[0:00]We're joined now by the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch. Mr. Blanch, thank you for joining us uh this morning. As you know, uh your release on Friday has already received response from the victims from uh Jeffrey Epstein's
[0:11]victims. I want to show the statement uh right now. It says, "Survivors are having their names and identifying information exposed while the men who abuse us remain hidden and protected. This is outrageous. The Justice
[0:22]Department cannot claim it is finishing releasing files until every legally required document is released and every abuser and enabler is fully exposed. Will there be more releases? >> I mean, look, first of all, um, we we
[0:36]took great pains, as I explained on Friday, to make sure that we protected victims. This was a we are talking about a review of of 3.5 million pieces of
[0:46]paper that were released on on Friday. Every time we hear from a victim or their lawyer that they believe that their name was not properly redacted, we immediately rectify that. And the
[0:57]numbers we're talking about, just just so the American people understand, we're talking about 0001% of of all the materials. And so, and we knew this I I said this on Friday, that
[1:09]that of course the nature of this type of review was so the volume of materials that were reviewed that there would be times when this happened. and and so we're we're working hard to make sure that we've fixed that and and I expect
[1:20]that that will continue. >> Will more documents be released? >> We have released there are small number of documents as I said on Friday that
[1:30]we're waiting for a judge to to say we can we're allowed to release because of a protective order. But there this this review is is over. I mean, we reviewed over six million pieces of paper,
[1:41]thousands of videos, thousands, tens of thousands of images, and which is what the statute required us to do. You know, it's interesting. Leadership on the on the Hill, uh, Congressman Massie,
[1:52]Senator Schumer are quick to complain. There is no way they have spent any time looking at the materials we produce because I know the materials we produce. We produce them on Friday. By Saturday,
[2:04]they're already complaining about what we did. And by the way, apparently uh Massie and others wrote a letter to come and review unredacted materials. I didn't get that letter yet. They leaked
[2:15]it to the press before they actually sent it to me. But yeah, that's absolutely totally fine. We have nothing to hide. We have nothing to hide. We never did. And and our doors are open if
[2:26]they want to come and review any of the materials that we produced. >> That was going to be my next question. So, thank you for answering it. I do want to move on right now. Uh we have some video right now showing Leon Ramos, that 5-year-old boy who was detained by
[2:37]ICE in Minnesota, being released uh today. He's on his way back home to Minnesota after a judge ordered him released. And it was a pretty blistering uh order from the judge uh Fred Bery
[2:49]down in the US District Judge District Court Judge down in Texas. He showed a photo of Liam, included some biblical uh passages saying Jesus wept, and then went on to say, "Civic's lesson to the
[3:00]government. Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. This is called the fox guarding the hen house hen house. The constitution requires an
[3:10]independent judicial officer." What's your response? >> Well, look, that's an act of litigation, so I'm limited, but I will say this. the the immigration law, the body of
[3:21]immigration law is much different than than our typical criminal process because of the administrative nature of of what we do every day. And so to the extent that we need to appeal that
[3:31]judge's decision, I I promise we will. But you see thousands and thousands of of administrative actions happening every single day in this country. And you just highlighted a single one and
[3:42]and not the thousands and thousands of others that happen. And so so th this is what we're doing is tough. What we're doing is difficult. I mean, we're talking about a situation where millions and millions and millions of of
[3:54]undocumented illegal aliens have flooded our country and we are trying to find them basically one by one. And so, you know, I don't have a comment specifically on what that judge said uh
[4:04]yesterday, but but generally speaking, we are complying with the law every single day. They are being released across the country as well by judges. And the president said he was going to prioritize those who had criminal
[4:16]records. But about 70% at least of those who have been detained don't have criminal records. >> Well, just hang on. The fact that
[4:26]they're here illegally is a crime. And so when you say they don't have criminal records, they they are by their presence being here without status having come into this country illegally or
[4:35]overstayed illegally, that is a crime. And so we have to be careful and you're right, there is a a schism in the law right now about whether an an illegal alien can be held um pending their
[4:47]proceeding or whether they need to be released on bail. We very strongly believe that they should be held and there's a bunch of appellet cases. So that's another example of something where a number of district court judges
[4:57]have reached a conclusion that we very much believe is contrary to law and there will be an appellet court and ultimately probably the supreme court that will be asked to interpret that. So, so we should be we should wait
[5:08]before we withhold judgment until the appellet courts have had their opportunity to weigh in. >> I should say to clarify the lawyer for for Liam Ramos and his father say they were following the legal process for asylum.
