Skip to playerSkip to main content
DeLauro EXPLODES at Todd Blanche: “You Do NOT Belong in This Job!” — Watch the explosive confrontation that has Washington talking.

A dramatic Capitol Hill showdown is making headlines after Rep. Rosa DeLauro launched a blistering attack on Trump DOJ pick Todd Blanche during a heated congressional hearing. In a viral exchange that is rapidly spreading across social media, DeLauro EXPLODES at Todd Blanche, questioning his impartiality and accusing him of acting more like President Donald Trump’s personal attorney than a representative of the American people.

The FIERY CLASH unfolded as DeLauro pressed Todd Blanche over controversial legal protections allegedly connected to a settlement involving President Trump, his family, and associated businesses. DeLauro EXPLODES at Todd Blanche multiple times during the hearing, arguing that the public deserves answers about what she described as extraordinary legal arrangements. Todd Blanche firmly rejected those accusations, insisting that the Department of Justice was acting within the law and that no improper protections existed.

#DeLauro #ToddBlanche #TrumpDOJ #DOJHearing #CongressionalHearing #DonaldTrump #BreakingNews #PoliticalNews #WashingtonDC #CapitolHill #TrumpNews #DOJControversy #RosaDeLauro #USPolitics #Congress #ViralHearing #PoliticalClash #GovernmentAccountability #LegalBattle #TrumpAdministration #JusticeDepartment #HearingHighlights #PoliticalDrama #NewsAlert #TrendingPolitics

