Thursday, July 16, 2026

Ellison and PARAMOUNT face another lawsuit

I'm covering the corruption of David Ellison and PARAMOUNT again tonight.  As C.I. told us in last week's the gina & krista round-robin, another lawsuit against PARAMOUNT and Ellison was coming and it would be brought by the share holders. Winston Cho (THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER) reported it yesterday (thanks to Keesha who told me about the article in the roundtable we did tonight for tomorrow's gina & krista round-robin): 

A fourth lawsuit has been filed looking to block Paramount's bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, this time by shareholders who accuse David Ellison and his father, Oracle scion Larry Ellison, of striking an illegal deal with President Trump for approval of the merger.

In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in Delaware Chancery Court, the investors claim that the Ellisons promised to make sweeping changes at CNN to greenlight the merger. They also point to an alleged promise for up to $20 million in free advertising and a $16 million payment to Trump through a prior settlement by the studio's previous ownership to resolve an allegedly frivolous lawsuit he had filed against CBS.
"The Ellisons' actions not only harm the reputations of the news outlets they currently own, which are hemorrhaging viewers, but they are latent liabilities waiting to be triggered by a future administration," states the complaint.

The lawsuit brings claims for breaches of fiduciary duty for creating "enormous financial and legal risk" for Paramount. It names the Ellisons and other members of Paramount's Board of Directors.

So Ellison has used his father's friendship with Chump to benefit himself and in doing so has destroyed the ratings for CBS and has opened PARAMOUNT up to additional legal fees when Chump leaves office and people begin looking at the deals the Ellisons made with Chump to get PARAMOUN and then to get approval to take over WARNER BROTHERS.  

This is not the last lawsuit that's coming for PARAMOUNT and the Ellisons.  They have done real damage with their corruption.  They should not have been allowed to take over PARAMOUNT but having been allowed to do that, they should not now be able to also take over WARNER BROS.  

Some comments on the article:

EXCELLION 1122
1 hour ago
This Paramount ploy will bring forth Anti-Trust Proceedings as well as criminal investigations into corruption.


Character Matters
18 minutes ago
We have a compromised president selling his services when it benefits him.  Having a corrupt president who can be bribed or insists on favors is bad news for democracy and Trump needs to be removed from office.


J Saliling
16 hours ago
Like a lot of my friends I know, our family has joined the boycott movement of CBS and Paramount.  Hard to watch CBS which was a treasure of our country in terms of journalism and what it now has become.


J V
16 hours ago
Larry and David Ellison are just as complicit in corruption as Donald Trump.


Zachary Leeman (MEDIAITE) notes the Corey G. Johnson report we noted last time:

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) head Brendan Carr accepted thousands in gifts from Paramount while a major merger proposal between the company and Warner Bros. Discovery awaits approval, according to a new investigative report.
ProPublica’s Corey G. Johnson reported on Wednesday that Carr and another FCC commissioner, Olivia Trusty, have received perks that could raise ethics concerns.

According to ethics disclosure records reviewed by ProPublica, Trusty was gifted tickets to the Kennedy Center Honors, an event where those who had donated $75,000 or more to the center were prioritized for tickets. Trusty reportedly was gifted the tickets by Paramount, and they are worth about $12,000.

It was also reported that Carr and his wife had a special view of the event, sitting in a private skybox with Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison and other executives from the company. Those seats are estimated to cost around $125,000.



"The Snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS): 

Thursday, July 16, 2026.  Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in his quest to become Attorney General and Chump's ICE is out of control and destroying lives (while being trained to violate the Constitution). 


It's not every day that a witness before Congress makes it clear early in their hearing that they intend to lie as often as they can.  But Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made his desire and intent to lie almost immediately when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday as he seeks to be confirmed as Attorney General.


Ranking Member  Dick Durbin: I have a few questions I'd like to ask you. Is it not true that Congress had to pass a law requiring the Trump administration to disclose the Epstein Files? the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed by bipartisan roll calls in the House and Senate to finally get the files made public? 

Acting Attorney General  Todd Blanche: President Trump signed that law

Ranking Member Dick Durbin: Yes, of course he did -- after overwhelming numbers of the House members and Senate members voted for it on a bipartisan basis because the administration would not voluntarily produce these documents. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  That's not true.

