The Common Ills: Stupid Blanche and Stupid Chump

Today on MEET THE PRESS (NBC), Todd Blanche was on to sport his stupidity:

KRISTEN WELKER:

We appreciate you being here in person. As we just heard in your address to the Justice Department staff this week, you said you and the DOJ will, quote, “uphold the law without fear or favor.” You of course used to be President Trump’s former personal defense attorney. Can you pledge that the Justice Department will always act independently of the White House?

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

Well, there’s a big difference between saying we will always do our job and investigate any case and act independently of the White House. No, I’m not going to pledge that. And no attorney general should ever pledge that. The President, I mean, if I were to pledge I will be independent of the White House, what that means is that if President Trump says, “I want the Department of Justice to go after every violent criminal in this country,” which is what he has said, what you’re saying to me is I should say, “No, sir, I’m not going to do it.” So I will act with integrity. Our prosecutors will act with integrity. We will prosecute without fear or any sort of favor. And that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. And that’s what every Department of Justice should do.

Does he understand what it means to act independently? No, I don't believe he does.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, I guess, big picture: If the president asks you to do something that you feel crosses an ethical or legal line, would you do it?

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

The president will never ask me to do something unethical or legal — or illegal. He never has. He never will. And no, I swore to the constitution of the United States like every cabinet secretary has done and like every attorney general before me has done. And so this, this narrative that’s mostly pushed by the left and pushed by the media that the president’s going to pull me aside and ask me to do something illegal is completely a false narrative, not true, will not happen, and hasn’t happened.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay. Let’s delve into how you do see your tenure. You appeared with President Trump at the Nassau County Police Academy on Friday. You made some comments that did get a lot of attention. I want to play it and get your reaction on the other side. Take a look.

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

My administration and my Department of Justice, if anybody touches a federal law enforcement officer in any way inappropriate, we will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

KRISTEN WELKER:

And yet, Mr. Attorney General, on President Trump’s first day in office, as you know, he pardoned everyone who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, including 172 people who pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers. How is that consistent with your pledge to always protect law enforcement?

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

There’s nothing inconsistent about that. The president’s pardon powers, any president’s pardon powers are not limited. So when I say and when this Department of Justice says and when the FBI says, like we’re saying, and every U.S. attorney is saying that if you assault law enforcement, we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law, that is absolutely what President Trump expects, absolutely what I expect of our prosecutors. And that’s completely separate from any president’s ability to pardon.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But he did the opposite of that effectively. I mean, on January 6th police officers were beaten with baseball bats and flagpoles. Do you believe it was wrong to pardon the people who assaulted police officers on January 6th given that you have vowed to protect law enforcement?

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

Every attorney general vows to protect law enforcement including me. And so I’m not opining or in any way saying what President Trump did is wrong. Absolutely not. By the way, president–

KRISTEN WELKER:

Isn’t it inconsistent with what you said though?

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

Absolutely not. There’s a difference–

KRISTEN WELKER:

Is it inconsistent with your pledge?

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

No. There’s a difference, Kristen. We will prosecute anybody. If later a president chooses to pardon that individual, that is the president’s right under our constitution. Do not forget that a few days before President Trump pardoned the individuals associated and who had plead guilty to the conduct on January 6th, President Biden pardoned hundreds and hundreds of criminals, many of whom were quite violent. So that’s his right to do that just like it’s President Trump’s right to do that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But what message does it send to police officers that people who assaulted them were pardoned?

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

The message to police officers is consistent and the same every single day which is that we will protect you. And by the way, that’s a little bit interesting coming from a place where we see violent protests breaking out all over the country, in New Jersey, in Minneapolis, in Seattle and California. And instead of there being a full-throated defense by leadership on the Democrat side, on the Republican side, what you have is it’s as if we’re doing something wrong by saying we will protect law enforcement and we will prosecute those who assault law enforcement. We’re not.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s on this issue of January 6th, your confirmation was actually held up over the so-called anti-weaponization fund. I just want to remind folks what that means. That would effectively pay people who felt they were in some ways wronged by the federal government and could have included people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th. You signed a document. You testified under oath that the fund is dead. But President Trump has said he wishes it weren’t. If the president asks you to revive the fund, will you tell him no?

