All the President’s Henchmen

Strict Scrutiny

This episode of Strict Scrutiny examines the confirmation and swearing-in of Todd Blanche as Attorney General, highlighting concerns over his political purges within the Department of Justice,

Key takeaways

• The confirmation of Todd Blanche was narrowly approved, reflecting deep partisan divisions but insufficient scrutiny over his record.
• Blanche's tenure involved widespread firings of career DOJ employees based on political loyalty rather than merit.

Main topics

• Attorney General confirmation process
• Political purges in federal agencies

Notable quotes

I ask no favor for my sex. The task of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.

Conclusion

The episode underscores a critical moment in American governance where political

Transcript preview

Speaker 4 (0:00) Strict Certainty is brought to you by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 250 years into the American experiment, it's time for all of us to decide, what kind of country do we want to be? The founding fathers got a lot of things wrong, but one thing they got right was knowing that church and state need to be kept separate. Christian nationalists are trying to destroy that history and take this country down a scary path. They are misusing government power to impose their beliefs, to rewrite our history, and to decide who belongs in America. AU refuses to let that happen. Every single day, Americans United is fighting back and holding the line against Christian nationalism with everything they've got. AU has sued the Trump administration seven times in the last year alone and 12 times since his second administration began. They have challenged government officials who use taxpayer resources to promote their religious beliefs. They're exposing abuses of power, defending public schools, and holding the government accountable when it violates the Constitution. But filing lawsuits, changing policy, and community advocacy don't happen on their own. They happen because people like you decide to be part of the fight. If you're looking for an empowered community to join, take a look at what's going on at AU. Just visit au.org forward slash crooked to learn more and join the fight today. Target Speaker 1 (1:23) men, targets against two beautiful ladies like this. They're going to have the last word. Speaker 1 (1:29) She spoke, not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. The task of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. Speaker 3 (1:59) Hello and welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. I am your lone regular host today, Kate Shaw, and I'm very happy to be joined by guest host Liz Oyer, former pardon attorney of the United States and federal public defender and host of the new podcast, Is This Really Legal? Liz, welcome to Strict Scrutiny. Thanks Speaker 6 (2:19) so much for having me, Kate. Speaker 3 (2:21) Well, I'm delighted you're here and listeners. Liz and I are going to run through the latest legal news. And after that, I am delighted to bring you a conversation with Julia Angwin and Ami Fields-Meyer about their new book on courage, how to be a dissident in an age of fear. The book is incredible. So definitely don't miss that conversation. Okay, but Liz, let's get started. I am super happy to have you with me today because there is a lot of DOJ news to cover, and I know DOJ is very much your beat. So maybe let's start with the swearing-in of one Todd Blanche. Now, you testified against Blanche in his Senate confirmation hearing, alas, to no avail because he ultimately was confirmed. although it was a squeaker, right? And I do take some small comfort in the fact that I think this was the closest confirmation of an attorney general in history, 50 to 49. At least I haven't found any that were closer, which would have meant a tiebreaker by the vice president, which didn't have to happen here. But I guess it was important that there was as much opposition as there was to Blanche. And Liz, will you just tell our listeners for a minute about kind of what you emphasized in your testimony against him? Speaker 6 (3:28) Yeah, this was a real nail-biter, Kate. I mean, it came down to the wire. There were about two weeks of negotiations between a couple of Republican holdouts and the White House over Blanche's confirmation. But I have to say, I was really disappointed that the number of issues that got any traction with Republicans as potential reasons to oppose Blanche was actually very, very small. There were really only two issues that broke through at all. One, to a lesser extent, was the Epstein matter. and Blanche's mishandling of the Epstein files and his mistreatment of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. And the other was this issue with the corrupt settlement fund that was entered into between essentially Donald Trump on one side of this litigation and Donald Trump on the other side of the litigation. And that was the one that ended up really holding up the negotiations over whether Blanche would be confirmed, this settlement agreement. But those were the only two issues. There are actually so many reasons to oppose Todd Blanche as attorney general. And that's what I