 0:15:23.160
<v Speaker 4>But there are lower level people who know the answer

0:15:23.200 --> 0:15:26.080
<v Speaker 4>to that. And if he lied about that, then he

0:15:26.160 --> 0:15:29.840
<v Speaker 4>has just opened himself up to a perjury prosecution, and

0:15:29.920 --> 0:15:33.080
<v Speaker 4>the statute of limitations on that will extend into the

0:15:33.160 --> 0:15:34.360
<v Speaker 4>next presidential term.

0:15:35.080 --> 0:15:38.760
<v Speaker 2>He said he didn't discuss clemency with her, He didn't

0:15:38.840 --> 0:15:40.720
<v Speaker 2>discuss pardons with her.

0:15:41.360 --> 0:15:46.160
<v Speaker 4>Well, that one I might be willing to believe because

0:15:46.280 --> 0:15:49.920
<v Speaker 4>the context is so obvious that it probably doesn't need

0:15:49.960 --> 0:15:54.080
<v Speaker 4>to be discussed. She knows that if she plays along

0:15:54.200 --> 0:15:58.560
<v Speaker 4>with President Trump's efforts to distance himself from the matter,

0:15:59.120 --> 0:16:02.240
<v Speaker 4>that something is likely to come along the lines to

0:16:02.280 --> 0:16:06.600
<v Speaker 4>her later. She probably also knows that promises from Trump

0:16:06.680 --> 0:16:10.000
<v Speaker 4>officials are not worth the paper they're not written on,

0:16:10.640 --> 0:16:13.160
<v Speaker 4>So there's no real reason for her to get into that.

0:16:13.560 --> 0:16:16.520
<v Speaker 4>I probably believe him on that, but I don't think

0:16:16.560 --> 0:16:21.280
<v Speaker 4>it means very much. The transfer, though, that seems very funny.

0:16:21.360 --> 0:16:24.600
<v Speaker 4>I wish someone had asked him, how do you think

0:16:24.680 --> 0:16:29.600
<v Speaker 4>the victims of Jeffrey Epstein feel seeing this person who

0:16:29.640 --> 0:16:32.680
<v Speaker 4>played such a pivotal role in the destruction of their

0:16:32.760 --> 0:16:35.840
<v Speaker 4>childhood being treated so well.

0:16:35.880 --> 0:16:39.760
<v Speaker 2>I question if these hearings really matter. Lately, they seem

0:16:39.840 --> 0:16:42.880
<v Speaker 2>to be just performative. It seems to be coming down

0:16:42.960 --> 0:16:46.720
<v Speaker 2>to one Republican Senator, John Cornyan, who said he's not

0:16:47.320 --> 0:16:51.280
<v Speaker 2>decided yet. It appears that all the Republican senators on

0:16:51.360 --> 0:16:55.320
<v Speaker 2>the Judiciary Committee at least will fall in line.

0:16:55.600 --> 0:17:00.440
<v Speaker 4>I think so, and I find that very distressing. There's

0:17:00.480 --> 0:17:03.480
<v Speaker 4>no question that President Trump will get an attorney general

0:17:03.520 --> 0:17:05.879
<v Speaker 4>to his liking and an attorney general who will do

0:17:05.960 --> 0:17:08.840
<v Speaker 4>what he says on a great many things. But to

0:17:09.040 --> 0:17:13.480
<v Speaker 4>confirm someone as Attorney General who has already been personally

0:17:13.480 --> 0:17:20.119
<v Speaker 4>involved in so much misconduct seems very unfortunate, and I

0:17:20.200 --> 0:17:24.040
<v Speaker 4>wish more senators would say you get your person, but

0:17:24.119 --> 0:17:24.840
<v Speaker 4>not this one.

0:17:25.200 --> 0:17:29.639
<v Speaker 2>Blench can't afford to lose any Republican votes on the

0:17:29.720 --> 0:17:32.600
<v Speaker 2>Judiciary Committee. But what about when this goes to the.

