Speaker 1: Future of the Justice Department on the line. I want
Speaker 1: to bring in Connecticut Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal. He's a
Speaker 1: member of the Judiciary Committee. Senator, what is your reaction
Speaker 1: to what you just heard from Bill Cassidy today, the
Speaker 1: reasoning that he laid out and basically how he got
Speaker 1: to yes, even an unenthusiastic one.
Speaker 2: Deep disappointment because this vote is so cravingly wrong for
Speaker 2: the country as well as ulimately, I think for Senator Cassidy,
Speaker 2: I think it will go down as one of his
Speaker 2: graver mistakes. And not surprising because I have predicted along
Speaker 2: that Republicans would support Lanche in spite of his being
Speaker 2: unfit and his being more loyal to the president than
Speaker 2: to the Constitution or to the country. And so I
Speaker 2: am really disappointed, but not surprise.
Speaker 1: You know. At one point, Cassidy complained about what he
Speaker 1: described as a quote cycle of presidents using the DOJ
Speaker 1: to prosecute their enemies, and then he said this, Listen.
Speaker 3: I'm realistic that President Trump can be unrelenting on this,
Speaker 3: but this will be true no matter who the Attorney
Speaker 3: general is. When former Attorney General Bill Bohr endorsed mister Blanche.
Speaker 3: He said, mister Blanche will run the department as effectively
Speaker 3: as anyone can under President Trump. Some have called that
Speaker 3: thanked praise. I don't think that it is. I think
Speaker 3: it is a reality.
Speaker 1: As effectively as anyone can under President Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: Cassidy was clear he had what he was saying were
Speaker 1: law fair concerns, But it sounds like he's taking those,
Speaker 1: recognizing that they might be real, and saying, well, it
Speaker 1: doesn't really matter, we can't do much about it anyway,
Speaker 1: and he might put someone worse in.
Speaker 2: That's why this vote is so equally disappointed, because, in effect,
Speaker 2: it's an abdication of responsibility. You know, the Senate of
Speaker 2: the United States, in its advice and consent function, has
Speaker 2: to take a stand in favor of the rule of
Speaker 2: law and against conflicts of interest and corruption, which Todd
Speaker 2: Blanche will enable President Trump to do. Whether it is
Speaker 2: the cryptocurrency corruption that has enabled Donald Trump to make
Speaker 2: one point four billion dollars last year a loan, or
Speaker 2: the Monuments and the Arch and the ballroom of the
Speaker 2: East Wing, which involves donations and contributions to his pack
Speaker 2: or other projects, or simply this sham Sledge fund I
Speaker 2: call it a thud fund one point eight billion dollars
Speaker 2: to the people who rioted and were convicted of felonies
Speaker 2: and then the tax community. He's enabling Donald Trump's corruption,
Speaker 2: and to say that somebody else would do the same thing,
Speaker 2: I think is really ducking and dodging an essential responsibility.
Speaker 1: I also can't help but think about the fact that
Speaker 1: Bill Cassidy has been in this position before. He was
Speaker 1: really the lynchpin on RFK Junior. He got some assurances
Speaker 1: that RFK Junior seemingly renegged on when it came to
Speaker 1: vaccine credibility. Vaccine denialism is what he ended up getting
Speaker 1: from RFK Junior. Not exactly shocking when you look at
Speaker 1: the pattern. But I wonder if there is a conversation
Speaker 1: among the Republicans that you talk to that this is
Speaker 1: an administration that going along to get along doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to work. Because he got on board with that and
Speaker 1: still got primaried effectively by a Trump backed candidate. I mean,
Speaker 1: is there a recognition of that, And if there is
Speaker 1: or there isn't, do you, as Democrats think that there
Speaker 1: is any future moment where these Republicans will vote any
Speaker 1: differently or does it not matter to the political stakes
Speaker 1: that they no longer have to be beholden to not
Speaker 1: change the underlying fact that they are just still Republicans.
Speaker 2: As I said when I was asked repeatedly what Republicans
Speaker 2: would do on this vote, I've seen this movie before,
Speaker 2: we all have, and unfortunately it has ended this way before.