focused on in my testimony. I testified about my own personal experience of being fired by Todd Blanch shortly after he was confirmed as the deputy attorney general. And I was one of many people. I was part of a purge of the career workforce of the Justice Department. Blanche oversaw hundreds of firings of people for political reasons, essentially, because of cases that they worked on under the previous administration and because of their refusal to essentially rubber stamp. political favors for friends of the president. In my case, I refused to rubber stamp the reinstatement of the gun ownership rights of a friend of the president who had lost his right to own a firearm because he was convicted of a very serious domestic violence crime. So Blanche has really decimated the career workforce of the Justice Department. He has eradicated expertise from the building and replaced it with political loyalty. And that is a major concern on the part of many ex-DOJ employees like myself. Speaker 3 (5:31) And can I just say that DOJ is one really important part of the story and like the tip of the spear in many ways. But I do think it's about inaugurating an entirely new, well, new today, actually old, but ethos of government service in which really, Jobs in the federal government go to the patrons and cronies of the people at the very top, the president and the president's top aides. And then the apparatus of government is deployed to reward the friends and to punish the enemies of those at the very top of the federal government. And we actually did have a spoil system in federal employment for not actually the first century, but starting in like the 1820s and 1830s. And we started to get rid of it in the late 19th century. And what they are trying to do is to bring it back. And I think the kind of firing federal. workers at the Department of Justice is one part of this much larger agenda. And I'm so glad that you highlighted it both in your testimony and here. And I do think that it was an enormous missed opportunity to highlight that reason or set of reasons to vote against Blanche. Not that the other two that mishandling Epstein and you didn't even mention here, but obviously his treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell, the prison transfer, the sort of wildly, I think for real experts, inappropriate. the kind of way that the Blanche interview of Maxwell was conducted. But all of that, you know, got some traction, maybe not as much as it should have. But yes, obviously, the corrupt settlement, I'm glad that it seemed to even for Republicans be too much to swallow. But I think that that obviously wasn't enough at the end of the day to defeat his nomination and wasn't remotely the kind of full picture of his lack of qualifications for the office. Nevertheless, he squeaks by, he's confirmed. And I want to turn now to the swearing in, because that's happened since we last recorded our podcast. Now, it's actually pretty meaningful who a public official chooses to swear them into office, like at the very highest levels, like the attorney general. I actually wrote a little piece about an aspect of this a few years back. And in that, like essay. I told the story of being a young lawyer in the Obama presidential transition and then going into the White House Counsel's Office. And I tried as a pretty junior lawyer in that operation, as we were talking about the inauguration, to make the case that President Obama should have Justice Stevens swear him in. And my case was that Stevens was likely to retire very soon. He was a Chicagoan, like the president was. And it seemed like it would be just like an awesome gesture. And I'm a former Stevens clerk. And so obviously, I was advocating for my boss. But I was quickly overruled. And the more senior people were like, No, it's usually the chief justice. And it would be not wise to start a presidential term alienating the most powerful jurors in the country by snubbing him. And that I'm sure was right as a matter of kind of the politics of it. And so Roberts was invited to and he did administer the oath to Obama. He famously flubbed the oath like he didn't bring notes with him. And so he transposed a few words. Roberts did. And so Obama repeated them back kind of wrong. And it meant that we had to. arrange for the readministration of the oath the next day because the presidential oath is in the Constitution. And there was like 24 hours of kind of a question about whether he was the lawful president having not actually said the oath the Constitution requires. Anyway, so that's a long detour. Well, you were right. It should have Speaker 6 (8:35) been Justice Stevenson. It would have solved all the problems and maybe Speaker 3 (8:39) so many more. But in any event. Liz, who did our new attorney general choose to swear him into office? Speaker 6 (8:46) Yeah, this is wild, Kate. So Judge Emil Bove swore in Todd Blanche. And Judge Emil Bove has been a judge for about five minutes. He was part of the original DOJ team under Trump, too. And he came to that role from being one of Donald Trump's personal lawyers, sitting next to Todd Blanche in court for weeks and months as these criminal cases against Donald Trump. played out. So he and