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

Well, the president has said it’s dead as well. So you can, and as the president has said that he very strongly believes that those that had this Department of Justice weaponized against them should be compensated, he’s going to continue to say that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

He said it’s up to you. He was just asked about it. He said effectively it’s up to you what to do about this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

And I’ve said repeatedly it’s dead. And he has also said it’s dead. He said it in a cabinet meeting with the press there. And so I think it might be enjoyable for the media to continually ask me about whether the fund is really dead. And there is no fund. No money went from the treasury to any account. There were no commissioners established. And so there is no fund. There will be no fund. I’ve said it repeatedly. And the different angles coming almost every time I speak with the media, someone says, “Well, wait is it really dead?” And I say, “Yes, it is.” And then the next interview I give, somebody will say to me, “Is it really dead?” And I promise you I will say, “Yes, it is dead.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

So you’re saying you rule out ever reviving it. But just to be very clear, can you guarantee that under your Department of Justice anyone who attacked the Capitol on January 6th will not receive one dime of taxpayer money if they file a claim against the federal government?

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

Well, anybody can file a claim against the federal government, not just anybody associated with January 6th. I’m not going to sit here and say on a news program whether a litigation that may or may not happen will result in money. I can’t do that. So what I will say is that there’s a process in place for decades where if somebody that believes they’ve been wronged or a tort has been committed against them by the federal government can seek redress. And, you know, beyond that, I’m not going to comment about hypotheticals and what will happen in any of those cases.

KRISTEN WELKER:

So potentially, they could get paid under another stream of government funding, but not the anti-weaponization fund–

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

Well, I don’t know. When you say, “They could get paid,” what is their claim? Is it somebody who’s plead guilty–

KRISTEN WELKER:

The Justice Department’s judgment fund.

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:

No, no, no. So, right. But when you say, “They could get paid,” anybody who sues the federal government could get paid. It depends on the facts. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on what it’s alleged the government did. And so I don’t know the circumstances of any hypothetical case. And I’m not going to comment on a hypothetical case today. But there is a process in place where if you believe that you’ve had a tort committed against you by the government, whether it’s slipping on ice outside of a federal post office or a law enforcement officer assaulting you, you are allowed to seek compensation.

The only one more stupid than Todd Blanche is Chump himself. Giulia Carbonaro (NEWSWEEK) reports:

President Donald Trump is asking Americans to accept paying higher gas prices as a patriotic trade-off as the country continues its war against Iran, even as a majority of U.S. adults want the conflict to end—and think the nation should have not gotten into it in the first place, according to polling.

National gas prices in the U.S. have shot up since the start of the war, as disruptions in production and supply due to the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz have caused oil prices to skyrocket.

After briefly falling for a week, national gas prices are now climbing again, reaching an average of $4.06 on Sunday, up from $3.94 a month ago and $3.14 a year ago, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA). That means gas prices are nearly 30 percent higher than they were a year ago.

That is more than a dollar higher than it was before the U.S. and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran on February 28, when the national average dipped just below $3, at $2.98. According to GasBuddy’s Patrick De Haan, it is also an unprecedented high for this time of the year.

Now he wants to talk to Americans?

He's never been clear on why he started the war-- he's offered one changing reason after another. But what has remained firm is when and how he announced the war. He did that on February 28th in a pre-recorded video that he released at 2:30 in the morning EST.

That's how he announced the war. Not with a press conference. Not with a live prime time address to the American people. In a pre-taped video that he posted to social media at 2:30 am.

He didn't take it seriously. He didn't take his duties seriously. And now the US remains trapped in this war of choice that is wrecking the US economy.

11 days shy of six months and he suddenly wants to talk to Americans about sacrifice?