Ranking Member Dick Durbin: Well, what pat of it isn't true? 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  We were prohibited by law from producing those documents.  This is a Judiciary Committee. There are laws that did not allow us to produce those documents which we made plain in numerous court filings. So when -- and President Trump has said from day one to release the files, even when he was running.  And so, yes, he signed it into law and we comply with it. 


Ranking Member Dick Durbin: I remember and everyone in the audience remembers the links that the administration went through to delay production of these documents to the point where Congress did an extraordinary thing, passed a discharge motion in the House to bring this matter before them and vote on a bipartisan basis to compel your administration to disclose those documents.  

Blanche lied.  Durbin was only the second person to question him.  Blanche wanted to lie about how The Epstein Transparency Act came about. He looked awful, by the way.  A paunchy thing with shadows all over him.  He wanted to score one for his Gipper -- Chump.  He wanted to rewrite history to make it appear that Chump was behind it all along, supporting it and wanting to release the files but he just couldn't.

He could -- and did -- release files on UFOs.  He made that promise on the campaign trail as well.  And he did it.  He released those.  But he wouldn't release the Epstein files. 

Chump had Mike Johnson delaying the swearing in of Adelita Grijalva.  Does Toad think we just all forgot that.  He waited 50 days to seat her. He did that because she would provide the 218th signature on Thomas Masse and Ro Khana's discharge petition that forced the vote on The Epstein Transparency Act. 

But the toad wanted to lie.  And did lie. 


On July 17, 2025, at around 6 o’clock in the evening, President Trump’s top officials filed into the White House Situation Room — the secure bunker where classified and high-stakes national security matters are discussed and decided. This was where President Barack Obama, along with Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the president’s national security team, watched the raid that ended with the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011.

Now, however, Trump’s most senior advisers had gathered — without him — to figure out how to gain some measure of control over a very different kind of crisis threatening to engulf the presidency: the Epstein files.

Ten days earlier, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. had jointly released a memo that bluntly stated that their review had found no “client list” of powerful men for whom the notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein had allegedly procured underage girls and young women. Intended to put to rest years of speculation and end the pressure campaign to release the voluminous material in the department’s possession, the memo instead had the opposite effect, setting off a backlash that was notably loud among the MAGA base.

And it was about to get worse: The Wall Street Journal was preparing a damaging article about Trump’s relationship with Epstein. The president’s desperate attempts to kill the story had failed. His team now had to get everyone onto the same page about how to counter the growing swarm of attention. They needed a gesture of transparency to appease an increasingly angry base, but also a way to convey the message that the president was sympathetic to his supporters’ concerns. Which itself was a problem, because he clearly wasn’t.

Vice President JD Vance took a seat at the head of the table in the John F. Kennedy Conference Room of the Situation Room complex. “This is a huge problem,” he told the group. Arrayed around him were the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House counsel, David Warrington; the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt; the deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich; the communications director, Steven Cheung; the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche; the associate attorney general, Stanley Woodward Jr.; and the deputy chief of staff James Blair. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, joined on speakerphone.

The vice president appeared panicked to others in the room about the way the subject of Epstein was already dividing the MAGA coalition. Some senior officials had the impression that Vance had bought into the darkest theories about Epstein and a cabal of predators hidden within the country’s ruling class. Wiles would tell others that the vice president had proved himself to be a major conspiracy theorist. Another top official said later that Vance had been pounding on the Epstein issue since the release of the memo. He was privately pressing for the administration to release all the Epstein files, everything in the Justice Department’s possession, even encouraging a congressional investigation.

Vance had also floated to colleagues an extraordinary P.R. gambit — that the White House enlist Tucker Carlson to interview Epstein’s longtime girlfriend and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, in prison. It might help the president if Maxwell was willing to state that Trump had not been part of any wrongdoing with Epstein.

Vance told the group he believed all the files should be released as soon as possible. He argued that Congress was going to force the release of the files eventually. It was already clear that a bipartisan coalition in favor of such action was forming on Capitol Hill, and the momentum was going in one direction. If the administration got out ahead of this and released everything voluntarily — including whatever material existed about the president — it would at least get credit for transparency. The alternative was to let the story drag on for months as information dripped out, each new revelation renewing the cycle of suspicion and fury. Better to rip the bandage off and move on.
Even the unsubstantiated allegations and anecdotes about Trump should go out, Vance argued. They were going to surface regardless, and if the administration published them first, it would demonstrate good faith and take the oxygen out of the conspiracy theories. His arguments fell on skeptical ears, but some advisers thought it would be a good idea to have Justice Department officials call a news conference to explain their position on the Epstein affair — going beyond the memo that precipitated the crisis.