Blanche, Beauvais and Blanche, were in the trenches together as Donald Trump's personal criminal defense team. They both went on to serve in the Justice Department, and then Beauvais got this lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge on the Third Circuit as sort of a reward for his early service in the administration. He was doing the dirtiest of dirty work during the early weeks of the administration as they were trying to implement very aggressive deportation policies, invoking the Alien Enemies Act, etc. And shortly after, he was rewarded with this federal appellate judgeship, and then he was brought back into the Oval Office. earlier this week to swear in Todd Blanche to the position of attorney general. It was really remarkable to see the gang back together, the Trump criminal defense team, the personal criminal defense attorneys reunited for the swearing in of the attorney general, really just kind of highlighting and underscoring the fact that Trump has surrounded himself by these lawyers who are loyal to him above everything else, and he has put them in positions of tremendous power in our society. Speaker 3 (10:24) Absolutely. And you said this, Liz, the Oval Office, right? Traditionally, attorneys general are sworn in at the Department of Justice. That is customary. That did not happen here. The swearing in happened at the Oval Office. Beauvais, as you mentioned, has been a judge on the Third Circuit for about five minutes. Now, judges, actually, typically Supreme Court justices often do swear in attorneys general. Sometimes vice presidents do. It is not typically a brand new judge on the Third Circuit. This was clearly, I thought, a signal being sent that, you know, echoes what you were saying before, that kind of personal relationships and personal relationships with Donald Trump in particular are the coin of the realm in Todd Blanch's Justice Department. And also that just kind of Donald Trump is the star around which kind of all of these players orbit, right? Like that message was, I think, crystal clear. I was just trying to think of like... Is there anyone who could have been trollier to choose to swear him in, like Alina Haba, Don Jr.? Like, it was just, I mean, because Beauvais, as you said, is not only a former Trump defense attorney before he was in the Justice Department and then on the federal bench. His conduct since ascending to the bench has been pretty sus, as my kids would say. He attended a Trump rally as a sitting judge. He, according to the New York Times, at least has or at least had as of July a photo of Trump after he was shot in the ear at the Butler, Pennsylvania rally, the one where his fist is in the air, as the— background image on his iPhone. And that's obviously to say nothing of the kind of, you know, you sort of said sort of dirtiest of work that he did in the Justice Department. You mentioned the Alien Enemies Act, right? Like there, you know, is pretty serious evidence, according to a DOJ whistleblower, that the day before Judge Boasberg's order to turn the planes around of these individuals being sent to El Salvador pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, that... Beauvais allegedly said that DOJ might need to tell the courts F you and ignore an order. And then there's also evidence that Beauvais ordered deplaning of deportees even after Boesberg had ruled. Boesberg, the judge in the D.C. District Court, has found probable cause to believe the government willfully disobeyed his order. I think probably that means Beauvais did, although I think that's not explicit. Anyway, that's the guy that Blanche and Trump decided to highlight. because he's now on the bench and they think he and they are untouchable. Speaker 6 (12:50) Yeah, it's really pretty stunning. I mean, the fact that Beauvais has Trump's picture on his phone says a lot about him. Most people on their cell phone screensaver, it's like their significant other or their dog or their Speaker 4 (13:03) cat. Speaker 6 (13:03) Yeah, so Trump occupies a special place in his heart, and he does for Blanche, too. I mean, Blanche said on national television, I love you, sir, directed to the president. They really have this close, like inappropriately close relationship. There is no arm. arm's length objectivity, which is a really big problem here. We need people in these positions who can make objective decisions about what is in the interests of the people of this country, not how to best serve Donald Trump, the man. But Donald Trump doesn't want that sort of arm's length objectivity. He wants people who are completely 100 percent loyal to him. And that's who he's surrounded himself by. And I thought it was really interesting that this swearing in was closed to the press. which is very unusual. I mean, Donald Trump has the press in the Oval Office all the time for every last little thing, but not for this. The only photos that we saw coming out of this swearing-in ceremony were taken by people who were in the room. I believe Caroline Leavitt posted some of the photos of the swearing-in by Beauvais, but the press was not allowed in there, so there was no opportunity to ask any questions about what the optics mean or what message was trying to be sent by