BLANCHE: No, I'm not going to pledge that
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WELKER: Can you pledge the DOJ will always act independently of the WH?
BLANCHE: No, I'm not going to pledge that
WELKER: So if the president asked you do to something that you feel crosses an ethical or legal line, would you do it?
BLANCHE: He would never do that. He never has. He never will.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
If he cant pledge it he wont do it.
He has already previously said that Trumps "retribution" against his "enemies" is his prerogative as president.
No DOJ has ever worked independently of the White House.
The AG works for the President. The DOJ is part of the executive branch.
This line of attack is about as disingenuous as can be.
If Trump wanted to put you in front of a firing squad would it be Blanche's duty to make it happen ?
The point is Trump is not a lawyer or legal expert, rather , he is an ignoramus. Trump has often expressed a desire for personal revenge. Is it the AG's job to make sure Trumps appetite for vengeance gets satisfied ? Sure seems to be.
Do you believe Blanche has properly acted as AG given he produced the $1.776 billion slush fund and the IRS immunity deal for Trump and his sons?
The absolute horror here. Trump has a wingman.
His wingman should not be in charge of the federal justice system.
I don't remember you being this upset when Eric Holder was the Head of the DOJ?
Who won the 2020 election? Todd blanche seems not to know.
This man is obviously in a conflict of interest and he is beholden to Trump to a very unhealthy degree. This is not even debatable.
These pathetically feeble rebuttals. There is no comparing any former AG (including Bobby Kennedy) to someone who has publicly stated that he will accept any decision Trump makes regarding his role because: "I love you, sir". His actions have further shown that he is willing to do whatever Trump tells him to do (e.g. $1.776 billion slush fund, IRS immunity for Trump and sons).
No. They work for the American people.
You mean the guy who said he was Obama's wingman and " I’m there with my boy"?
When did Blanche say that?
How can we have an Attorney General who doesnt know who won the 2020 election?
Get serious.
Exactly, he didn't
Probably the same way we have a Supreme court justice that doesn't know what a woman is. It is a strange time we live in.
Lighten up
But we all know who did
Do you approve of the DoJ approving a $1.776 billion slush fund for Trump and retroactive IRS immunity for Trump and his sons?
Do you recognize the corruption??
Yes we do even though some seem to forget.
Sorry I was under the impression the article was about Blanche...
Do you approve of the DoJ approving a $1.776 billion slush fund for Trump and retroactive IRS immunity for Trump and his sons?
Do you recognize the corruption??
[✘]
I think some got F's in high school civics
Yes, according to Gemini:
So you are somehow reading this to suggest that it is okay for the AG to cater to the legal whims of the PotUS even if they go against the need to "enforce federal law fairly, creating a long-standing tradition of independent law enforcement decision-making."??
No wonder you refuse to answer my question: "Do you approve of the DoJ approving a $1.776 billion slush fund for Trump and retroactive IRS immunity for Trump and his sons?"
Blatant corruption. One of many examples.
I am posting Gemini's response that the AG works for the president and not the American people as someone suggested. Nothing more and nothing less.
Once again the rest is your imagination trying to interpret what I said as something it isn't.
Exactly, you are trying to argue that the AG is supposed to act like an employee of the PotUS. You are spinning the Gemini response.
Wrong! That is not the relationship and is certainly NOT what the CotUS supports.
ChatGPT responding to your misguided claim (" the AG works for the president and not the American people "). A detailed answer with links. Something that you can use as a tool to understand the relationship here better:
This is basic.
It would be an AG improperly working as the president's attorney who would abuse the tools and authority of the DoJ to create a $1.776 billion slush fund for Trump and retroactive IRS immunity for Trump and his sons?. Corruption! And you ignore it!
Actually I am not trying to argue anything at all. I am stating a fact that the AG works for the president, as in he can be hired (with senate approval) and fired by the president.
The rest of your nonsensical post is just another pathetic attempt to drag me into a strawman argument of your own doing.