Americans aren't in the mood to listen to the sleazy con man. Sarah-Jane Collins (THE DAILY BEAST) notes:

New polling shows more than half of voters think they are worse off now than when Joe Biden was president.

President Donald Trump has been battling unpopularity in the polls over his war in Iran and the rising cost of living, and this latest poll, conducted for the Financial Times, found that 53 percent of registered voters felt worse off financially today than they did on Jan. 19, 2025.

Trump, 80, took office on Jan. 20, 2025.

Fifty seven percent of independents, and nearly a quarter of self-identified Republicans, also felt worse off under the current president, the polling by Focaldata found. The poll was conducted among 1,913 registered voters between Aug. 7 and Aug. 10.

In a significant blow to longstanding Republican myth making, the poll found voters were more likely to say they trusted Democrats over Republicans to handle inflation and the cost of living.

Meanwhile, the USS LINCOLN scandal continues. Ed Pilkington (GUARDIAN) reports:

Naval families with loved ones deployed for months on US warships amid the Iran war have reacted with fury to Donald Trump and the defense secretary Pete Hegseth’s dismissal of their concerns about the extreme pressures and dire conditions they are enduring.

The Guardian has talked to three naval families who have been following the physical and mental stresses bearing down on their relatives with mounting alarm. The families, with loved ones on board the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Tripoli, all spoke anonymously for fear of retribution against their active duty relatives.

They spoke of insufficient nourishment that has led to close relatives losing 20-30lbs in weight since they were sent to the Middle East five months ago, leaving one sailor “emaciated”, according to his mother. They spoke also of low-quality drinking water and scarce mental health counseling and support despite the intense burden of being at sea for months on end without making land.

The USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier with more than 5,000 sailors and marines onboard, has been at sea for nearly nine months, having begun its deployment in November. There have been reports of multiple suicide attempts including jumping overboard.

When Trump was asked on Friday whether naval families were worried about conditions on board, he replied: “No, they’re not.” He said that the Lincoln’s deployment, now in its ninth month, was “not nearly long enough”.

Let's wind down with this from Senator Adam Shiff's office:

Despite claims that President Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is “dead,” the DOJ continues to funnel taxpayer money from DOJ’s Judgment Fund to political allies

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) led every other Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in demanding answers from Attorney General Todd Blanche on the Trump administration’s continued abuse of taxpayer funds to reward President Trump’s political allies through settlement agreements – despite repeatedly assuring Congress, federal courts, and the American people that the Justice Department (DOJ) no longer intended to pay out settlements through any slush fund.

“The strong public and political backlash to the illegal Anti-Weaponization Fund was animated by a repulsion to the concept that the President’s political allies – including January 6 insurrectionists who beat U.S. Capitol and D.C. police officers – would benefit financially from their crimes. Yet, the Department is quietly creating that reality. We are deeply concerned by this Administration’s continued efforts to use taxpayer resources – including the Judgment Fund – to reward its allies, while claiming to disavow any payouts through the Anti-Weaponization Fund,” the Senators wrote.

During Todd Blanche’s confirmation hearing last month, and in several questions for the record following his testimony, Blanche assured Congress in writing that the Anti-Weaponization Fund “is dead.” However, Blanche still refused to confirm in a sworn statement under penalty of perjury – as ordered by a federal court – that the President’s slush fund “will not proceed in any manner, or under any name.” Recent reporting indicates DOJ officials are actively exploring alternative avenues for compensating January 6th defendants and other allies of President Trump, including through the settlement of Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claims using the Judgment Fund.

In their probe, the lawmakers are demanding DOJ provide answers on a range of questions including if the Department has issued guidance of whether individuals who were eligible to receive Anti-Weaponization Fund payments are eligible to receive compensation through DOJ’s Judgment Fund. They’re also seeking copies of communications between Blanche, DOJ and any individuals seeking to receive payments though alternative mechanisms (including those convicted relating to January 6).