having Beauvais back in the office. Oval Office, this sitting judge appointed by Trump swearing in his best buddy, his bro, Todd Blanche. So that was a weird little quirk. Speaker 3 (14:25) So not even no questions, but also like nobody there to witness what was said or transpired. I mean, nobody like from the press corps or outside of the kind of core of the Trump operation. Okay, well, that's chilling. Hadn't even thought about that. Great. Another reason to be really disturbed by this whole sequence of events. Okay, but let's move on and canvas some other developments in Todd Blanche's Justice Department just in recent days. First, the developments around the reflecting pool. So Melissa and guest host Ellie Mistal discussed last week on our last episode the fact that just over a week ago, the Justice Department announced in pretty dramatic fashion that it was dropping the clearly bogus charges of vandalism against Olympian David Hearn, D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro filed this pretty remarkable 20-page memo basically admitting that a botched renovation, not vandalism, was responsible for the problems in the reflecting pool. And Pirro lays the blame basically entirely at the feet of the Department of Interior and the Parks Department, which is a component of it, which on her telling did not supply the U.S. Attorney's Office with relevant evidence despite like dozens and dozens, as she says, of requests. for like full information, thereby somehow compelling the office to charge an innocent man with vandalism. That part isn't totally explained. But anyway, it's obviously the fault of the Interior Department. I have to say the filing is a pretty funny read in the age of the unitary executive. But the bottom line is Ellie and Melissa made clear is that like Piro, who we've referred to on this podcast as a box of wine, should actually maybe be given some credit for having real spine here. Or maybe not. Did she grow a spine? Like, do you have theories on why she actually ate crow the way she did and said, like, our bad. There was not a crime here. Like, it was quite striking. Speaker 6 (16:15) Yeah. So normally when the Justice Department moves to dismiss charges, it is a very terse, short filing, like one paragraph. They don't have to even explain themselves most of the time. So it was really notable that this was like a 20-page filing that laid out in incredible detail all of the problems with the reflecting pool. And I think that largely the audience for that was Donald Trump. I mean, that's the only audience that most of these political appointees at DOJ really care about is how is this going to be perceived by the president? Piro was trying to make the case to Donald Trump that this was not her fault. It was Doug Burgum's fault, the secretary of the interior, who dropped the ball here and misinformed her. And she didn't need to, you know, provide this elaborate justification to the court. She was doing it for Donald Trump. I think that there is a real problem here for Janine Pirro, though, at the end of the day, which is that this filing makes it very clear that she proceeded with bringing these charges before she had done sufficient investigation to have a factual and evidentiary basis for the charges. The Justice Department's own internal operating procedures, as well as just basic common sense, say that you should not proceed with bringing a case before you have fully investigated it and you're sure that you have the evidence to make the charges stick. So the fact that Pirro went ahead and charged a felony, which was the more serious of the two options on the table, a felony versus a misdemeanor, without doing any investigation to show that she could even prove that A, Hearn caused the damage, and B, that the damage rose to the level of a felony threshold, meaning that it caused more than $1,000 of damage to the reflecting pool, is just really reckless, irresponsible, and potentially sanctionable conduct. I mean, Pirro could be disciplined by the bar. The attorneys who brought this case in her office could be disciplined by the bar for proceeding in that way. Bringing criminal charges, it's not just a matter of like, A piece of paper that you file, it endangers someone's liberty. It puts someone's liberty at risk, their constitutional rights at risk. It is incredibly traumatizing to be subjected to a criminal prosecution. So the fact that this was done so lightly and so recklessly is really pretty appalling. And her own filing makes that clear. Speaker 3 (18:33) Absolutely. And nevertheless, like despite how obvious it is that this case should never have been brought and maybe her effort to save her own skin in filing this kind of mea culpa, it doesn't sound as though she's going to just like. be allowed to let this thing go quietly because the president has made very clear that he is quite displeased with Pirro, who he has accused of having, quote, folded like an umbrella, which I think is Trump speak for like having paid even the slightest attention to the basic demands of the rule of law, or maybe as you're suggesting, Liz, just sort of self-preservation. So what did we learn last week about whether the president is willing to just let this