[5:20]>> I mean, I don't know what that means. They were following legal process. So, they applied for the judge disagreed with us. >> Excuse me. >> They applied for asylum and they were going through the legal process.
[5:32]>> Well, there's So, that's not true. That is not true. There's a very meaningful dispute about whether they had properly applied for asylum. And again, I do I cannot get into the spec the specifics of this litigation, but you can read the
[5:44]same briefs I can and what you just said is not true. >> Okay, that's what his lawyer says. So they I'm sure they'll have a response to that uh as well. I also want to ask you about the situation in Minnesota. Just
[5:54]this week, Don Lemon uh was arrested. The journalist Don Lebanon was arrested along with another uh independent uh journalist and uh he was this was despite the fact that a magistrate judge
[6:06]in an appeals court refused to approve the request and the chief federal district judge Patrick Schultz wrote that there was no no evidence that Mr. Lemon engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so. So when do you
[6:17]believe that Mr. Lemon crossed the line from reporting on what was going on to criminal activity? Conveniently missing from what you just showed, George, is the appellet court
[6:28]and a judge on the appellet court who said just a few days later there was clearly probable cause and it wasn't even a close question. So, and by the way, a grand jury, which is what our system has set up to determine whether
[6:39]probable cause exists, concluded that there was probable cause. That indictment is now public. Everybody in this country can pull it up and read for themselves and see what the grand jury found that that Mr. Lemon did. Um, I am
[6:51]not going to comment on the charges specifically because it's not appropriate. But it's interesting that that we talk about the First Amendment right. You have a right of freedom of religion, which is just as important as
[7:01]any other right that we have. And and George, I I don't know if you've if you've watched the videos or or read the indictment about what it's alleged that Mr. Lemon did. But if anybody in this country thinks that that is quote
[7:12]independent journalism, um, I I would like to have a conversation with you. Now, he's obviously has has a very good lawyer. He can raise defenses in in court to the extent he wants to, but nobody in this country should feel
[7:23]comfortable storming into a church while it's ongoing and disrupting that church service and thinking that we're just going to stand by and let that happen because there is a statute that does not
[7:35]allow that to happen. It doesn't matter if you happen to be a a former CNN journalist. It doesn't matter if you're a rier. It doesn't matter if you think you're peacefully protesting. You are
[7:45]not allowed to do that. So, you're confident he's going to be convicted and the case won't be dismissed? >> I am not going to speak to conviction. That would be completely inappropriate.
[7:55]He was indicted by a grand jury in Minneapolis and and he'll have have his day in court like everybody else. Uh >> during your confirmation hearings, you made a strong statement against partisan political investigations and
[8:07]prosecutions. And I want to show it for our audience. Partisan lawfare in our justice system wastes taxpayer money, makes communities less safe, and ruins lives.
[8:18]This should never happen in America. I've got your commitment there. There will not even be a whiff of an investigation that appears to have a political motivation to it. >> I commit to that.
[8:29]>> Since then, as you know, a number of uh targets of President Trump who've been publicly targeted by President Trump uh have been prosecuted or investigated. I want to show that right now. includes
[8:39]the former FBI director James Comey, New York Attorney General Leticia James, the Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Senators Adam Schiff, Mark Kelly and Alyssa Slotkin, Governor Tim Walls, and Mayor Jacob Fry.
