Quick Takes (v74): What I'd Ask Todd Blanche

Todd Blanche, a key FOTUS personal attorney (FPA) and current acting Attorney General of the US, is appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee today as it considers his nomination to lose the 'acting' tag and assume the AG role for real.

I expect he'll get many questions about the Epstein files; that's fine. After all, his predecessor (and fellow FPA) Pam Bondi said all things Epstein were in his portfolio.  And, as we all know, the one thing our highly partisan DC politicians can agree on is that all publicity is good, and asking Epstein questions will guarantee them the attention they crave.

Me? With very few exceptions, I'm much less interested in questions about Epstein (I'll tell you why in another post) than I am in hearing him differentiate his work as an FPA from his work in the DOJ. Here's what I'm interested in as far as Epstein goes:

• The Federal Bureau of Prisons maintains strict rules that generally disqualify sex offenders from serving time in white-collar-crime type 'prison camps. Do you agree with those rules, yes or no?

• You interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, who had been sentenced to 20 years in prison, for nine hours. Shortly after, she was transferred to a prison camp in Texas, putting her closer to family members. Her transfer appears to go against the rules.

Yes or no, did you promise her a transfer in return for her testimony?

Yes or no, did you ask that she be transferred or considered for transfer?

Yes or no, did you approve her transfer?  If you didn't approve her transfer, who did?

• How many other convicted sex offenders has the DOJ transferred to be closer to their family members?  Were you involved in any of those decisions?

• Yes or no, did you make any promises to Maxwell for her testimony?

• Yes or no, did you have any discussions with the FOTUS in advance of your interview with her? If yes, what was the nature of those discussions?

• Yes or no, have you been involved in any discussions regarding a potential pardon for Maxwell? 

Other questions I'd love to have answered, regarding the FOTUS lawsuit against the IRS:

• Generally speaking, in your current role as Acting AG, who is your client, the United States or the president?

• Do you believe there is enough separation between the president as an individual and the president as head of the Executive Branch - and your boss - that a lawsuit such as his against the IRS can meet the requirement that the plaintiff and defendant must be truly different parties?

Based on your answer to the 'who is your client' question, do you believe it was appropriate to be personally involved in settling the president's IRS lawsuit, yes or no?

Why did you not wait until the Courts determined the legitimacy of the lawsuit before proposing the settlement you did? 

Did you believe, or do you believe, that the fund you proposed to award taxpayer money to people not involved in the settled lawsuit was in the best interests of the United States?

Did you believe, or do you believe, that barring the IRS from completing any open audits, or opening any new audits on taxes filed before May 2026, was in the best interests of the United States?

Would you have approved either settlement provision with any other taxpayers?

• When the president's taxes were leaked by an IRS employee, how many other individual or corporate taxpayers also had their information released - was it hundreds of people? Thousands of people? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

Not counting corporate taxpayers, how many of those whose taxes were released, including the president, sued the IRS for the unauthorized disclosure?

How many of those who sued were successful?

And how much money, on average, did each receive as a result?

How many of those suits were you personally involved in?

• Yes or no, are you aware of The Judgment Fund, established by Congress in 1956, to pay people who have successfully sued the government and been awarded a monetary judgment? 

Since that Fund already exists, and doesn't place any cap on payments, why was it necessary to create a special fund as part of the deal with the president?

You have said that the DOJ will not be moving ahead with the so-called 'Anti-Weaponization Fund,' but you've refused to put that in writing. Why is that?

Yes or no, is it your intention to use The Judgment Fund to handle payments to the alleged 'weaponization' victims?   

 If that is the intention, yes or no, will you require that the alleged victims follow the process and obtain a court judgment before releasing any funds?

I would not waste more than a few seconds thanking him for appearing before the Committee before diving into this list, and I'd likely have to reclaim the couple of minutes of my time he would have wasted in his efforts not to answer me. 

And then, hopefully I'd be turning it over to a colleague who'd ask different questions, so the American people can see and hear for themselves how awful a choice he is for this position.

What would you want to ask him? Drop a comment!