~PR.152~HT.318~ED.102~GR.510~VG.HM~

Category

🗞
News
Transcript
00:00Secretary, President received a luxury jet from the Qatari government valued hundreds
00:04of millions of dollars in apparent violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
00:09Jared Kushner's real estate and financial deals with the Saudi royal family raised serious
00:13questions related to kickbacks and bribery that could be in violation of federal bribery laws
00:18and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. White House advisor Peter Navarro, a friend of Donald Trump
00:22Jr., got the Pentagon to loan more than $600 million to Vulcan Elements, a small North Carolina
00:28startup founded just two years earlier, and Donald Trump Jr.'s venture capital firm has a
00:34stake in this company. Estimates of the company's valuation grew tenfold after the deal was announced.
00:40AAFS Infrastructure and Energy, which is on the cusp of securing a $1 billion contract to build and
00:47operate a pipeline across the Balkans, has ties to former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and
00:53lawyer Jesse Bernal that defended the President and Donald Trump Jr. against a lawsuit that sought to
00:59hold them responsible for January 6th. This company would be allowed to ship fossil gas from the United
01:05States to replace Russian fuels. My question is, and we know that the administration gutted the public
01:12integrity section for the last 50 years, investigated, prosecuted crime related to government integrity,
01:19and they prosecuted both Democrats and Republicans. Simple yes or no question.
01:23What I've just mentioned, do you believe that what I've talked about is enough here for the next
01:29Attorney General to open a criminal investigation, yes or no? No, you just read a bunch of
01:35random, unsourced news articles and reports. No, that's not the basis to open a criminal investigation.
01:43I mean, you're looking around, but it's not. This is not the basis on which- It is not.
01:49Just reading something that's just a hypothetical off a news article, it's not. It's not a hypothetical,
01:53it is real. Did the President get a Guattari? What, did you read the press? Are you a knowledgeable
02:00about anything? Not the same press you do. Apparently not, my friend.
02:03Promise me. Apparently not. Did the President receive a luxury jet from the Guattari government,
02:08valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, which is a violation- The United States of America did.
02:12Of the Emeluments Clause of the Constitution. It is not. It is not.
02:17Wow. You do not belong in this job, Mr. Acting Attorney General. You should always and recuse yourself
02:25from these issues because you are the President's lawyer. You are not the lawyer- I am not the President's
02:30lawyer. Yes, you are. I am not. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
02:34Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. Acting Attorney General, I'm sorry to hear that
02:45the weaponization fund is not moving forward. You would have my full support. When our government
02:51is weaponized so as to steal money from innocent law-abiding citizens, whether by making the process
02:56into the penalty, or forcing citizens to spend their resources on legal fees for their defense, or by
03:01acting, or by actually seizing their bank accounts through civil asset forfeiture, when there is no
03:07criminal prosecution, it is only right and fair to make these citizens whole. And as a victim myself,
03:14for which every solitary member on this committee who is eight years or more in Congress voted for the
03:20bill that has my name on it, the federal law that has my name on it, against the IRS, people
03:27need to be
03:27made whole when the government has been weaponized against them. But what I'd like to talk to you
03:32about other than that is in 1873, Congress enacted the Comstock Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1461, which prohibits
03:40the mailing of abortion-inducing materials in the United States. Although the statute has been amended
03:46numerous times, including as recently as 1994, Congress has never repealed these criminal prohibitions.
03:51And as Justice Thomas recently noted, the Comstock Act remains valid federal law and is fully
03:57enforceable. So my question to you is, how will the Department of Justice ensure that this federal
04:02law prohibiting the mailing of abortion-inducing drugs is properly enforced? And I wish I had more time
04:08to really go through this, because we in the state of Georgia have a heartbeat bill, and we prohibit this
04:16type of drug, all right, inducing abortions. And yet it can come across from other states, all right,
04:23and kill innocent unborn children. How will the Department of Justice ensure that this federal law
04:29is enforced? So that's an important law and an important question. And I will tell you that
04:36there's a lot of effort within the department, and it's not just at the Department of Justice,
04:41other agencies in the federal government, into how the best way is to make sure that we're protecting
04:47the rights of Georgians and other individual states, but also the rights of every American.
04:53And you're right, I wish we had more time to discuss that, because it's a complicated issue.
04:59On the first question that you asked, I could not agree with you more that this Department of Justice
05:05Justice was weaponized, unfortunately, against many, many Americans, and we're trying every day to fix it.
05:13And we've made a lot of progress, but we have a lot more to do.
05:16Well, thank you. And by the way, I had a apology from Mr. Lewis, the ranking member of that subcommittee.
05:23Y'all remember him, all right? He said, I want to apologize to you for what
05:27a piece of my government, what the IRS did to you. I wish you well. I thank you and I
05:33yield.
05:34Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask you, it's a follow-up actually to a letter that
05:40I think 57 of my colleagues and I sent. This is about the shootings of Alex Prady and Ms. Good
05:46in Minneapolis. The issue there is the Attorney General for the state, and I think some local
05:52prosecutors have said they haven't been able to get access to the evidence related to those shootings,
05:58so they can make their own independent judgments about whether they should move forward with cases or not.
06:03The letter we sent, I don't think has been answered, but are you going to be committing
06:09to sharing that information immediately to these state and local prosecutors? Why not?
06:15No, that's not what we do in criminal investigations.
06:17And I disagree.
06:19Well, I'm right. You're wrong.
06:20Well, let me say this. Your predecessor, Rod Rosenstein and I, when he was U.S. Attorney in Maryland,
06:26I was the state prosecutor. We shared evidence in these kinds of cases all the time,
