Todd Blanche says Trump "absolutely" would have gone to prison without a 2024 election win, indicating we must dig for answers about election fraud that might have produced an imposter in the White House

(Facebook)

Donald Trump almost certainly was headed to prison if he had not won the 2024 presidential election, Acting Attorney General and former Trump personal lawyer Todd Blanche said in a recent television appearance, according to a jointly published report at The Independent and Yahoo! News. Under the header "Acting AG Todd Blanche says Trump 'absolutely' would have gone to prison if he lost the 2024 election," Josh Marcus writes:

“Is it an accurate statement to say he either wins in '24, wins the White House — it’s either the White House or the big house?” Fox News anchor Sean Hannity asked Blanche on an episode of the Hang Out with Sean Hannity show that was released on Tuesday.

“Oh yeah, absolutely,” Blanche responded.

As we will show shortly, Blanche did not just say that he expected a Joe Biden or Kamala Harris Department of Justice (DOJ) to "go after" Trump or even bring an indictment against him. But he said that Trump "absolutely was headed to prison if he did not win in November 2024. As Trump's personal lawyer at the time, Blanche probably knew his client was vulnerable to criminal charges, and that a competent DOJ likely could present a compelling case before a federal jury, one that likely would result in a conviction.

Would the U.S. Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling in Trump vs. United States, issued on July 1,  2024, have saved Trump from prison? It's hard to say without knowing the basis for a possible Trump conviction. But it's hard to imagine that any activities leading to a conviction could fall under the "official acts" language at the heart of the Trump ruling? On the other hand, many legal experts thought the high court would never even hear the immunity case, much less pull such protection for Trump out of thin air.

Blanche did not touch on election fraud in the Hannity appearance, but it hangs over a number of obvious questions his words raise: Did Trump and his allies, particularly Elon Musk, have incentive to pull out all the stops to ensure a Trump victory? Did they resort to blatant fraud, and what tools did they have at their disposal to pull off such a scheme? We already have addressed such questions here at Legal Schnauzer, as have other journalists, online investigators, computer scientists, and election-integrity experts.  For example, we wrote a piece on Nov. 21, 20205, under the headline "Voting integrity expert Spoonamore says a recount likely will show Kamala Harris won the election, which had signs of Elon Musk's ties to dubious acts." That post begins . . . 

A hand recount would "most likely show" Vice President Kamala Harris won the 2024 presidential election, according to a "duty to warn" letter to Harris from voting-integrity expert Stephen Spoonamore. Further, Spoonamore states: "In my view, a capable and skilled series of exploits, electronic tools, and hacks were used to change the Presidential vote in all seven swing states.  These activities have reversed the outcomes in at least Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin."

News of Spoonamore's missive comes on the heels of our post yesterday about a similar letter from Duncan Buell, Ph.D., chair emeritus and NCR chair of computer science and engineering at the University of South Carolina. 

We will pick up on the Spoonamore letter and related issues in upcoming posts. But first, let's return to Todd Blanche's appearance with Sean Hannity. Josh Marcus writes:

[Blanche] pointed to the cloud of legal scrutiny hanging over Trump during the 2024 election, which included special counsel Jack Smith’s multiple cases against the Republican in Washington and Florida, as well as the then-candidate’s guilty convictions in New York in his hush money trial.

“Don’t forget he had a D.C. case breathing down his neck,” Blanche said. “He had the Florida case which had been dismissed, but they were appealing it, and then he had a judge in New York who, there’s no scenario in which he wasn’t going to send Trump to prison.”

The Independent/Yahoo! report then turns to a number of fortuitous events that saved Trump -- most notably, his election win. But it also shows the peril Trump was facing. Marcus writes:

Following Trump’s election victory, the special counsel dropped the federal cases against the president-elect, citing the precedent against bringing an indictment or proceedings against a sitting president.

In congressional testimony last year, Smith said he was confident he would’ve secured a conviction against Trump on his allegations that the Republican conspired to interfere with the 2024 election.

“The timing and speed of our work reflects the strength of the evidence and our confidence that we would have secured convictions at trial,” Smith told the House Judiciary Committee. “If asked whether to prosecute a former President based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat.”

The president continues to challenge the New York conviction, both in state court and in an effort to move it to federal court.

Since returning to the White House, the president has vowed to seek payback for the alleged “weaponization” of the justice system he claims to have suffered.

Trump's DOJ is investigating an alleged decade-long “grand conspiracy” between officials who investigated or prosecuted the president.

As part of the settlement in his recent suit against the IRS, Trump also sought to create a nearly $1.8 billion “slush fund” to compensate allies and victims” of government “weaponization.” 