The letter was signed by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

The full text of the letter can be found here and below.

Dear Attorney General Blanche:

We write to express profound and continued alarm regarding the apparent systemic abuse of Department of Justice (DOJ) resources through settlement agreements to reward President Trump’s political allies. Despite your assurances that President Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is “dead,” the Justice Department continues to funnel taxpayer money from DOJ’s Judgment Fund to political allies of the President who might otherwise have filed claims with the Anti-Weaponization Fund.

Over the last several months, you have repeatedly assured Congress, federal courts, and the American public that the Justice Department no longer intends to pay out settlements through the slush fund created as part of the settlement you signed on May 18, 2026, in the Trump v. IRS case. On June 2, 2026, you told the House Appropriations Committee “we are not moving forward with the fund, period.” When asked again at that hearing if the fund was “not moving forward, ever” you responded “correct.”

On July 15, 2026, during your confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you confirmed under oath to Senator John Cornyn, “the Weaponization Fund is dead. It’s not moving forward.” In response to several questions for the record following your testimony, you assured Congress in writing that the Anti-Weaponization Fund “is dead” twenty-six times. Furthermore, the Justice Department has repeatedly insisted in federal court filings that the Anti- Weaponization Fund “is not moving forward.” Despite all of these statements, recent reporting indicates DOJ officials are actively exploring alternative avenues for compensating January 6^th defendants and other allies of President Trump, including through the settlement of Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claims using the Judgment Fund.

The documents you released on August 2, 2026, do little to assuage these concerns, as they provide no guarantee DOJ will not simply revive the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which President Trump has repeatedly threatened to do. Furthermore, these documents make no assurance you will not use other mechanisms, including quietly settling administrative claims brought against the government, to compensate President Trump’s political allies, effectively accomplishing the goals of the Anti-Weaponization Fund. To this end, you refused to confirm in a sworn statement under penalty of perjury – as ordered by a federal court –that the President’s slush fund “will not proceed in any manner, or under any name.” Finally, the documents also beg the question of how DOJ would defend against a lawsuit by President Trump to enforce the initial settlement agreement, which by its plain terms “may be modified only with the written agreement of the Parties.”

In fact, these documents create a clear avenue through which DOJ can use the FTCA and the Judgment Fund to benefit individuals with ties to President Trump and his political allies. This is consistent with the way that DOJ has misused federal resources for this purpose since the start of this administration:

In April 2025, DOJ argued January 6th insurrectionists pardoned by President Trump should be reimbursed for the restitution they paid the Architect of the Capitol related to damage they caused in the Capitol. A Government Accountability Office report found January 6th insurrectionists cost taxpayers over $2.7 billion in damage to the Capitol and increased security measures, among other expenses.
In June 2025, pro-Trump legal activist group Judicial Watch announced that your Department entered a $4.9 million settlement agreement with the estate of Ashli Babbitt. Babbitt was shot and killed inside the Capitol by U.S. Capitol Police after she, alongside a mob of rioters, attempted to breach a barricaded door on January 6, 2021. A DOJ investigation cleared the officer involved of criminal wrongdoing in 2021.
In March 2026, DOJ entered a $1.25 million settlement with Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor to President Trump.18 Flynn previously pled guilty to lying to the FBI about conversations he had with a senior Russian diplomat during an investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election.
In April 2026, DOJ reached an over $1 million settlement with Mark Houck, who allegedly assaulted a 72-year-old volunteer escort at a reproductive services clinic. DOJ chose to settle with Houck even after a federal judge dismissed with prejudice his lawsuit against the government.
In April 2026, DOJ agreed to pay former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page $1.25million to settle allegations that FBI and DOJ officials abused their authority when investigating Page’s travel to Russia surrounding the 2020 election.
In July 2026, DOJ entered a “seven figur[e]” settlement with Paul Vaughn, an individual convicted of violating the FACE Act after physically blocking the entrance to a reproductive services clinic for three hours. Vaughn was pardoned by President Trump on January 23, 2025.
Attorneys for other individuals involved in the January 6th insurrection have reported plans to file hundreds of Judgment Fund claims, regardless of the status of the Anti- Weaponization Fund. One attorney, who reported filing over 400 claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act for clients involved in the January 6th insurrection, described filing claims against the “existing judgment fund” as a “real possibility.”