Thanks but no thanks,
Yes, imagine thinking the DOJ works independently of the President.
Typical exaggeration. You do not deal honestly with the claim but rather go to the extreme ... strawman crap.
You are the one claiming 100% independence.
The correct relationship is that the PotUS can nominate and fire the AG. The AG, however, is NOT the attorney for the president but rather the attorney for the United States (the people).
That means, Sean, that the AG should NOT cut deals that grant Trump and sons retroactive IRS immunity and should NOT cut deals to resolve a lawsuit where Trump (in different roles) is both the defendant and the plaintiff and holds fire rights over the 'judge'. The AG should also not abuse the DoJ to target Trump's political enemies, etc.
This is blatant corruption. But you play games and in so doing tacitly excuse Trump's behavior.
You state that fact in response to the claims of corruption. So that is your rebuttal. It is pathetic.
Nobody has questioned the ability of a president to nominate and fire an AG. Feeble strawman tactics rather than deal with the blatant corruption.
No, you are wrong again. It was in response to a claim that the AG did not work for the president.
You have gone from a strawman argument to out and out trolling.
You do not deal honestly with the claim but rather go to the extreme ... strawman crap.
You are the one claiming 100% independence.
The seed itself rebuts that specious claim. It's literally what the Democratic Congressman asked:
And it is a common phrase. It does not mean that the AG is 100% independent of the PotUS. Clearly the nomination and fire ability illustrate this. It means that the AG is supposed to be true to the law and the CotUS over the PotUS.
You know this, yet you play these pathetic, feeble, dishonest word games. Why do you continue to try to defend this corrupt administration?
No. It actually does. Words do mean things.
The irony.
Why do you continue to try to defend this corrupt administration?
It's telling that you think correcting a Democratic Congressman who grossly misstates the role of the AG in our system of government is "defending the corrupt constitution "
Blanche's denial was the only correct and honest answer our Constitution allows . And Democrats are attacking him for that rather than defending him. Sad state of affairs.
Yes, Sean, and you know damn well what that common phrase means. You know damn well that when people have routinely referred to AG independence that they are speaking of what I stated.
Pathetic, feeble, dishonest word games from you as you continue to try to defend the most corrupt administration in our history. It is sickening to behold.
The answer is that the person you are talking to agrees with the direction of events, no matter how corrupt their outcomes might be. And that should tell you that the person who is espousing these same events has no moral compass to steer them through the same, and is therefore, lost. This is, of course, my humble opinion.
It is ok, TiG. We all have eyes and can see. We all know that Sean has explicitly renounced Trump as a political figure, but he continues to defend Trump's actions and policies. Why on earth could that be? Hmmmmmmmm...
Maybe he likes those policies that diminish the standing of our nation and its values. That seems to fit.
I think many conservatives think America is and always should be:
But it turned into:
and so, they decided to burn it all down and start over because that's what whiny little bitch losers do when they don't get their way.
As we continue to down the path to absurdity. Rather than admit you are plainly, obviously wrong, you try and bluff your way out of it. Any honest person can read what you wrote and claimed. All your bluster won't change what's on the page.
OF course I know what it means. So does Blanche. That's why he answered it the way he did." "a pledge the DOJ will always act independently of the WH?" is in fact a demand that the DOJ act independent of the President, always.
Blanche is under oath. I know given the progressives effusive defense of Fauci, Clinton etc perjury, doesn't mean much to many progressives when their ox is being gored.. But Blanche is a lawyer. He is not going to answer imaginary questions and spin it to make progressives happy. If he had answered the imaginary question you want to pretend he was asked, I know you would absolutely want him indicted for perjury when his DOJ inevitably (like every DOJ before has) works with the rest of the executive branch, including the President. It is literally his job to do so.
not very patriotic in my opinion
Exactly. This is why no one at confirmation hearings ever get caught by the senate's trying to tie them down to something.