Todd Blanche surely did not intend for this to happen, but his conversation with Sean Hannity opens up a truckload of questions, and No. 1 on the list is this: Have we been living under an imposter president since January 2025? Has Trump been attempting hostile takeovers of key journalistic institutions -- including The Washington Post, CBS News, and CNN -- to keep them from asking hard questions about how he returned to office? It's time for news organizations of all shapes and sizes to look at how Trump returned to power and launched an assault on American democracy. We intend to do our part, and we hope you will join us.

Fossil-fuel execs bet big on Trump, with $75 to $100 million in contributions to his campaign, but now they can only watch him drive our economy toward a cliff

(The Kobeissi Letter, Facebook)

Since the start of his second term as president, Donald Trump has done just about everything possible to cater to Big Oil. But with U.S. oil reserves reaching dangerously low levels, oil-company executives  cannot ignore signs that Trump has mismanaged America's energy resources.

We find the grim news via a jointly published article at Fortune and Yahoo!Finance. Under the headline "Oil bosses warn prices will soar in a matter of weeks as inventories near unprecedented lows -- 'I mean really, really low levels'." Focusing on the take of a top Exxon executive, Jason Ma writes:

The two biggest U.S. oil companies joined the growing chorus of voices sounding the alarm on the imminent doom global markets could soon face.

With the Strait of Hormuz still effectively closed, top oil-consuming countries have been rapidly draining their reserves, helping keep crude prices in check.

But Exxon Senior Vice President Neil Chapman warned at an industry conference on Thursday that such drawdowns can’t go on indefinitely.

“We’re approaching unheard of inventory levels,” he said, according to CNBC. “I mean really, really low levels. You can debate whether that’s going to hit those really low levels in two weeks or three weeks. Once you get to that point, then you’ll see price shoot up.” 

That sounds like Americans who already are feeling pain at the pump will get another jolt of discomfort in two or three weeks. CNBC recently reported that households are paying almost $450 more on fuel and energy-related costs since the Iran war. Trump was not smart enough to avoid his war of choice, so you might think his benefactors in the oil industry would have been able to talk some sense into him. But that apparently did not happen.

With Iran now suspending negotiations, citing U.S. and Israeli violations of a ceasefire agreement, it has stated the Strait of Hormuz will be closed until the U.S. lifts its blockade.

The fossil-fuel industry supported Trump's candidacy with $75 to $100 million in contributions to his campaign and affiliated super PACS. To a significant extent, Big Oil executives bought themselves a president, and now they watch as their guy drives the U.S. economy toward the edge of a cliff. Do the oil execs have a sense of buyer's remorse? If not, they should. Here's more from the Fortune/Yahoo! Finance report:

For now, the U.S.-Iran ceasefire talks are deadlocked while the Strait of Hormuz remains a contested waterway. That was on display Saturday, when U.S. forces fired a missile at a blockade runner to disable it after ignoring repeated warnings.

Iran has also kept up attacks on commercial ships attempting to cross the strait without its authorization, though the U.S. is guiding more ships to safety.

The U.S. has released about 50 million barrels from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve since the war with Iran started, sending the stockpile down by 12% to 365 million barrels, the lowest since April 2024.

Analysts are saying oil inventories could hit critically low levels sometime this month, Jason Ma reports:

In key regional oil hubs like Cushing, Okla.—where West Texas Intermediate crude is priced—the situation is more dire. Data from Kpler indicates that inventories there have fallen from 33 million barrels nearly two months ago to about 24.5 million, near operational lows of about 20 million barrels.

JPMorgan has predicted that commercial oil inventories in the developed world could “approach operational stress levels” by early June. Capital Economics has said stockpiles in top economies could hit “critically low levels” by the end of June. 

“I don’t know, whether it’s two to three weeks or three to four weeks,” Exxon’s Chapman said on Thursday. “What I’m really saying is, once you get to the minimum inventory levels and all-time low inventory levels, there’s only one way to go.” 

Another top oil executive also sees storm clouds on the horizon and offers little in the form of encouraging words for consumers:

Similarly, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said at the same conference Thursday that oil prices will likely soon jump as the market’s “shock absorbers” are depleted, weakening its ability to continue absorbing the disruption.

“Over the next few weeks, we’re likely to see those pressures flow through more directly to physical prices and there’s more upwards pressure that I would expect as we get into June and certainly into July,” he added, according to Financial Times.

Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn and a major donor to Democratic Party causes, says DOJ probe is payback for lawfully funding lawsuits against Trump

Reid Hoffman: DOJ probe is retaliation for funding lawsuits against Trump (Reuters)

Donald Trump's word isn't worth much, but when he says he will seek prosecutions of his political enemies, you apparently can take it to the bank. That doesn't mean Trump is on the right side of the law because he hardly ever is in that position. In fact, his latest actions -- which started with reports that he was going after E. Jean Carroll, the woman who successfully sued him for sexual abuse and defamation -- are classic examples of vindictive prosecutions. Such cases, lacking probable cause, are subject to being dismissed -- and if we still had a functioning democracy, probably would present grounds to have Trump impeached or forcibly removed from office (preferably the latter). With spineless Republicans in charge of Congress, that is not likely to happen.  But we see signs that Trump has misread the Carroll situation, and this is one firefight he might regret starting.

