Katie Phang's lawsuit over DOJ's handling of the Epstein files could be another opportunity for Todd Blanche to show his loyalty to Donald Trump, but Judge Emmet Sullivan doesn't seem inclined to let that happen

(CNN International, Facebook)

Federal judges in the District of Columbia reportedly have been reluctant over the years to hold lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in contempt of court. But the judge overseeing a lawsuit about the DOJ's alleged failure to turn over documents from the Epstein files made it clear at a status hearing yesterday he had no such qualms. In fact, Judge Emmet Sullivan made a special point of noting he has held government lawyers in contempt before.

The warning that he was ready and willing to hold Attorney General (AG) Todd Blanche and his department in contempt probably was the No. 1 takeaway from a case that might hold the key to powerful individuals, possibly including President Donald Trump, being identified as alleged conspirators with the late convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Trump has not formally been designated a co-conspirator in the matter, but U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) raised his name in documents released last December while demanding answers about possible co-conspirators who have been investigated and accusing members of the Trump administration -- including former Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel -- of "hiding" information in the case.

A key question that emerged from yesterday's hearing: Is Todd Blanche now engaged in a similar effort to keep Epstein-files documents under wraps? It was hard to reach an answer on that because Blanche did no attend the hearing -- and that itself could be seen as a stalling tactic. But Judge Sullivan gave the distinct impression that he is serious about holding Blanche and the DOJ to their obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), which Congress passed and Trump signed into law last November.  A jointly published article at NBC News and Yahoo! shines a spotlight on key moments from the status hearing under the headline "Judge shows signs of frustration with DOJ attorneys over handling of Epstein files." Ryan J. Reilly reports:

A federal judge overseeing a case focused on the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files pressed government attorneys Thursday about their compliance with his court orders and warned that he has held lawyers in contempt before.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, a 41-year veteran of the bench, convened the hearing seeking answers about whether the Trump administration had complied with his previous orders in the case, including one about the need for the Justice Department to publish justifications for the numerous redactions in the released Epstein files.

Justice Department official Andrew Block told Sullivan he was not in a position to commit to a time frame, saying that it was out of his control and that information would be "forthcoming."

"Christmas is forthcoming," Sullivan quipped. 

Handling the high-profile case clearly has not caused Judge Sullivan to lose his sense of humor. But his tone during the hearing could not be described as "light-hearted" either. Reilly writes:

Sullivan called his orders "straightforward" and said he was willing to work with the government to obtain compliance.

"You want me to issue another order and say, 'I really mean it this time'?" Sullivan said at one point.

Of all the courtroom matters the Epstein files have produced, history might ultimately hold that the one currently before Sullivan was the most important of all, as Reilly explains:

The case stems from a lawsuit journalist Katie Phang filed against Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, arguing that the Justice Department had failed to comply in full with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law last year. The suit alleges the government failed to make some key redactions, inappropriately redacted other information and improperly withheld documents that referred to President Donald Trump.

The Justice Department had argued that Phang lacked standing to bring the case, and it has said it is "absurd" to claim the Justice Department violated Sullivan's order in June requiring more information surrounding specific redacted files.

Former Attorney General Pam Bondi, who led the Justice Department when millions of Epstein files were made public, told lawmakers after Trump fired her that "redaction errors" occurred during the records' release. 

Perhaps concerned that the DOJ's Block and others in attendance might not have been intimately familiar with his background, Judge Sullivan made a special effort to fill them in. Reilly writes:

At Thursday's hearing, Sullivan embarked on a history lesson about a previous case before him in which the Justice Department withheld exculpatory evidence: the prosecution of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, whose conviction the Justice Department moved to reverse in 2009 not long before Stevens died in a plane crash. Sullivan recalled that he held government attorneys in contempt for withholding information and that an appeals court upheld his decision.

Sullivan said it was important for attorneys to know he was a judge willing to "enforce legitimate judicial orders" with the means available to him. 

"I'm not in a habit of blindsiding people," he said.

He added that he had "absolutely no desire to go down that road again" but wanted to make sure the attorneys were aware that it has happened before. 

Will Todd Blanche go "Gulp!" when he reads that in the hearing transcript? Maybe, but it remains unclear just how far Blanche is willing to go to keep information about Trump (and possibly some of his billionaire allies) away from the prying eyes of the public. Evidence so far suggests he is willing to go pretty darned far. From the NBC/Yahoo report:

Attorney Brendan Ballou, who is representing Phang, said in a statement after the hearing that Blanche had "failed to follow the law."

