Dem
47
GOP
53
Yesterday, anonymous sources inside the White House told reporters that Donald Trump was planning to nominate Acting AG Todd Blanche to the permanent gig. A few hours later Trump delivered remarks at a private event, and confirmed that is the plan.
Trump could always change his mind, of course. But the President's indecisiveness is not the reason that we added a question mark to the headline for this item. No, the problem—which we've written about before, and which it does not take a "politics insider" to identify—is that Blanche has already shown himself to be a fawning lackey whose primary interest is in using the powers of the Department of Justice to advance Trump's political—and, more importantly, personal—goals. That can mean, and has meant, going after Trump's perceived enemies (e.g., E. Jean Carroll, James Comey). It can mean, and has meant, helping Trump himself commit lawless acts (e.g., the slush fund and sweetheart "Get out of Jail Free" card).
The 100 members of the United States Senate are aware of this. They are also aware that if Blanche is confirmed, and no longer has to worry about Senate oversight, he could turn up the corruption to 11 (as that is, after all, one more than 10). Some of them, the ones running for reelection in 2026 (or maybe 2028) are also aware that they could end up on the hook with voters for whatever bad acts Blanche commits. We think it's fair to say that Trump deserves most of the blame for the misdeeds of "Health" and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. However, whose reputation is it that will be permanently ruined? Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who knew better and voted for Kennedy anyhow.
These things being the case, we are unpersuaded that Blanche can secure Senate confirmation. If the four Reagan Republicans who will be out of a job in January—Cassidy, John Cornyn (TX), Mitch McConnell (KY), Thom Tillis (NC)—vote against confirmation, then that could be enough to kill the nomination, depending on what Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) does. And that's before the talk about Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who may be the one actual moderate Republican left in the Senate, Susan Collins (R-ME), who is facing a tough reelection battle, or Rand Paul (R-KY) who is hopping mad about the slush fund. Note also that Tillis and Cornyn are both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (and Fetterman is not), so their two votes alone would be enough to block the nomination from even reaching the floor of the Senate. Anyhow, watch to see if today, or sometime over the next few days, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) says something to reporters along the lines of "Well, I just don't know if this nomination can get over the line."
And speaking of the slush fund, Trump spoke to reporters yesterday, and was asked about it. In response, he said the quiet part out loud: "I'd have to ask the lawyers. I don't know. The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing. I love it. I think it's so important."
The correct thing to do was to give the Full Sherman, and to insist that the fund is dead, dead, dead, dead, dead. We can't imagine why he wouldn't give the Full Sherman, since he's an inveterate liar who always reverses previous positions anyhow, and since the part he cares about isn't really the money, it's the "Get out of Jail Free" card. In any event, the 100 senators, and in particular the 53 Republicans, are all going to pick up on the subtext here: "As soon as the White House has what it wants from the Senate, corruption season is open again." This is not going to help with the Blanche nomination, and it's not going to help with the reconciliation bill, either. Note, incidentally, that the Senate has only about 30 workdays left before the midterms, so the strategy of "run out the clock, rather than defy Trump openly" is on the table. (Z)