Speaker 2: But ultimately, the answer to Republicans' lack of spine will
Speaker 2: be at the ballot box. Senator Cassidy was defeated because
Speaker 2: Donald Trump opposed him in the primary, and you would
Speaker 2: think he'd be liberated by in effect having nothing left
Speaker 2: to lose. That is part of why I'm so deeply disappointed,
Speaker 2: because this vote could have been a matter of conscience
Speaker 2: and conviction, and I think that his vote for Blanche
Speaker 2: is simply more evidence that the Trump cult is alive
Speaker 2: and well in the Republican Party. He has taken over
Speaker 2: that party, and Democrats need to be strong in mobilizing
Speaker 2: support at the ballot box against Republicans. We should have
Speaker 2: no illusions that somehow Republicans are going to break ranks
Speaker 2: and follow their conscience or conviction. We need to take
Speaker 2: back control of the Senate as well as the House.
Speaker 1: I think that's probably the right conclusion to draw. You know,
Speaker 1: we're talking about Cassidy's vote. It's really the promise of
Speaker 1: a vote. Do you have any sense of when the blanche,
Speaker 1: the vote itself is actually going to be.
Speaker 2: We are learning right now what the schedule is going
Speaker 2: to be for the rest of the day. We're voting
Speaker 2: on the Russian sanctions bill, which I champion with Senator Graham,
Speaker 2: really evidence that we can cooperate and work together on
Speaker 2: a bipartisan basis. The vote will be overwhelming in favor
Speaker 2: of scorching sledgehammer sanctions and tariffs against the purchasers of
Speaker 2: Russian oil and gas that are fueling Putin's war machine.
Speaker 2: His slaughter of Ukrainians literally every night with hundreds of
Speaker 2: missiles and drones. As you well know and others who
Speaker 2: are watching it is the war crime of this century.
Speaker 2: And we are saying to Vladmir Putin, and he's probably
Speaker 2: watching the Senate right now, we will stand with Ukraine
Speaker 2: and g Ukraine were saying you are not alone in
Speaker 2: a very bipartisan way.
Speaker 1: This is some of the final work that Senator Graham
Speaker 1: was doing before he died. You were his partner in this.
Speaker 1: You and I have had so many conversations about this
Speaker 1: bill because it's one of the rare pieces of legislation
Speaker 1: that had upwards of eighty co sponsors, it was bipartisan,
Speaker 1: and yet it sort of languished in the Senate for
Speaker 1: over a year because Republican leadership was waiting for a
Speaker 1: high sign from the White House to say, all right,
Speaker 1: go ahead, you can put it on the floor. Now,
Speaker 1: I understand the diplomatic reasons that that was done, but
Speaker 1: when you talk to the Ukrainians and when you and
Speaker 1: Senator Graham were having conversations with people like Zelenski, how
Speaker 1: much time and leverage was lost because this bill was
Speaker 1: waited on. I recognize what you're saying about the impact
Speaker 1: it'll have now, but it could have had that impact
Speaker 1: a year ago.
Speaker 2: That is a really important, excellent point. Ali and Senator
Speaker 2: Graham and I went to Ukraine together seven or eight times.
Speaker 2: I've been there ten times. And Zelensky came here just
Speaker 2: last week and his message to us was, we need
Speaker 2: the tariffs bill. It has been a constant refrain of
Speaker 2: mine and it was of Senator Graham's, and ultimately, fortunately
Speaker 2: the White House has sided with US. President Trump has
Speaker 2: said he will sign this bill. Ukraine has turned the tide.
Speaker 2: It is now taking back territory. It's reaching deep into
Speaker 2: Russia with missiles and drones, and I think President Trump
Speaker 2: has recognized that Zelensky has cards that he can play,
Speaker 2: Ukraine has tools that they can use to finish the job.
Speaker 2: Their fight is our fight because Putin will continue this
Speaker 2: slaughterish aggression against our allies, and we will have an
Speaker 2: obligation to put our own sons and daughters in harm's
Speaker 2: way if he attacked Poland or Sweden or Finland or
Speaker 2: any of the Baltic states, and so our own national
Speaker 2: security at state. That recognition underlying President Trump's support, I
Speaker 2: think is tremendously important. I'd argue it's overdue, but today
Speaker 2: we're taking an important step in the right direction.
Speaker 1: And I know you rushed here from the Senate floor
Speaker 1: to make this live shot with us. I really appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I can also give you an update. No vote is
Speaker 1: official until it's gabbled, but it does look like this
Speaker 1: sanctions built right now has enough support to pass the
Speaker 1: vote currently sixty five to nine, which makes sense a
Speaker 1: lot of bipartisan co sponsors. But Senator Richard Blumenthal, thank
Speaker 1: you for coming on talking with us about that and
Speaker 1: all the other news up in the Senate right now.
Speaker 2: Thank you