go and move on? Speaker 6 (19:12) Yeah, he does not want to let this go. And it's all about saving face for him. He has put out there this theory that he invented that the reflecting pool was damaged by vandals, that there was nothing wrong with the installation job that he had done at great expense to taxpayers. It was all about these these vandals who, for some reason, wanted to destroy the reflecting pool. So he has to save face and he has chosen a scapegoat to save face. And it is unfortunately for Mr. Hearn. It is David Hearn. He is the scapegoat. And Donald Trump wants to proceed with charges against Hearn, despite what. Pirro put in this filing. So it has been reported by The Wall Street Journal and other outlets now that the Justice Department is exploring the possibility of bringing new charges against David Hearn. They're looking at possibly bringing a misdemeanor, which would mean that they don't have to present the case to a grand jury. So that would make it a little bit easier. And they don't have to prove the monetary threshold. They don't have to prove that his damage. caused exceeded $1,000. The idea that they're exploring this at all is absolutely ludicrous, and it is just so wrong. I mean, they're persecuting this man because Donald Trump. is embarrassed, which is not the way our justice system is supposed to operate. And I find this to be one of the scariest prosecutions that this administration has initiated because this is just a person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I mean, he was riding his bike on the National Mall like hundreds of other citizens, and he stuck his hand in the reflecting pool, and now suddenly he is at the center of a... nationally important matter to the president and his rights are imperiled. He's thrust into the spotlight. It is costing time and energy. And that could happen to any of us. And that's very scary. Speaker 3 (21:00) I think that's such a great point because the president and his... Justice Department goons have targeted a lot of people that have displeased the president. And you might be tempted to say, well, those are people who have like really stood up and taken positions. And so they have been targeted. And like that, you know, is something that if you have the courage to stand up and like take on powerful players, like sometimes then you'll become a target, which is not a reason not to stand up. But I guess that the second point is that. It's also, I think this episode makes clear that even if you don't stand up, you're not safe in like an aspiring authoritarian regime because literally anyone, I think wrong place at the wrong time is exactly right. Like riding his bike, touch the water. Like this is a public place. It's a park. Like it is our park. We can all be there. And if that happens and somehow something that you do displeases the ruler, like you could end up charged with a felony and then. charged again, even after it's become totally clear that there's no way to prove a felony. And so I guess at the end of the day, I think that the lesson here is no one is safe in this lawless administration. And that is all the more reason to stand up, which it seems like Hearn didn't invite this, but is very much standing up to fight it. And I think that that and his legal team have been really inspiring. So we will see what develops. There is a hearing next month. on whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice of this initial round of charges. And I guess we'll see whether Trump manages to get his way. And I don't see how Pirro, having filed what she did, could possibly keep, you know, file another, like, bring misdemeanor charge and keep her job. I think you'd probably need a new U.S. attorney to start from scratch. But I guess we will see. Speaker 4 (22:42) Struck scrutiny is brought to you by Smalls. Cats thrive on protein, but did you know that some cat foods contain so much carbohydrate filler that they're closer to a granola bar than a prey animal? Not Smalls. Smalls Fresh Cat Food is protein-packed recipes made with preservative-free, 100 % human-grade ingredients that you would find in your fridge. And it's delivered right to your door. Smalls' fresh, gently cooked food is made without preservatives and offers a balanced diet, which leads to less shedding, fewer hairballs, and more silky shine. And more protein for your cat means more fuel, sustained energy, and strong bones and muscles. Our customers love Smalls. Take it from Emmy L., who says, Smalls changed my cat's life, and I know she would no longer be here if it weren't for Finding You. She will be 20 in April. Within two months of starting Smalls, she was like a kitten again. And M-E-L isn't alone. 88 % of cat owners reported overall health improvements after switching to Smalls. So stop serving your little carnivore a bowl of processed shortcuts. For a limited time, because you're a StrictCertainty listener, you can get 60 % off your first order of Smalls, plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head over to Smalls.com forward slash strict. One last time. That's 60 % off your first order, plus shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com forward slash strict. Strict Certainty is brought