That is why jackson could not define a woman. It happens all the time, it is funny to see the outrage when it does happen
Another stupid tactic. It is pure Trumpian. No matter what, deny the obvious.
The point I made is that the term "AG independence" means that the AG is supposed to represent the people, NOT the PotUS. That when a conflict arises between the CotUS/law and the PotUS, the AG will uphold the CotUS/law against the PotUS .
That is what is meant by AG independence.
The " I love you sir " sycophant AG is obviously NOT going to do that and has demonstrated so with the $1.776 billion slush fund, the IRS immunity, the lawfare, ... Blatant. Obvious.
You continue with faux obtuseness and engage in absurd levels of denial ... it is akin to Trump continuing to claim the reflecting pool was vandalized. We all know that the argument is bullshit, yet the utter nonsense continues as if repeating absurdity will make it true.
And worse, you continue to try to defend the most corrupt administration in our history.
Trump supporters could stop their journey down that path any time you know, they're the only ones actually on it.
All that nonsense just to say you don't care if the DOJ doesn't act independently and you support and approve of a President who is clearly using the DOJ to 'trump' up charges against political opponents.
Finally when I though no progressive has a sense of humor a post like that appears. Good thing I was done with my coffee or I would have spit it out.
I can almost hear the magas wailing in the near future, when the shoe is on the other foot ...
blanche knows his legal career is over. he's only in it for a percentage of the grift at this point ...
I think people like Blanche are deluded. Just like Giuliani, et. al., they have an irrational, wishful-thinking mindset. This is bizarre from our perspective, but it is not that uncommon with those serving powerful individuals.
Right, because progressives are the ones peddling absurdity...
That you describe reality and the constitutional structure of our government operates as "nonsense" speaks volumes.
Every single head of the DOJ would have answered the question the same as blanche. That most progressives think Blanche erred shows just how widespread the ignorance is on the left. It's impossible to discuses the DOJ with people who don't have a clue regarding the basics and think the DOJ could ever, legally, be an independent entity.
I guess to say MAGA is 'on the road to absurdity' isn't quite accurate, they clearly arrived a while ago.
Correct.
I discuss it all the time, it's just pointless to debate it with rightwing conservatives. MAGA has no shame and no ethics and love the idea of empowering the President to completely weaponized the DOJ because they think Democrats did it to them first so it's fair game. Patriotic educated Americans with more than half a brain along with the American Bar Association disagree with them.
An independent DOJ is a long-standing tradition with formal internal policies requiring investigations and prosecutions to be free of partisan political influence which have been the standard since the embarrassment of the corrupt Nixon administration. These standards shouldn't change just because one party thinks their opponents used the DOJ improperly. And it certainly shouldn't justify having the DOJ do exactly the opposite of their longstanding traditions and do whatever the President tells them and have zero independence just because MAGA doesn't give a fuck about 'tradition and formal internal policies and ethics or morals', they want their pound of flesh. And if the law doesn't explicitly say they can't do something, then they're going to do whatever the fuck they want to get their revenge, fucking shortsighted dipshit losers. Of course, when there is a Democrat back in the Whitehouse, rightwing conservatives will be back to claiming the DOJ "Must be independent!!! It would be wrong for any Democrat President to use the DOJ to go after his political enemies!! Unfair! Unjust! Illegal!!". Fucking hypocrites.
I guess I'm just not in the same position as the Trump clown puppets to have that kind of perspective. Everything outside their car must look absurd to them.
Why is he still arguing about this? He's been shown over and ever that the DOJ is independent of the White House. Me thinks there is a disconnect in the space-time contiuum
Incorrect. I guess the big tent must be hard to see out of.
With all the clowns in the GOP these days, we can see the tent from miles away.
So can everyone else, and few outside the tent like what the DSA is doing inside the tent.
Are you going to provide any citations this time????
How many of Trump's lawyers have been disbarred?
Trump Lawyers Who Were Disbarred or Had Law Licenses Suspended
You need a citation showing that the DOJ is a cabinet level position in the executive branch and that the executive power of the government is vested in the President?
gemini
Maybe its a job requirement to work for him.