"He has failed to produce its redaction log. He has failed to begin producing foreign language documents. He has failed to produce notes concerning Donald Trump," Ballou said. "The Justice Department's strategy here is endless delay, and we're glad that the Court appears to recognize this. Our next step is to file a proposed order for how to handle the Attorney General's noncompliance, which we plan to do shortly."

The hearing took place shortly after Blanche, who was recently confirmed as attorney general, addressed Justice Department employees at headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue.

"We will always respect the role of the judiciary. We will not engage in or stand for any sort of performative attacks that undermine the institutions that we are sworn to uphold," he said. "At the same time, we're not going to be intimidated."

Was Blanche suggesting that a judge taking proper steps to ensure compliance with the EFTA is an act of intimidation? It certainly could be taken that way, and that likely will not sit well with members of the D.C. Judiciary, including Sullivan.

A number of observers have noted that Blanche seems intent on turning the DOJ into Donald Ttump's personal law firm -- that Blanche's No. 1 priority is to do anything Trump tells him to do -- the hell with the department's history of acting independently of the White House. 

The Katie Phang matter almost certainly is the most important court case in the United States at the moment -- and it likely will come down to a battle of wills between Todd Blanche and Emmet Sullivan. If our republic is to survive the horror show of Donald Trump's second term, it is imperative that Todd Blanche come out on the short end of that battle of wills.

Trump seems to be taking election advice from a right-wing media influencer who appears to know zip about the law; could this prompt a brain-addled president to take steps that are dangerous for democracy?

Democracy Docket: Trump wants to take over voting

Donald Trump mused earlier this week about taking control of the 2026 midterm elections. The president's comments were cryptic, but he appeared to be thinking of rigging elections to favor the Republican Party or perhaps canceling them altogether. Strangely, Trump seemed to be taking signals during an interview from a right-wing media influencer -- sort of a male Laura Loomer -- and this guy's knowledge of U.S. election law seems to be close to zero. That, of course, sounds just like the kind of source Trump would find appealing. In Loomer's case, Trump turned a relatively unknown conspiracy theorist into a "loyalty enforcer" for his administration, reportedly causing several staffers to be fired.  In a similar vein, Trump apparently could wind up taking election advice from a guy named Wayne Allyn Root -- and Root seems to be doing his best to make that happen.

We see no sign that any of Root's ideas are legal, but that might just make them especially appealing to Trump. Has he ever let the unlawfulness of an idea keep him from trying it? What's going on with all of this? For insights on that question, we turn to Democracy Docket, a leading digital news platform dedicated to information, analysis, and opinion about voting rights and elections in the courts. It was founded in 2020 by Marc Elias, one of the most successful and best-known election lawyers in the country.

Trump's various schemes to suppress the rights of left-leaning voters are always a rich source of election-related news, and Democracy Docket is staying on top of the president's latest half-baked scheme. Under the headline "Trump signals openness to unconstitutional plot to take over elections,' Jacob Knutson writes:

President Donald Trump signaled Tuesday he’s willing to declare a national security emergency in an attempt to take over American elections.

“Let me just say stranger things have happened,” Trump said, after a far-right media host implored him to exert sweeping control over the upcoming midterms during a post-midnight interview.

“I’ll leave it at that,” the president added.

Is this another case of Trump spewing out more garbage than his mouth can hold and his brain can process? That's what it sounds like, Knutson reports:

The comments are just the latest in a string of alarming remarks Trump has made about U.S. elections. He previously said he wanted to “nationalize” voting and regretted not ordering the military to seize ballots and election machines after his loss in the 2020 presidential election.

The president has no power to control elections. Instead, the U.S. Constitution exclusively grants states and Congress the authority over election administration.

Has that stopped right wingers from encouraging Trump to act outside the Constitution? Of course not. Heck, if right wingers were committed to acting within the Constitution, they wouldn't be right wingers. The loudest right-wing voice on elections currently belongs to Wayne Allyn Root. To borrow a phrase I often heard while growing up in the Ozark Mountains, "You could take everything Wayne Allyn Root knows about elections, put them in a thimble, and have lots of room left over." Knutson writes:

Despite constitutional limitations, Wayne Allyn Root, a host on the Real America’s Voice TV network and one of Trump’s favorite right-wing media figures, urged the president to subvert democratic elections through executive fiat.