Targeting Carroll -- who a New York judge found was the victim of a Trumpian rape, as that word is commonly understood -- was a bad enough look for the president. But by going after her, Trump drew Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn (with other business ties to Microsoft, PayPal, and Greylock Partners) into the fray.

How did that happen? In the course of filing two lawsuits against Trump, with her winning both and  receiving more than $88 million in damages, it became public that a nonprofit tied to Hoffman helped fund Carroll's lawsuit. That is an example of Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF), which is common, and perfectly legal, in the United States. Still, Trump seems determined to somehow tie Carroll or (more likely) Hoffman to some kind of criminal activity -- real or imagined. It should be noted that both Carroll and Hoffman, or their representatives, have spoken openly about the funding arrangement -- in court documents or published interviews -- so they clearly are not trying to hide anything. And with no one able to point to a federal statute or U.S. Supreme Court ruling that would make TPLF illegal across the country, it's hard to see how Trump or his flunkies in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) could make a criminal charge stick. But that doesn't mean they won't try.

Hoffman has an estimated net worth of $2.7 billion; that isn't Elon Musk money, but it is  enough to give Hoffman a substantial base of power as one of the nation's largest donors to Democratic causes. Based on statements he released late last week, Hoffman does not appear to be in the mood to bow down to our would-be king/president. That suggests fireworks might commence before the latest case of Trump stepping in a legal cow pie is completed. In fact, Hoffman already has lit a few firecrackers and tossed them in Trump's direction, as we learn from a jointly published report at Business Insider and AOL. Under the headline "Reid Hoffman says reported DOJ investigation into his nonprofit that funded E. Jean Carroll case is 'retaliation," Ben Shimkus writes:

Reid Hoffman is accusing President Donald Trump of retaliation.

The LinkedIn cofounder and Democratic donor responded on Friday to reports that the Justice Department is investigating issues tied to his financial support for E. Jean Carroll's litigation against Trump, calling the scrutiny "absurdly false" and accusing the president of using the federal government to punish his critics.

"Trump cannot be allowed to use the full weight and power of the US Government to come after women who speak up, or anyone who supports them in doing so," Hoffman wrote in a five-part thread on X.

His comments came after multiple outlets reported that the DOJ opened a criminal investigation related to Carroll's civil lawsuits against Trump.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the department was investigating whether Carroll committed perjury. The Washington Post, Reuters, and other outlets reported that the probe was focused more specifically on American Future Republic, a nonprofit backed by Hoffman that helped fund some of Carroll's legal expenses.

Does Trump hold ill will toward Carroll and Hoffman for joining hands to resoundingly beat him in court? Probably so. Does that mean he has valid grounds for a criminal case against them? Probably not. Shimkus provides background:

Carroll, a writer and former advice columnist, won two civil judgments against Trump.

In 2023, a Manhattan federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million. In 2024, another jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll another $83.3 million for defaming her. Trump has repeatedly denied Carroll's allegations and appealed the judgments.

The reported scrutiny on Hoffman's nonprofit appears to center on a 2022 deposition in which Carroll said no one was paying her legal fees. Her lawyers later disclosed that funds from American Future Republic helped cover some litigation costs nearly a year after she filed the lawsuit.

Trump's lawyers argued that the disclosure showed Carroll had lied under oath; the judge overseeing Carroll's lawsuits ruled the funding had no bearing on her credibility and blocked questions about it at trial.

That probably will not be helpful to any case Trump might cause to be brought. And it strengthens Hoffman's claim that the president is unlawfully trying to punish him for helping Carroll bring her successful claims, Shimkus writes:

Hoffman framed the reported investigation as retaliation.

"He is investigating me because I supported E Jean's lawsuit — where a jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting her, and a court of appeals upheld the decision," Hoffman wrote. "Trump hopes that these fraudulent investigations will silence those who stand up to him. He is wrong. I will not bend the knee."

Top U.S. prosecutor in Chicago denies launching probe against E. Jean Carroll, but reports indicate he might target nonprofit tied to Dem donor Reid Hoffman

E. Jean Carroll leaves a New York City courtroom (NY Times)

The chief U.S. prosecutor in Chicago said last night that, contrary to media reports, he has not launched a criminal investigation of E. Jean Carroll, the woman who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault. But that does not mean he won't initiate a Carroll-related probe. From an Associated Press (AP)  report filed at 8:31 p.m. CDT yesterday:

The top federal prosecutor in Chicago denied Thursday evening that his office had opened an investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the longtime advice columnist who has said Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a New York department store 30 years ago, hours after multiple news organizations reported that the Justice Department was investigating whether she had lied during the course of civil litigation against Trump.