So that's a NO. At least you're consistant.
All well known. Repeating facts while dishonestly pretending this means the AG should side with the president over the law/CotUS.
You keep trying to deny that the AG is supposed to represent the law and not the president. You refuse to acknowledge that if a conflict exists between what the president wants / attempts and the law (including the CotUS) then the AG is supposed to follow the law/CotUS.
That is what is meant by independence in the context of the AG.
ChatGPT (again) making this clear:
To wit, the AG should NEVER have agreed to a $1.776 billion slush fund, retroactive IRS immunity for Trump and sons, lawfare against Trump's adversaries, etc.
Well, no. I didn't want to insult you by providing "cites" to knowledge that you should have learned in grammar school. Or are you weaponizing obtuseness and thinking you "win" by not pretending to not understand?
If you truly need help understanding the executive branch of government and how it functions, please read below from Chatpgt:
The idea that the DOJ can ever operate "independently" of the President is idiotic and is impossible under the Constituiton.
[✘]
You continue with the faux obtuseness.
I have stated the common understanding of what people mean when they speak of AG independence. You continue to pretend that the meaning is 100% independence (as in complete isolation). It is a ridiculously stupid argument you are making ... basically redefining the meaning of the phrase to play a childish semantics game.
Yet again you post a totally dishonest argument ... arguing a strawman redefinition of the phrase.
If a conflict exists between what the president wants / attempts and the law (including the CotUS) then the AG is supposed to follow the law/CotUS. That is what people mean by "AG independence". The AG represents the law (the people).
That is my point. Let's see you rebut it with facts. (You will fail.)
To the best of my knowledge you never have, so you are consistent.
[✘]
And who does the president work for?
(4) Post by @boom-whatsgoingon.bsky.social — Bluesky
And people like Blanche will continue to break the law until someone with a backbone says enough and starts prosecuting all the corrupt assholes in this administration
[✘]
A bullshit tactic. If you refuse to acknowledge the blatantly obvious corruption in the DoJ and the Trump administration in general, then no amount of lists by others is going to help you.
Instead, those of us who are grounded in reality will continue to view such specious and indefensible denials with fully justified contempt.
[✘]
Exactly what Biden did to Trump supporters. Where was your poutrage then. Nothing in this says it is illegal, but an AG looking out for the betterment of the country.
"
I went back through your posts to find the corresponding poutrage that Biden did not unredact or release Epstein files. Nobody cares about them...well, at least nobody with sense and have lives.
" Jan. 6 Slush Fund: Blanche faced fierce bipartisan backlash for supporting a proposed $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded compensation program aimed at January 6 defendants before the administration backed down"
What's your point? This fund never came into existence and Blanche himself said it would never be. What is illegal about that?
" Immunity and Legal Settlements: Legal groups and organizations like Common Cause criticized Blanche for orchestrating favorable legal settlements and broad protections—such as a settlement regarding Trump's IRS lawsuit—raising profound conflicts of interest given Blanche's prior role as Trump's criminal defense attorney. [ 1 , 2 "
"Legal groups and organizations" If there was something illegal there, contact your democrat legislatures and demand they investigate this "illegal act". I can assure you that if there was something illegal, it would already have been done. It hasn't.
" Bar Complaints: Legal ethics groups including Lawyers Defending American Democracy filed formal complaints with the New York bar, asserting that Blanche violated his constitutional oath and professional ethics standards to prioritize personal loyalty over impartial justice. "
So left wing groups that are butthurt for no reason.
Now, please answer my question. What laws did Blance break?
Of course, you try to deflect to Biden. What a pathetic attempt.
And you ignore the fact that Blanche agreed to the slush fund and then excuse it because it has not (yet) materialized. Ignoring the corruption. You also ignore the IRS immunity (which apparently is in effect).
Despicable support for the most corrupt administration in our history.