Root, who is known for spreading conspiracy theories (I told you he was like a male Laura Loomer), claimed Trump was entitled to do that because Senate Republicans do not have the votes to pass the SAVE America Act. If it became law, the bill would restrict the freedom to vote for millions of eligible Americans. 

“Let me put an idea in your head, okay? You have the right to declare a national security emergency for elections,” Root said. “If you do this in the next month, we will get photo ID, proof of citizenship, and a limit to mail-in ballots. You don’t even need to have the Senate’s vote.”

Is Root trying to mess with what's left of Trump's brain? That's a dangerous strategy at any time, but it is particularly so with dementia seemingly encroaching on the 80-year-old president's thought processes at an alarming rate. Does it border on elder abuse and could it lead to massive unrest in our country, at a time when divisions already are intense and tension is high. Knutson continues:

The host further claimed that, because of Supreme Court precedent, such an emergency couldn’t be challenged in court and could only be ended by a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. 

Though Root’s nonsensical and unconstitutional proposal would amount to an unparalleled assault on U.S. democracy, Trump didn’t disavow it. In fact, his claim that “stranger things have happened” could be an attempt to normalize such a declaration.

Where does Root get this stuff, out of a comic book? Or does he pull it from a bodily orifice we would rather not think about? Either way, he seems to have something up his sleeve, and it probably is not designed to secure the vote for you or me.

We draw to a close, citing important history from Knutson and Democracy Docket:

No president has ever declared a national emergency or used wartime powers to run, alter, or cancel elections. 

However, Trump has tried to unilaterally change elections twice, first through an executive order last year and second through a separate order earlier this year. Courts have blocked both orders.

Perhaps laying the groundwork for an emergency declaration or mass challenges to races this November, the White House has ramped up its efforts to traffic election conspiracy theories. 

Last month, Trump pushed several false claims about the 2020 election in a prime-time address. Despite promising new revelations of election fraud in the heavily promoted speech, the president essentially rehashed old conspiracy theories that had long been debunked.

Less than 24 hours after being sworn in as Trump's attorney general, Todd Blanche proves his word is worth a warm cup of Republican-generated spit

(WTKR News 3, Facebook)

Many Americans probably have grown used to having a congenital liar as president. Now, it looks like we will have a similar truth-challenged individual as attorney general. If there is any positive to this, it's that Americans who have been following news about Todd Blanche's confirmation as AG probably are not surprised by this latest revelation; in fact, our guess is that many of them already assumed Blanche was cut from the same cloth as Donald Trump. That, however, does not make it reassuring to know that perhaps the two most powerful positions in our government are occupied by men who are predisposed to be untruthful. Does that mean rocky times could become even rockier? The New Republic (TNR) provides insights on that question under the headline "Surprise! Todd Blanche immediately breaks his promises to GOP senators; hours after being sworn in as attorney general, Blanche gave Donald Trump more protections.   Edith Olmsted writes: 

It’s been less than 24 hours, and freshly sworn-in Attorney General Todd Blanche has already issued entirely new legal protections for President Donald Trump.

In a memo published Monday evening, just hours after Blanche’s swearing-in ceremony, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel argued that the president could claim executive privilege over communication between him and his “private advisers,” provided that the communications were confidential and related to his presidential “decision-making.”

As the TNR headline implies, members of Blanche's own party cannot trust what he says, Olmsted reports: 

The memo also seemed to expand executive privilege to apply to communications between the president’s “direct advisers” and civilians. If the Democrats take back the House of Representatives in the upcoming midterm elections, this memo could have major implications for any investigation into the president and other top administration officials. Clearly, the Trump administration is preparing to stonewall Congress.

It is unclear at the moment if Democrats will take back either house of Congress -- especially with the centrist and socialist wings of the party seemingly at war with each other. Even if a "blue wave" does sweep Trump's GOP enablers out of office, it's not clear that a memo authored by Todd Blanche -- whose approval ratings should sink into the negative numbers by that point -- would hold much sway with a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Still, Blanche's willingness to blow smoke up the fannies of Republicans who supported him shows that he does not mind making his so-called "colleagues" look like a bunch of rubes. More importantly, it adds to the evidence that Blanche cares about one person in government and one person only -- and that is Donald Trump. Olmsted writes:

Blanche’s latest move reflects poorly on all of the Republicans who voted to confirm him—but especially Senators Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn, and Tom Tillis, who bought into the attorney general’s promises to limit the scope of a different immunity for the president. Blanche has demonstrated that he isn’t the least bit interested in holding the president accountable for anything—let alone preserving transparency in government. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

In a statement Tuesday morning, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the memo revealed that Trump was “petrified of the questions a Democratic Congress will demand answers to.”