The Associated Press and other news organizations, citing anonymous sources, reported that the federal prosecutors’ office in Chicago had opened an investigation into Carroll examining possible perjury allegations.

But Andrew Boutros, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, issued a statement roughly 24 hours after the first report was published saying that his office “has not opened — and has never opened — a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll.”

What caused the mixup, and where might any investigation be headed? Last night's AP report touches on those issues, noting that it appears a probe might focus on a nonprofit organization that allegedly helped fund Carroll's case against Trump, rather than Carroll herself. From the report:

A person familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation, initially told the AP on Thursday morning that investigators were focused on Carroll but later clarified that the actual focus was on a nonprofit that had helped fund her case.

A lawyer for Carroll declined to comment through a spokesperson on Thursday.

The Justice Department investigation into Carroll was first reported by CNN on Wednesday evening.

Reports of the investigation added to the perception from Democrats and other former officials that a Justice Department meant to make prosecutorial decisions independent of the White House is being weaponized against the president’s political enemies. Trump’s Justice Department has opened multiple investigations into perceived adversaries of the Republican president, including securing an indictment last month against former FBI Director James Comey.

The Comey case is just one example of Trump's stated desire to seek retaliation against perceived political opponents. The BBC reported last September that Trump openly was calling for his Department of Justice (DOJ) to  bring prosecutions against Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff. At about the same time, multiple news outlets reported that Trump said "others" would be prosecuted following the indictment of Comey for taking photos of seashells.

It's not hard to see E. Jean Carroll as a Trump target, given that he has repeatedly trashed her -- calling her a "nut job," who said she enjoyed being sexually assaulted, and was "mentally sick." Trump also has threatened to sue her and the judge who ruled against him in her lawsuit.  

How did Carroll wind up crossing swords with Trump? This is from the AP report:

Carroll has said a flirtatious, chance encounter with Trump in 1996 at Bergdorf Goodman’s Fifth Avenue store in Manhattan ended violently. She said Trump slammed her against a dressing room wall, pulled down her tights and forced himself on her. Trump has called the allegations a “made-up scam,” and he has attacked her motivations, saying they were politically driven or arose from a desire to promote her memoir.

A jury in 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and defaming her, and she was awarded $5 million. The following year, another jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in a defamation case related to Trump’s social media posts about her.

If the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago does not start an investigation directly against Carroll, could it still bring a case that has strong political overtones? According to last night's AP report, the answer appears to be yes:

The reports this week said the Justice Department was scrutinizing a statement Carroll made in the course of the civil litigation that no one else was paying her legal fees. It later became public that a Chicago-based organization backed by Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, had helped fund Carroll’s case. Trump’s lawyers in the civil case accused Carroll of concealing that information, which they said called into question whether the case was politically motivated.

Multiple news organizations, including The Washington Post and NBC News, cited unnamed sources in reporting Thursday that the investigation was actually centered on Hoffman’s nonprofit, which the person familiar with the matter confirmed to AP. 

A month before the first trial in 2023, then-Trump lawyer Alina Habba sought to delay it, saying in court papers that new revelations about Hoffman partially funding Carroll’s case “raises significant questions as to Plaintiff’s credibility, as well as her motive for commencing and/or continuing the instant action.”

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a Dec. 30, 2024, ruling, upheld the $5 million jury award from 2023. The court addressed Carroll’s credibility after Trump accused her of lying, during a deposition, about how her case was funded.

The court cited Carroll’s explanation that when the question about Hoffman’s contributions was first posed to her in 2022, she had forgotten about “the limited outside funding” received in September 2020.

“It showed that Ms. Carroll simply was not involved in the matter of who was or was not funding her litigation costs,” the appeals court said.

Issues regarding political overtones of a potential DOJ probe, raise this question: Who is Reid Hoffman, and what are his political leanings? He has an estimated net worth of $2.7 billion, with business connections to LinkedIn, Microsoft, PayPal, and Greylock Partners. According to a report at CNBC, Hoffman has become a political kingmaker for progressive causes. He is the largest donor to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Here is more from last night's AP report:

Hoffman has defended the financial assistance, saying in a social media post that “supporting women’s fight for progress and justice in philanthropy, politics and business has been a longstanding priority of mine, as is supporting America against the threat of Trump.”

A court entry earlier this month said Trump will not have to pay the award until the U.S. Supreme Court gets a chance to review the case or reject an appeal. The appeals court agreed to a request by one of Trump’s lawyers that it let Trump delay the payment to Carroll, though he was required to post a $7.4 million bond to cover any additional interest costs, a request Carroll’s attorney had made.