Where's the support for your claims? You requested, I supplied, now put up or shut up.
First I did not post my opinion. Second, did Biden campaign on transparently releasing all the files? And last, does one administration doing something shitty absolve the next one from doing something shitty?
Again, if you comprehend what you read, I don't have a fucking personal point, it's an online list. The fund was negotiated and approved by Blanche, and multiple judges had found it illegal blocking it's formation.
I'm sure the Dems will get their chance in the House next year when they take back the chamber. There are, however, multiple lawsuits against the current DOJ.
You saying so, does not make it true. Deflecting to Dems in all your answers say more about you than it does about the dems, though.
Let's start with two of the sources of your answers. If there are more, I did not look at them because more than likely they are just like the two I highlighted. From Chat GTP
"Justice Connection:
Short answer: Justice Connection itself is not rated by major media‑bias evaluators, but based on what reliable sources report about its activities and positioning, it aligns with left‑leaning / liberal advocacy. This is an evidence‑based characterization, not a value judgment. Please confirm with trusted sources.
What the evidence shows
The organization’s actions and public statements consistently place it on the left‑of‑center side of U.S. politics:
It was launched at a Democratic‑led congressional briefing focused on alleged targeting of DOJ career staff by the Trump administration.
It organized an open letter signed by 1,200 former federal prosecutors criticizing Trump‑era pressure on DOJ attorneys.
It aired a Fox News ad criticizing Trump administration actions, including firing national‑security officials and restructuring ATF/DEA.
Its founder, Stacey Young, has publicly stated that the Trump administration “doesn’t believe in civil rights enforcement anymore,” a position aligned with liberal civil‑rights advocacy.
It is described as an advocacy group of Justice Department alumni concerned about political reshaping of DOJ under Trump."
"Political Defenders Fund"
Short answer: Political Defenders Fund appears to be left‑of‑center, based on all available evidence. (Please confirm details with a trusted source.)
Funny thing is.....the founder of this site is the same as the founder of the first site. Shocking they are so close in ideology s/
What the search results actually show
The name “Political Defenders Fund” does not appear in any reputable source returned by the search. However, the results overwhelmingly point to Democracy Defenders Fund / State Democracy Defenders Fund, which is:
Left‑of‑center in ideological alignment
Opposed to Donald Trump and aligned with Democratic election‑law efforts
Led by Norm Eisen, a former Obama administration official
Operating a PAC that supports Democratic candidates, including Kamala Harris’s 2024 campaign
So just another left wing "Hate Trump" organization. Not surprising you would use it because it fits your narratives.
"I supplied, now put up or shut up"
You supplied a left wing group that hates Trump. Nothing more
"First I did not post my opinion."
Exactly. Why would you when those on the left only cared about Epstein when Trump came n the scene. That largely backfired on them when the vast majority of evidence came out against democrats than against Republicans, and more importantly, nothing against Trump. That is probably why Biden did not run on it. He was VP under Obama. He knew what was in it.....or at least his puppet handlers knew.
"I don't have a fucking personal point, it's an online list. "
And I showed you by whom. Not to be taken seriously.
"The fund was negotiated and approved by Blanche, and multiple judges had found it illegal blocking it's formation."
OK, so the Trump admin followed the judicial order. Why do you have a problem with it?
"I'm sure the Dems will get their chance in the House next year when they take back the chamber"
Maybe but not likely. Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot with these communists that they are embracing, including most of their lemming base.
"There are, however, multiple lawsuits against the current DOJ."
Of course there are TDS runs deep with the democratic party.
"You saying so, does not make it true."
Says the guy that uses a hate Trump site to confirm biases and nods his head in agreement with every word typed by them.
Now.....With UNBIASED sources, show what laws Blanche has broken
So, you don't have any support for your claims. Got it.
Also, why the fuck would it matter if the left was outraged or not? If you prove Biden did anything similar, which neither you nor this feckless administration have, does that justify Trump doing it? Of course not, that would be stupid. But I guess that's never stopped a Trump supporter, they make entire careers out of stupid.