0:17:32.520 --> 0:17:37.159
<v Speaker 4>Floor, he will need to hold all but three Republicans,

0:17:37.160 --> 0:17:38.040
<v Speaker 4>and I think he can.

0:17:38.920 --> 0:17:41.520
<v Speaker 2>Do you think Blanch succeeded in sort of keeping the

0:17:41.560 --> 0:17:45.480
<v Speaker 2>temperature down except when he was questioned by Senator Corey Booker.

0:17:45.960 --> 0:17:52.400
<v Speaker 4>I was struck with how he kept trying to wriggle

0:17:52.520 --> 0:17:55.399
<v Speaker 4>out of questions when it would seem that there was

0:17:55.440 --> 0:17:58.679
<v Speaker 4>a fairly simple way to answer them. Would he agree

0:17:58.720 --> 0:18:04.520
<v Speaker 4>to meet evasion? Evasion? Evasion? Did ethics approve his dinner

0:18:04.960 --> 0:18:08.159
<v Speaker 4>with the people whose anti trust investigation he was about

0:18:08.240 --> 0:18:13.760
<v Speaker 4>to terminate? Evasion? Evasion? Evasion? If he had nothing to hide,

0:18:13.880 --> 0:18:17.639
<v Speaker 4>why not just say yes to some of these questions?

0:18:18.040 --> 0:18:24.200
<v Speaker 4>And maybe that comes down to combativeness, but I assume

0:18:24.240 --> 0:18:27.200
<v Speaker 4>it's because there's more to be said to the story.

0:18:27.560 --> 0:18:30.400
<v Speaker 2>And what about the questioning by the senators?

0:18:30.920 --> 0:18:35.120
<v Speaker 4>I do give the Democrats very mixed reviews. They're clearly

0:18:35.200 --> 0:18:38.440
<v Speaker 4>looking for the sound bites and the film clips. And

0:18:39.119 --> 0:18:44.080
<v Speaker 4>if you really want to put Blanche in a difficult position,

0:18:44.200 --> 0:18:46.360
<v Speaker 4>you don't talk over You can talk over him when

0:18:46.359 --> 0:18:49.560
<v Speaker 4>he's not answering the question, when he changes the subject,

0:18:49.600 --> 0:18:52.320
<v Speaker 4>but you don't talk over when he's answering the question,

0:18:52.840 --> 0:18:56.120
<v Speaker 4>and when he evades your question, you ask a follow up.

0:18:56.160 --> 0:18:59.040
<v Speaker 4>You don't just let that stand. I thought Senator Booker

0:19:00.040 --> 0:19:03.800
<v Speaker 4>started out well, then he started talking over Blanche. I

0:19:03.920 --> 0:19:08.040
<v Speaker 4>thought Senator Coons started well and then got too interested

0:19:08.080 --> 0:19:12.359
<v Speaker 4>in his graphics. I thought Center Bloomenthal scored on some

0:19:12.440 --> 0:19:15.840
<v Speaker 4>points and let him off easy on some others. I

0:19:15.920 --> 0:19:19.719
<v Speaker 4>wish that the focus was purely on questions. I'll have

0:19:19.760 --> 0:19:21.080
<v Speaker 4>time to give speeches later.

0:19:21.680 --> 0:19:25.080
<v Speaker 2>More to come tomorrow. Thanks so much, David. That's Professor

0:19:25.200 --> 0:19:28.560
<v Speaker 2>David Super of Georgetown Law. And that's it for this

0:19:28.680 --> 0:19:31.439
<v Speaker 2>edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always

0:19:31.440 --> 0:19:34.320
<v Speaker 2>get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast.

0:19:34.640 --> 0:19:37.680
<v Speaker 2>You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

0:19:37.840 --> 0:19:42.879
<v Speaker 2>www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law, and

0:19:42.960 --> 0:19:46.000
<v Speaker 2>remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

0:19:46.080 --> 0:19:49.560
<v Speaker 2>at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and

0:19:49.600 --> 0:19:51.040
<v Speaker 2>you're listening to Bloomberg