[8:50]So, how do we respond to those who say you've broken your commitment? >> You just showed a handful of investigations or in grand jury indictments that have been brought. We
[9:02]are we are investigating tens of thousands of individuals and cases every single day. They are not political and based. The fact that you cherrypicked a handful that some people in the media
[9:13]have said, "Oh, those must be political." is is absurd and not fair. I mean, don't forget, George, when I walk into the Oval Office right now, I look around and often times every single
[9:23]person in that room was heavily attacked and gone after by the last Biden administration. And so, when I said to Congress and when I say to you right now that what we're there's not a whiff of
[9:34]political partisanship in what we're doing, I mean that. The mere fact that some Democrats or some individuals who have have spoken out against President Trump are being investigated is because there that's what the Department of
[9:45]Justice does. It doesn't make it political because we're investigating. And and that and that's something important. We're doing we we have we have brought down crime. We're making America safe again. We're working hard
[9:56]every day. And and those handful of investigations or cases you just show don't change that. Those indictments of James Comey and Leticia James came after the president explicitly said they're guilty as hell and justice must be
[10:07]served right now. They came after career attorneys refused to bring the the indictments and both cases have been dismissed. I mean when you I don't know what it
[10:19]means to come after people. I mean listen if you're a a prosecutor in the Department of Justice you are expected to effectuate this administration's priorities like every single prosecutor in every administration. There are some
[10:30]some prosecutors within the department who have chosen to leave. They don't want to do that. That is their right. That is fine. But if you're going to work in this department, you are going to execute on the president's priorities and that's what we do. And yes, there
[10:41]are cases that have been dismissed by judges. They're under appeal. Uh that's that's what happens in our system. And and that doesn't make the cases wrong or right. It just means that they've been dismissed and they're under appeal.
[10:52]>> Well, you just you just actually made my point right there. You said it's the president's priorities. the president calls for them publicly to be prosecuted, says they're guilty as hell, and then they're prosecuted.
[11:03]>> No, that's not the president's priorities. That's a truth that he sent out. The president's priorities are executing on making America safe again. And and that's what we're doing. And so when we go to prosecutors and we say, "You are going to do violent crime. You
[11:14]are going to do um fraud cases out of Minnesota because that's a horrible thing that's happening there." If if individual prosecutors say, "No, I don't want to do that." They they need to leave. And they do leave. And that's what I meant when I said that. I'm not
[11:25]I'm not saying that that we under no circumstances do we turn to a prosecutor and say you need to go after somebody uh because they are politically one way or another. We have never done that and we won't do that. >> But the president said it. The president
[11:37]is the one who said they're guilty as hell and justice must be served. >> You're reading a small part of a of of a truth. The truth said a lot of other things too and many other truths have said the thing. what the president has
[11:48]said publicly and what he says to me and what he says to the attorney general and what he says to the American people is he expects investigations to be fair. He expects investigations to be done right,
[11:58]but he also doesn't expect that we investigate. He expects that we that we do the right thing and that we root out the corruption. I mean, we had a an incredibly corrupt Department of Justice
[12:09]when when we came into power last year. There can be no dispute about that. There can be no dispute that the Garland Department of Justice did not do the right thing in many cases. And so to now be judged a year later because of a
[12:21]truth the president said is not appropriate. We can look at our body of work and the work that we're doing as a department every day. And and and I know that we're making this country safer again. We are bringing integrity back to
[12:32]the department notwithstanding what those in the media say differently and we're going to continue to do that. >> I want to ask you about a a report breaking in the Wall Street Journal overnight. I want to show the headline right now. It's the headline saying,
[12:43]"The spy chic bought secret stake in Trump company. $500 million investment for 49% of world liberty came months before UAE won access to tightly guarded American AI chips." It's referring to
[12:54]the national security adviser to the UAE Shik Tanun and he made this investment just before President Trump uh was inaugurated. The the article goes on to say the deal marks something
[13:04]unprecedented in American politics. a foreign government official taking a major owner ownership stake in an incoming US president's company. This is the company of President Trump's family.
