Hi, I'm Tom Keen, inviting you to join me for the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. It's about making you smarter every business day. I'm Paul Sweeney. We bring you complete coverage of stocks, bonds, commodities, even crypto. All the information you need to excel in the markets. And I'm Alexis Christophorus. Listen to us for essential conversations with the smartest names in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. That's the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Subscribe today on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. Todd Blanche came under immediate fire at his confirmation hearing to become the next attorney general. President Trump's former personal lawyer was repeatedly asked about his close relationship with Trump. And his responses didn't seem to answer the concerns about how independent the Justice Department would be under his leadership. The Department of Justice, like every single department in the executive, is part of the executive. I mean, Article 2 of the Constitution gives the power of the executive to President Trump. So we certainly operate with integrity. We certainly operate in the single mindset to serve the American people and do the right thing. But I am a member if confirmed. I will be a member of the cabinet. And then there was the verbal slip when Republican Senator John Kennedy asked him about his friendship with Trump. Are you and President Trump friends? I'm his lawyer, was his lawyer, and now I'm the deputy attorney general. But perhaps there are more questions about the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund than any other topic. Despite Blanche insisting that the fund to compensate allies of Trump was not moving forward, senators, including Republican John Cornyn, appeared skeptical because the Trump administration has yet to commit in writing that the fund is dead and the settlement agreement could conceivably be resurrected. Is the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties? Well, yes, it's an enforceable document. So I suppose if President Trump's counsel sought to enforce it, they potentially could. Including the weaponization fund? Well, they could try to enforce it. Blanche needs the support of all the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to move his nomination forward. Joining me is constitutional law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law. David, what's your general impression of how Blanche did so far? I mean, he's a smart lawyer. There are some lawyers in Trump's orbit who are completely incompetent. Blanche is certainly not one of those. And he's, I think, fairly quick on his feet. But he's got a record that's very difficult to defend. And he's got a boss who won't let him promised to do things that any reasonable attorney general would do. So he's been in a box several times. Some of the Democrats have done a pretty good job of pinning him down. Some of them have done a less good job of pinning him down, and some of them have just talked. There were a lot of questions about whether Blanche would be independent from President Trump. And in response to a question from Democratic Senator Chris Coons, Blanche basically said that the Justice Department is part of the executive branch. If confirmed, he'll be part of the cabinet and we all serve at the pleasure of the president. I don't know that he ever really asserted independence from the president. No, he really didn't. I mean, at one point he said that we will act with integrity. At another point, he made the predictable statement that, of course, if he was asked to do something illegal, he would resign, but that would never happen with this president. But he is part of a Justice Department that is asserting a historically broad reading of presidential powers, which includes no independence for anybody in the executive branch himself included. So he can't claim to be independent without having that used against his own lawyers when they're asserting their unified executive theory. So everyone knew that a big point was going to be the so-called anti-weaponization fund. He said several times the fund is dead, but Republican Senator John Cornyn, who's a key vote, pinned him down. And Blanche admitted that the settlement agreement is a contract and it could conceivably be resurrected. That leads me to believe that the president is not comfortable with the weaponization fund being dead because Mr Blanche could have gotten himself out of a lot of trouble by agreeing to provide a letter declaring that and he wouldn do it And when he was pressed on whether they could sue for breach of contract he more or less acknowledged that they could and didn't really have much of an answer to that. So I think President Trump has made a firm decision that he wants to help the January 6th rioters, and Mr. Blanche is trying to avoid saying anything that will burn britches that he knows he's going to have to cross. A federal judge had asked for a sworn statement from Blanche that the fund was really dead, and he refused to submit that. His explanation was that there's a long-standing precedent that judges can't ask cabinet secretaries or people like me to put in declarations. Is that true? Not in the form that he is suggesting. Typically, decisions in administrative agencies are made well below the cabinet member, and it's not appropriate to ask a cabinet member to put in declaration about a decision where they weren't in the room. And very commonly, there is someone else who's more important who was in the room, and you should get the statement from them. But whereas here, you have the very top officials in the Justice Department signing this thing, it's entirely appropriate to ask why they did it and ask them to explain what appears to be highly unethical conduct. I would just add that we have seen in this administration more examples of papers that are only