Let's pray that Trump's efforts to rig this year's midterm elections fail, and a Democratic Congress gets a chance to demand answers to tough questions about Trump's disastrous second term. The future of our democracy likely depends on it.

Now that criminal charges against him have been dropped, David Hearn and his attorneys consider legal claims -- possibly including defamation, false imprisonment, and more

(McGill Media, Facebook)

Donald Trump brought conditions at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool to public attention on March 31 by claiming the water looked "absolutely filthy." Trump tried to ameliorate the problem by fast-tracking a no-bid contract for Atlantic Industrial Coatings to drain, waterproof, and paint the pool "American Flag Blue." That move failed, as the water turned green, apparently due to algae growth, and pieces of a newly installed blue liner began to peel. In a state of increasing frustration, Trump did not seem inclined to take responsibility for the botched renovation and decided that vandals had caused damage to the pool. 

One of the alleged vandals he blamed was former U.S. Olympic canoeist David "Davy" Hearn, who long has operated a waterproofing business and said he only reached into the water to feel what a piece of the detached liner felt like. In short, Hearn has a history with materials used around man-made pools of water, and he simply was trying to get a professional's feel for what was going on. 

Trump, unable to keep his mouth shut about vandalism and unwilling to calmly assign the repair job to someone who knew what he or she was doing, made matters worse by posting on Truth Social that individuals had intentionally slashed and gashed the pool's blue lining, causing enough damage to merit felony criminal charges that could be punished by years behind bars. Trump posted that multiple individuals had been charged with destruction of government property, with David Hearn being by far the best-known suspect. The U.S. Department of Justice conducted a grand-jury investigation that led to an indictment, with Hearn detained for roughly five hours after his arrest. He hired a team of lawyers, pled not guilty to one felony count (which has a maximum sentence of 10 years, upon conviction) and wound up seeing Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, dismiss charges after concluding the damage had been due to rushed and flawed installation.

After all of that, Trump might find himself in the middle of a bigger mess, according to reporting at The New Republic (TNR). Under the headline "Trump's repeated attacks over Reflecting Pool come back to bite him; former Olympian David Hearn's lawyers say they are exploring all options," Hafiz Rashid writes: 

President Donald Trump’s repeated attempts to punish former Olympian David Hearn on the made-up vandalism of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool may backfire.

The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, was forced to drop the felony charges against Hearn on July 31 due to a lack of evidence, faulting Trump’s hand-picked contractor for a shoddy renovation instead. But on Sunday, Trump was still pushing his false claim that Hearn actively vandalized the pool’s lining, claiming on Truth Social that a National Park Service career employee, “a highly credible witness,” watched Hearn “‘violently’ ripping and tugging at the Pool’s somewhat delicate coating.”

As we reported in a post dated August 3, Hearn already had a number of possible legal claims against individuals and entities associated with the government's failed "vandalism" case. With Trump continuing to push the false narrative that Hearn intentionally damaged the pool, legal headaches for the president and his associates might only be getting started. Does Hearn have grounds for a lawsuit against individuals who caused him to be falsely arrested and imprisoned? I think the answer is yes, and let's take a closer look at potential claims that might be of particular interest, as outlined in our August 3 post:

(1) Presidential Immunity -- "Here is where the Hearn case could get very interesting. What if it is determined that Donald Trump ordered Hearn's arrest and ordered Pirro to prosecute, regardless of whether she had a valid case. The U.S Supreme Court (SCOTUS), of course, famously granted former presidents absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. But what about civil immunity? In the 1982 case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, SCOTUS found that a former president has absolute immunity from civil damages for official acts while he was president. Civil immunity, however, does not apply to unofficial conduct or actions taken before the president was in office. . . . 

"A key question would be "Does any president have the authority to order federal arrests or prosecutions? The Justice Department Manual plainly says the president should not be involved in charging or non-charging decisions. That language likely would make it difficult for Trump to argue that ordering criminal charges against David Hearn was part of his official duties. On the civil side, any actions Trump took against Hearn would almost have to be seen as unofficial conduct that would not trigger immunity."