[13:14]Eric Trump is the uh is the president of the company. Trump, President Trump is listed as the founder ameritus, though he's not running it directly right now. How do you respond to those who say this
[13:25]is a serious conflict of interest? I love it when when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before as if the Biden family and the Biden administration
[13:36]didn't do exactly the same thing and they were just in office. So I I look I saw that article. I I don't have a comment on it beyond um the President Trump has been completely transparent
[13:47]when his family travels for business reasons. They don't do so in secret. We don't learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it's happening. And so there there's nothing unprecedented about
[13:57]about a about the Trump organization going out and and and trying to make investments that that basically all will come back to the American people and jobs in this country. And and so this idea that there's something unourred or
[14:09]unprecedented is just a a repeated story that that isn't true. And and and that's and I and I think that that the American people know that. And the fact that we've talked about unprecedented and
[14:20]this is something that doesn't happen is is just not true. and and it's it's it shouldn't be said by these so-called newspapers that are saying it. >> Well, the president doesn't run the company, but he does profit from it. His
[14:31]financial disclosures show he's received funds from that. And law professor Kathleen Clark is quoted in the article saying, "This sure looks like a violation of the foreign amaluments clause." Tai Cobb, who served as
[14:42]President Trump's lawyer uh in in during the first administration, said, "Quote, my advice as an ethics lawyer would have been clear. You don't do business deals with the families of the leaders of foreign countries. It taints American
[14:52]foreign policy. How do you respond to Mr. Cobb? >> I don't have a response to that guy. I mean, that guy hasn't said a a nonpartisan thing in the past four years. I mean, I could have predicted
[15:04]what you just said he would say. That's what he says every time anything comes out about the president. I don't have a we The president is ethical. He talks more to the press. He says what's happening more than any president in
[15:14]history. You have a question about it, you can ask him. He gaggled on the plane last night at midnight for like 20 minutes. Okay. So, like the fact that Tai Cobb claims that he would have counseledled something different to the
[15:25]president. Okay. I mean, that guy I mean I I don't have a response to that. >> One of the questions the president also took last night when he was on Air Force One was questions about his suing the Treasury uh Department of the IRS for
[15:35]$10 billion for leaking his tax returns. Uh and he's he suggested that there could be some questions about the conflict. He says it's an interesting question. How do you respond to those who say that's a conflict of interest for the president to be seeking funds
[15:47]from those who he's administering? Look, we're looking at at at how to handle that. I mean, he's not wrong, and I don't think even you think he's wrong, that what happened there is is is
[15:59]horrible. The fact that his tax returns were were leaked. No American should have that. And and you do have Americans, whether you're the president or or just a anybody in this country has
[16:09]a right when something like that happens. And so, so I I very much sympathize with with what the president talked about and and we're looking into as a department how to how to address
[16:20]and make sure that type of thing never happens again to anybody um much less um a former president or a current president. And uh we'll go from there. >> It is wrong for a president to have his his tax returns leaked, for anyone to
[16:31]have their tax returns leaked. I agree with that. The president's also seeking $230 million from the Justice Department saying his rights were violated during the 2016 campaign. And I just wonder how you think you're going to handle that. both you as the deputy attorney general
[16:42]and the attorney general Pam Bondi have served as President Trump's personal lawyers in the past. Doesn't that pose the at least the appearance of a conflict and should you be involved in
[16:51]in dealing with that in any way? >> I mean, I haven't talked about whether I'm involved with that at all anyway. I mean, it's that's a that's a fair question, George. And we all we obviously talk about conflicts and and
[17:03]what what I'm allowed to do, what the attorney general is allowed to do because of what we've done in our past, but but there are limits to those those to those conflicts. And I do have a job to the American people and President
[17:13]Trump as a deputy attorney general. And and so I you know, we we we will we will navigate that appropriately and consistent with with the ethical rules and and get to a just result. >> Mr. Blanch, thanks for your time this
[17:24]morning. Thank you,