signed by top officials than I believe we've ever seen before. When I litigated against the Justice Department, you never even saw the attorney general or the deputy attorney general or even usually the assistant attorney general's name. You would see various names of lower officials typed and then an actual signature by a line DOJ lawyer. And what we're seeing now again and again is Mr. Blanche, Mr. Woodward, Mr. Bove, other senior Justice Department officials being the only one to sign papers. So who is a judge to ask something from if it is explicitly being handled by the senior lawyers? And on Monday, a Florida federal judge wrote a scathing opinion saying that Blanche shouldn't have been representing Trump in settling his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, that it raised conflict of interest concerns because he was Trump's former defense attorney. And the judge ordered a copy of her decision to be sent to the State Bar of New York where Blanche is licensed to practice law. When he was confronted with that, Blanche said, well, That's not a referral. But it is, in essence, a referral, isn't it? That's a referral. I'm quite convinced that New York State Bar can spring for an online search and get a copy of the opinion on their own. The fact that she is sending it to them suggests that she independently believes there's material in there that they ought to see. And given how scathing it is, that's obviously correct. There are also multiple bar complaints filed in New York. won by hundreds of former judges that alleged serious ethical breaches, abuses of power, conflicts of interest, etc., misconduct during his tenure as acting attorney general. So those are at the initial stage. Are they important in considering his nomination? The attorney general is the highest law enforcement official in the country, has many responsibilities to the American people, and certainly one of them is to set a standard for ethical behavior. Now, anyone can file a complaint, and the mere fact that a complaint has been filed should not be pivotal. But the fact that some fairly serious people whose reputations matter and whose value, presumably their reputations, have filed complaints should give us cause. And I would think the committee should get to the bottom of them. If Mr. Blanche has not done anything unethical, a complaint shouldn't stand in his way. But there certainly are reasons to question some things that have happened. I will also note that you made the same slip that Mr. Blanche did. Did I? And you talked about him representing President Trump. And it's a little confusing in that context because both sides are working for President Trump. So if he's involved in the case at all, he's representing President Trump on one way or the other. I stand corrected. I believe it was Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse who pointed out that the Justice Department filed no pleadings in that Florida case to try to make sure the department didn come under the authority of that court That something where I was sorry there wasn more follow because Mr Blanche said they didn't give us a chance to respond. And yet the judge explained very carefully what she was considering, what the issues were, and took a very long time to write her opinion. The Justice Department had a very long time to submit things. As a lawyer, when I have something to say to the court, unless I've been explicitly ordered not to, I file papers. And I've certainly seen the Justice Department file papers numerous times without being invited to do so. If they felt their behavior was ethical, they had all the time in the world to explain to the judge through a declaration or a brief why that was. And if the Justice Department didn't defend their behavior, I can only conclude that that's because their behavior was not defensible. And Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse grilled Blanche about the current reputation of the Justice Department. Between judges appointed by every president harshly criticizing the department's work in your tenure, grand juries rejecting indictments, judicial findings of outright misconduct, capable lawyers fleeing the stinking ship, This seems to be the most troubled Department of Justice in history. I've been talking to Georgetown Law Professor David Super. David, we've talked before about how federal judges are repeatedly finding fault with the Justice Department and its attorneys. Blanche denied that when he was questioned. But that is true. The Justice Department has lost credibility with a lot of federal judges, and there have been orders that have not been followed. And judges have found a lot of problems. They've found problems with grand jury proceedings. I mean, this Justice Department has, I think, lost credibility with the judiciary. I think it's unfortunate that this part of the hearing was played so theatrically. I would have loved to see a senator take a list of orders, read from this order, ask Mr. Blanche, why did your Justice Department do that? Then read from the next order, why did your Justice Department do that? And show by repeated questions just how prevalent this is, which is enormous and utterly unprecedented. As someone who was litigated against the Justice Department, their lawyers are a total pain in the neck, but they don't lie. They say nasty things, but they don't lie. Except now, they do. Blanche was also pressed on the Justice Department's bungle release of the Epstein files, a process that was beset by problems, including redaction errors that left exposed some nude photos, names, email addresses, and other identifying information of victims. What do you think about Blanche's response to that? He acknowledged that mistakes were made and at one point even apologized to the victims. The questions on Epstein that we've had so far have not been very clever. They've been sometimes bombastic, but not very