06:30and then we made a determination about which would go forward. But the refusal to share evidence is...
06:36No, no, that's not what I said. I didn't say I refuse to share evidence, sir. You said do I...
06:39I mean immediately.
06:40Right. That's what I said no to.
06:42We shared the evidence immediately.
06:45Yes, we did.
06:45That's right.
06:46Look, it's...
06:48You mentioned that it's important to make sure that bad guys don't just get arrested, but they pay
06:54back their victims. And that struck me as ironic given the number of pardons that this president has
07:01issued with respect to... I'll come back to you later. Devin Archer, Sioux Nation, $60 million,
07:08$43 million in restitution was wiped away by the pardon. Carlos Watson, $36.7 million was wiped away
07:17by the restitution. The Chrisleys, $21 million was wiped away by the restitution. Mr. Schwartz,
07:23I don't have... I don't remember what that number was in his particular case, but over and over again,
07:29victims have... of fraud. So they personally lost the money. It was taken out of their pockets.
07:35It's... issue a pardon. They don't get paid. They don't get made whole. Will you commit to trying
07:40to find a way to make those people whole who've been denied this access to the... As I said to
07:45you
07:46earlier, sir, the Constitution of our United States gives the president the power to pardon. That is
07:51not a decision for me to make or you to make. It's a decision for the president of the United
07:55States
07:55to make. Could I have just one more question, Mr. Chairman? With respect to civil liability for these
08:03people, which they're not pardoned for, would you... and the Department of Justice can pursue civil
08:08remedies in cases that involve... Depends on the case. Right. Depends on the case. Well,
08:13if they've been convicted for criminal liability already, certainly they can be convicted or...
08:17I mean, it depends on what the crime they were convicted of. Well, I just read them off to you.
08:21They were fraud convictions. You didn't read off the crimes. No, I mean, it just depends. I
08:26appreciate what you're saying. And you're right that a pardon doesn't cover civil liability. Well,
08:32I'm not going to commit to civil liability right here, no. Time of this gentleman has expired.
08:40Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General Blanche, the National
08:45Children's Advocacy Center located in my district was the original model for the CAC approach
08:51nationwide and continues to play a leading role in training and best practices. How does the DOJ view
08:57the role of the National Center in strengthening Child Advocacy Center's capacity across the country?
09:03Mr. Yeah, look, it's extraordinarily important. That's a, you know, the work that they're doing
09:10and they've done for, I mean, at least many years now is key to the partnership and the future success
09:17of making sure that they're on the right path. So, look, the DOJ plays a small role in that. It
09:23doesn't play as important a role maybe as others, but that type of education and work is important.
09:30I understand that the victims of Child Abuse Act funded programs include the training and technical
09:36assistance for child abuse professionals. Grants are coming up for competition this year. How does the
09:42DOJ, you know, thinking about ensuring continuity so that the training pipelines and services are not
09:48disruptive? That goes through your department. That's what our grant folks do very well and they'll
09:53continue to do so and I definitely will happy to have my folks work with you to make sure that
09:57there's continuity there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
10:02Mr. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the second round.
10:06I did want to explain what I held up here. Okay. For the viewing public, what you do as a
10:12member of
10:12Congress is you go in, you release your phone, you release anything that would have electronics,
10:18and you go in and you attempt to capture some redacted material. So I took a look at this email
10:26from Jack Goldberger, Wednesday, October 14th, 2009. The subject is Trump. It is to Jeffrey Epstein,
10:36and the language here that is not redacted reads, spoke to Alan Garten, Trump's attorney. Garten arranged a
10:4320-minute phone conference with Trump and Brad in lieu of a deposition. Following was discussed.
10:49The blacked out box is what was discussed, a regurgitation of that. I'll read to you what I was
10:55able to see underneath. As I say, it's shorthanded. It's clipped as a regurgitation of what took place.
11:02JE never expelled from Mar-a-Lago. No, he was not a member. May have been a guest. Never asked
11:08to leave.
11:08Mark Epstein said Trump on JE plane. Is that true? Answer. I've been on a lot of planes. May have
11:15been
11:15on his plane. No young girls on plane. What do you know about allegations against JE? Only what I read
11:22in the paper. Trump ever at JE House? I may have been there with my wife. Any young girls there?
11:28No. May
11:29have been some children of guests, but that's it. Trump specifically asked Garten to advise us of the
11:36interview. Brad had also talked to manager of Mar-a-Lago, Bert Lemke. Lemke confirmed JE never asked to
11:46leave Mar-a-Lago. I say that to say what a silly exercise that members of Congress have to go
11:51through
11:51to find out what actual conversations were taking place with the president in lieu of a deposition.
11:58This has nothing to do with redacting victims' names. My only point, my only, I don't have a question
12:04for you. My only point is you are gravely conflicted. It is so obvious you are gravely conflicted.
12:10These survivors deserve prosecutions. They deserved them years ago, and now it's in your lap. As Pam
12:17Bondi told us, they need an independent prosecutor. I hope you will do that. So if I, may I briefly
12:24respond?
12:26The law, the Epstein Transparency Act requires us to redact victims. We also have other laws that apply
12:34that require us to apply other redactions. That's not my law. That's your law. And what was just read,
12:41the reason why that was redacted, the reason why that was redacted is because that's a privileged
12:46communication between counsel. So the fact that it was read is fine, but that wasn't redacted because
12:52there were victims' names. That was redacted for another purpose, which we're legally obligated
12:57to do. I advise you to take a look at the Epstein Transparency. That concludes today's hearing.
13:04I want to thank our witness, Acting Attorney General Blanche, for being here and giving us his opinion
13:12over a great stretch. Without objection, members may have seven days to submit additional questions
13:20for the record. The committee stands adjourned. Thank you.
13:30Subscribe to One India and never miss an update. Download the One India app now.
Comments

Recommended