(2) False imprisonment -- "That Hearn was detained brings "false imprisonment" into the matter. Imprisonment does not refer only to situations where a subject is placed in a cell, behind bars. It also refers to any detention that takes away a person's freedom of movement. And if that detention (five hours in Hearn's case) is unlawful -- and his almost certainly was -- then he would have grounds for a false imprisonment lawsuit. (Note: This brings us to the idea of what I call "state-sanctioned kidnappings." Such actions have exploded during the second Trump administration, as he has granted extraordinary powers to ICE, promoted the militarization of law enforcement, unlawfully used the military for domestic purposes, and demonized migrants while attacking their right to due process. I have personal experience with a state-sanctioned kidnapping, and we will have more on that issue in upcoming posts.)

(3) Defamation -- In a Truth Social post dated July 14, Trump wrote the following:

“The Parks Department had to empty the water in order to fix the water tight basin. It will be refilled and put back into service soon. These country-hating sleazebags should pay a big price for the damage done.”

The sentence highlighted in yellow could bring defamation into play. In general, a defamation plaintiff must prove (1) a false statement of fact; (2) publication to a third party; and (3) resulting harm to their reputation.

Hearn, as the only person charged with a felony, is by far the best-known defendant in the case. Trump, however, did not mention Hearn by name, so could a defamation claim still exist? The answer is yes, based on the following from the Digital Media Law Project under the heading "Who can sue for defamation":

In order to be actionable, a defamatory statement must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. This means that a defamation plaintiff must show that a reasonable person would understand that the statement was referring to him or her. Of course, if a blog post or online article identifies the plaintiff by name, this requirement will be easily met. The plaintiff need not be specifically named, however, if there are enough identifying facts that any (but not necessarily every) person reading or hearing it would reasonably understand it to refer to the plaintiff. 

Once Hearn can establish the Trump statement is "of and concerning" him, he probably could claim the statement is false in two respects. One, Trump refers to Hearn as a "country-hating sleazebag." Hearn can make a strong case that he, in fact, loves his country. He represented the United States in three consecutive Summer Olympic Games and multiple World Championships/World Cups. He won 13 World Championship medals (including eight golds) and 23 World Cup medals.  Two, Trump says Hearn should "pay a big price" for the "damage done." But what if there is no evidence that Hearn did any damage? That means Trump falsely claimed he had "done damage" and owed a "big price" for it.

What about the issue of civil immunity for Trump? Is he going to try to claim that it is an "official act" for him to call a decorated U.S. Olympian a "country-hating sleazebag"? As a matter of law, a judge with integrity should hold that Trump is not protected by immunity.

As for damages, the main evidence probably would involve loss of income, and expert testimony could show the extent of harm Hearn has suffered. In an age where fame, media, endorsements, and reputation matter, Hearn's damages could be considerable, and we can hope they come right out of Trump's pocket -- unless one of his authoritarian buddies, such as Vladimir Putin, is willing to pick up the check.

Let's return to the reporting at TNR, where we learn Hearn's legal team already is thinking of compensation that might be due to their client:

Hearn’s lawyers—Norm Eisen of Democracy Defenders Fund, Mary Dohrmann of Washington Litigation Group, and Steve Levin of Steptoe LLP—said in a statement Monday that they aren’t going to take “continued harassment” from the president.

“The government is continuing to attack an innocent man. Our first filing in the case on July 10 included photographic evidence from before Mr. Hearn touched the Reflecting Pool proving that he caused no damage,” the lawyers told Mediaite. “Our other filings provided even more proof. Finally, the U.S. Attorney’s own motion on July 31 admitted the damage was caused by a ‘botched installation and not vandalism.’ We are reviewing all legal remedies, including for this continued harassment. It is outrageous.”

This means that Hearn could sue Trump and the Department of Justice over the false claims, which the DOJ has already disavowed in court. There are a lot of unanswered questions over how Pirro’s office secured an indictment against Hearn in the first place with such faulty evidence. She later blamed Interior Secretary Doug Burgum for deliberately misleading her office about Hearn’s actions.