probing. Even still, even with pretty bad questioning. I was struck by his assertion that he's not allowed to meet with people who have lawyers. The rule is that a lawyer cannot meet with opposing parties who are represented without the permission of the opposing lawyer. But no one is saying that the lawyers for the Epstein victims are unwilling to come to such a meeting or unwilling to allow such a meeting. they've been begging for such a meeting for many, many months. So that was an absurd and not very honest statement. I'm sorry he wasn't pressed on the source of this supposed rule. And of course, he had no problem meeting with Ms. Maxwell, who is represented by counsel and in active litigation against DOJ, which the obscene victims for the most part are not. So that was an absurd and dishonest statement. I wish there had been a senator who'd been better prepared on that. Senator Booker, Democratic Senator Booker from New Jersey, did press him on that meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell. And then suddenly, a few days later, she's transferred to a prison camp. Convicted sex offenders are not supposed to be allowed to serve their term in that kind of a prison camp. All of these women have reported their crimes decades ago, but yet you won't meet with them. What you will do is meet with Ghislaine Maxwell. Over a year ago, you sat with her and you publicly said you were seeking the truth. So let's talk about what that two-day meeting produced. Did your interview with Ms. Maxwell lead to a single additional person being charged, yes or no? no Senator Booker did get him to state explicitly that he had no involvement in the transfer I don particularly believe that You don sound like you particularly believe that But there are lower level people who know the answer to that. And if he lied about that, then he has just opened himself up to a perjury prosecution. And the statute of limitations on that will extend into the next presidential term. He said he didn't discuss clemency with her. He didn't discuss pardons with her. Well, that one I might be willing to believe because the context is so obvious that it probably doesn't need to be discussed. She knows that if she plays along with President Trump's efforts to distance himself from the matter, that something is likely to come along the lines to her later. She probably also knows that promises from Trump officials are not worth the paper they're not written on. So there's no real reason for her to get into that. I probably believe him on that, but I don't think it means very much. The transfer, though, that seems very funny. I wish someone had asked him, how do you think the victims of Jeffrey Epstein feel seeing this person who played such a pivotal role in the destruction of their childhood being treated so well? I question if these hearings really matter. Lately, they seem to be just performative. It seems to be coming down to one Republican senator, John Cornyn, who said he's not decided yet. It appears that all the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee, at least, will fall in line. I think so. And I find that very distressing. There's no question that President Trump will get an attorney general to his liking and an attorney general who will do what he says on a great many things. But to confirm someone as attorney general who has already been personally involved in so much misconduct seems very unfortunate. And I wish more senators would say, you get your person, but not this one. Blanche can't afford to lose any Republican votes on the Judiciary Committee. But what about when this goes to the floor? He will need to hold all but three Republicans. And I think he can. Do you think Blanche succeeded in sort of keeping the temperature down, except when he was questioned by Senator Cory Booker? I was struck with how he kept trying to wriggle out of questions when it would seem that there was a fairly simple way to answer them. Would he agree to meet? Evasion, evasion, evasion. Did ethics approve his dinner with the people whose antitrust investigation he was about to terminate? Evasion, evasion, evasion. If he had nothing to hide, why not just say yes? to some of these questions. And maybe that comes down to combativeness, but I assume it's because there's more to be said to the story. And what about the questioning by the senators? I do give the Democrats very mixed reviews. They're clearly looking for the sound bites and the film clips. And if you really want to put Blanche in a difficult position, you don't talk over him. You can talk over him when he's not answering the question, when he changes the subject, but you don't talk over him when he's answering the question. And when he evades your question, you ask a follow-up. You don't just let that stand. I thought Senator Booker started out well, and then he started talking over Blanche. I thought Senator Coons started well and then got too interested in his graphics. I thought Senator Blumenthal scored on some points and let them off easy on some others. I wish that the focus was purely on questions. I'll have time to give speeches later. More to come tomorrow. Thanks so much, David. That's Professor David Super of Georgetown Law. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m. Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. Hi, I'm Tom Keen, inviting you to join me for the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. It's about making you smarter every business day. I'm Paul Sweeney. We bring you complete coverage of stocks, bonds, commodities, even crypto. All the information you need to excel in the markets. And I'm Alexis Christophorus. Listen to us for essential conversations with the smartest names in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. That's the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Subscribe today on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen.