When your Department announced the creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, it attempted to ground the Fund in precedent by comparing it to the Keepseagle settlement. The Keepseagle settlement benefited Native American farmers who had experienced discrimination at the hands of the Department of Agriculture; it was supported by years of litigation, judicial oversight, a defined class of claimants, and negotiated settlement terms. The Anti-Weaponization Fund has no certified class of claimants, no meaningful definition for qualification, and no judicial oversight — the Attorney General would control both the criteria and the payouts. Any attempt to claim Keepseagle as precedent for the Anti-Weaponization Fund or the use of the Judgment Fund as a slush fund for President Trump’s political allies is ludicrous.

The strong public and political backlash to the illegal Anti-Weaponization Fund was animated by a repulsion to the concept that the President’s political allies – including January 6 insurrectionists who beat U.S. Capitol and D.C. police officers – would benefit financially from their crimes. Yet, the Department is quietly creating that reality. We are deeply concerned by this Administration’s continued efforts to use taxpayer resources – including the Judgment Fund – to reward its allies, while claiming to disavow any payouts through the Anti-Weaponization Fund. To provide transparency to the American people and fulfill the Senate’s legislative and oversight responsibilities regarding DOJ operations, we request responses to the following questions by August 21, 2026:

Are individuals who may have been eligible to receive Anti-Weaponization Fund payments eligible to receive compensation through DOJ’s Judgment Fund, including – but not limited to – parties to the Trump v. IRS case?
Have you or any DOJ employees engaged in conversations with individuals who may have been eligible to receive Anti-Weaponization Fund payments regarding alternative mechanisms through which DOJ could compensate them, including through the Judgment Fund?
1. If so, please provide records of all communications and the names of the individuals involved in those communications.
Have you or any DOJ employees ever communicated with White House officials, including the President, regarding any specific Judgment Fund award?
1. If so, please provide records of all communications and the names of the individuals involved in those communications.
Has DOJ issued any guidance regarding payments through the Judgment Fund since January 20, 2025?
1. If so, please provide copies of that guidance, any underlying legal justification, and whether the White House was consulted on such guidance, including records of all communications involving such consultation.
Have you or any DOJ employees ever communicated with the White House about the use of the Judgment Fund to benefit President Trump, his family, his friends, or any entities or businesses affiliated with the President or his family?
1. If so, please provide records of all communications and the names of the individuals involved in those communications.
Has DOJ approved or engaged in discussions regarding any Judgment Fund awards, Federal Tort Claims Act settlements, or other forms of compensation for individuals who were charged with, convicted of, or pardoned for actions related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol?
- If so, please provide a complete list of all such claims or settlements, including the status of each claim, the monetary amounts requested or awarded, the legal basis for each settlement, and all records of communications between DOJ officials, defense counsel, or White House staff concerning these claims.
Provide a list of all payments made under the Judgment Fund since January 20, 2025.
What authorities permit DOJ to unilaterally modify the settlement agreement it entered with President Trump, despite the text of the agreement clearly requiring written consent of both parties to modify the agreement?
- During your confirmation hearing, you testified that President Trump has not provided written approval to modify the settlement agreement. Has President Trump provided such written consent? If so, please provide a copy of such communications and a copy of any related communications.
- If President Trump has not provided such approval, please provide DOJ’s legal justification for modifying the agreement.
During your confirmation hearing, you acknowledged that “if President Trump’s counsel sought to enforce [the agreement], they potentially could.” How do you reconcile your sworn testimony that the Anti-Weaponization Fund is not moving forward with other sworn statements acknowledging that President Trump may sue to enforce the settlement agreement?