...that you can't refute so you have to attack the messenger. Nice try, but no one with more than half a brain is buying the bull shit from the right anymore, though I'm sure there are several conservatives around here who just love eating that shit up.
[deleted]
[✘] The sites that were provided were opinion sites begging for donations and chock full of anti Trump haters.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Now, maybe you can answer the question..
Using LEGITIMATE UNBIASED sources, what laws has Blanche broken?
[deleted] [✘] Just the laws that were broken with LEGITIMATE, UNBAIASED links.
Thanks
Weasels don't change their spots. He stood by that deal until it came down to the deal or his job grifting for his gay Presidential lover.
People calling Democratic Socialists communists aren't to be taken seriously. To the point though... the rise of populism on the left is as dumb as the MAGA populism already entrenched on the right. It's a response, albeit a dumb one, that will have the same consequences should they ever achieve the same power as the right.
Google Gemini is a hate Trump site? Wow...
What's really hilarious is seeing rightwing conservatives steeped in their own rightwing media that is absolutely dripping with bias claim they want "LEGITIMATE UNBIASED sources". Those on the right don't even have a fucking clue as to what "unbiased" even means anymore they are so fucking skewed right. But it is rather adorable that some fucking useless rightwing conservative bigots think their sources are "unbiased". And what the fuck is a "legitimate" source? As if they have to get some approval before reporting the facts. At least these dumb shits are a never-ending source of entertainment but that's the only redeeming factor about rightwing conservatives' laughable arguments.
When you can prove otherwise, let me know. I will be expecting silence.
"He stood by that deal until it came down to the deal or his job grifting for his gay Presidential lover."
This is nothing but unhinged left wing wet dreams. You can do better s/
"People calling Democratic Socialists communists aren't to be taken seriously"
From Google AI
While many elected candidates and members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) reject the communist label, some internal caucuses, national leaders, and organizational platform drafts explicitly embrace communist or Marxist definitions and goals
You were saying?
Unhinged TDS dripping rant. Nothing more
embracing communists.....lol....that's rich seeing how trmp cozied up to Lil Kim a few days ago...
Come on now, how can someone named "Little Rocket Man" and sends Trump love letters be a communist ?
And of course your post tries to push the misguided notion that Communism per the former USSR, et.al. is the same as Communism per Marx. The two are polar opposites.
Amazing that some stubbornly refuse to learn.
Democratic Socialists supporting Communism are supporting an ideal … a system where technology has eliminated poverty and people are free to contribute to society based on talent and passion. It is a stateless, classless society where there is no minority controlling the majority.
It is a Utopia, and likely unrealistic vision, but that is Communism per Marx. Marx would have rejected using Communism as the label for a brutal, authoritarian system that exploits the people for the benefit of the elite.
For your reading pleasure form Google AI.
DSA goal is full blown communism, but we know our modern liberals.....
"It will be (D) ifferent this time
State the defining characteristics for the Communism you (foolishly) think DSA supports.
you are asking for a miracle
Well then please do enlighten us by listing all these "LEGITIMATE UNBIASED sources" that the right uses to stay informed and prove their points.
Also, I notice you don't even try to refute my opinion, likely because you can't with anything resembling facts, but instead falsely label it "TDS". I don't even mention Trump and yet you bring up TDS? I think that settles which side really has that particular derangement syndrome.
Can you name the only US president to salute a communist leader?
Seriously?
Are you telling me that Cornyn and Tillis didn't hold up Blanche's nomination until he capitulated on the slush fund?
I'm surprised you used a Trump hating site. You certainly didn't prove the point you thought you did using it.
Exactly
Speaking a little broadly, Todd Blanche is an election denier.
This begs the question - is he a puppet of Donald Trump ?
Obviously is. "I love you, sir."
So is the apple of Trumps eye Natalie Harp by the way.
I love it! My first good giggle of the morning