The New Republic’s Greg Sargent reports that Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are looking to open an investigation into how Hearn was charged and demand documents from the Justice and Interior Departments relating to that decision. Hearn’s lawyers are also seeking access to transcripts of the federal grand jury proceedings. Trump’s tantrum over the failed Reflecting Pool renovations may soon turn into a big legal headache for him and his administration.

Bill Cassidy, with a habit of casting deciding votes that confirm even Trump's worst nominees, admits he's not sure about Todd Blanche's devotion to the Constitution, but he voted for him anyway

(McGill Media, Facebook)

If any rational Americans are uncertain about whether the postmodern Republican Party has become an unserious political cesspool that serves no purpose in our democracy, any such doubts should be washed away, as of yesterday.Why? Let's address that question by examining the actions of U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA). 

Cassidy is the gentleman who has developed a troubling habit of casting votes to confirm even the most preposterously unqualified, incompetent, and integrity-challenged nominees Donald Trump could drudge up in his second term. On Feb. 13, 2025, Cassidy cast the deciding vote to confirm RFK Jr. as Health and Human Services Secretary, even though he had voiced strong disagreement with the nominee's stance on vaccines. At about 4:30 a.m. ET on Saturday, Cassidy did it again, casting the deciding vote that made Todd Blanche Attorney General of the United States-- even though (get this) Cassidy admitted he did not fully trust Blanche to abide by the U.S. Constitution, but he voted for him anyway.

While you are trying not to choke on your Egg McMuffin, let's consider this: Cassidy, as a U.S. senator, and Blanche, as attorney general, have taken (or will take) oaths of office that essentially are the same. Here is the gist of what they both do solemnly swear:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

I think it's safe to say the crux of that oath is the part I've highlighted in yellow. In short, you publicly vow that the U.S. Constitution is a very big deal to you; you vow to support and defend it against all enemies; you vow to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the document.

Now, let's take a look at a report from Raw Story that indicates neither Cassidy nor Blanche appear to take their oaths all that seriously. Under the headline "GOP senator who ensured Todd Blanche's confirmation makes stunning confession," Kathleen Culliton writes:

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) confessed Sunday he doesn't entirely trust soon-to-be Attorney General Todd Blanche to uphold the Constitution — but voted to confirm his nomination anyway.

Cassidy, the Republican Senator who made Blanche's confirmation possible by agreeing to vote the party line, made this stunning admission on Face the Nation Sunday morning when asked point blank if he trusted Blanche.

"There's always an existential anxiety, but I am as confident you can be," said Cassidy. "I can't predict the future." (Note: A transcript of the Cassidy interview can be viewed at this link.)

Cassidy did not come across as a profile in courage during his interview with Margaret Brennan, moderator of Face the Nation. Culliton writes:

Cassidy also admitted he was close to tears when he announced he would support President Donald Trump's nominee, despite mounting concerns that Blanche had already managed to make the Justice department a "shambles."

Cassidy said he choked up because it was such an honor to vote.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) refused to vote for Blanche because of his handling of the Epstein files, immunity protections granted to the Trump family, and repeated attacks on the president's political rivals, she said Friday.

Conservative former judge J. Michael Luttig said of Cassidy and Republicans who did not follow in Murkowski's footsteps, "They will bear this badge of shame the rest of their lives."

But Cassidy, despite stated misgivings about Blanche's willingness to uphold the Constitution, said on Sunday he stood by his decision — even though he almost voted no. 

Here is a bottom-line question to ponder: Does Todd Blanche have the goods to serve the nation as an effective and fair-minded AG, deeply committed to the U.S. Constitution? My answer is "absolutely not," and it's not a close call. Of all the wretched nominees Trump has put forward, Todd Blanche is almost certainly the worst of all -- even worse than Pam Bondi, his predecessor as AG, and I thought no one could be worse than her. (BTW: Bondi has ties to Alabama, our former home base and the place where the Legal Schnauzer blog was born, through her ties to the Republican Attorneys General Association [RAGA] and an Alabama lawyer with a curious personal history named Jessica Medeiros Garrison. Bondi's ties to Trump predate his first term as president -- and revolve around a short-circuited investigation in Florida of Trump University. We reported on the Trump-Bondi axis during that time period. We will have much more on Todd Blanche, Pam Bondi and Trump University, and the nifty machinations that Bondi and Medeiros Garrison engaged in while serving as leading officials with RAGA -- those activities, by the way, were dubious enough to attract the attention of The New York Times. )