At this point in the meeting, Blair spoke up. “With all due respect,” he said, “the communications strategy of this group got us here. I don’t know that it’s going to get us out. And if you’re going to go in front of the press, you’ve got a lot of work to do.” He began to ask pointed mock questions, demonstrating how difficult a news conference might be.

As the president’s former defense attorney, Blanche had a unique vantage point in the discussion. He was better equipped than anyone else in the room to weigh the ideas being discussed against Trump’s personal and political interests. Blanche laid out what he saw as their best options.

Option 1 was to petition Federal District Courts in Florida and New York to unseal the grand jury testimonies — the secret transcripts of prosecutors’ presentations of witnesses and evidence in their efforts to obtain indictments in past Epstein-related cases. As those were almost certain to contain no significant new information, everyone agreed that this option was a good idea, and not only because a release was unlikely to damage the president.

Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the secrecy of grand jury materials is regarded by most federal judges as almost always inviolate, and the bar for any release is exceptionally high. If the courts refused to unseal them — as Blanche predicted — they could shift the blame for withholding the Epstein material away from the Trump administration and onto the judges. And all the better if the judges had been appointed by Democratic presidents. Blanche’s suggestion would make it appear that the White House wanted the materials released, when it was almost certain not to happen.

Option 2 was to have Justice Department lawyers question Maxwell and publicly release the transcript — a twist on the idea proposed earlier by Vance. Blanche offered to interview Maxwell himself.

“What if we got her to talk to Congress?” Vance suggested.

Blanche raised the possibility that Maxwell’s lawyer might expect something in return for her candor.

Warrington, the White House counsel, responded by laying out the available choices, without advocating any of them. Maxwell could be given a pardon, he said, or she could have her sentence reduced.

At that, several around the table spoke up to register their strong disapproval.

“Pardoning Maxwell, a trafficker of young girls, would create a huge P.R. problem,” Cheung said. He predicted that in the wake of a pardon, the Epstein accusers would be fanning out on TV, telling their stories and ripping the administration to shreds.

Blair was also adamantly opposed to a pardon. “We can’t offer Ghislaine Maxwell anything,” he said. “A, I don’t know why we would. And B, if we give Ghislaine Maxwell any sort of break whatsoever and then she turns around and says nice things about us, or says nice things about us and we give her a break, it will undermine the entire point of her saying good things. That will feed the conspiracy theory, period. If there’s nothing for her to say that hurts us, we shouldn’t have to offer her anything.”

The consensus was that calling for the release of the grand jury material was the best course of action. Wiles told the group she would discuss the matter with Trump and ask if he would send a Truth Social post calling for the release of the sealed grand jury documents.


Now let's be really clear, Blanche was in that meeting as Chump's lawyer.  Not as Deputy Attorney General.  In fact, as the Deputy AG, he shouldn't have been in that meeting at all.  Nor should AG Pam Bondi.  This is how you get corruption in an administration.  The people assembled in that room assembled not to protect the United States but to protect Chump and they plotted and conspired on how to deceive the American people.

They came up with two schemes.  First, they would call for the grand jury transcripts to be released knowing that they rarely were released and that, if they were, they wouldn't include anything that wasn't public knowledge in terms of evidence.  Second, Blanche would go and interview Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's convicted partner.  

They plotted to deceive the American people.

Guess what?

Not in the Constitution and not in their official job duties. 

Blanche is a serial liar.

Let's note some of Senator Chris Coons' questioning.


Senator Chris Coons: Thank you. As I consider your nomination, like all other nominations to similar cabinet positions, I need to know you're qualified to serve. You demonstrably are. That you have the policy views to serve well. We will discuss that today. And, most importantly in this role, that you have the independence to serve as the attorney general for the American people. And that last question has troubled me the most. You're in charge of a Department of Justice I don't recognize: prosecuting the president's political enemies, firing rank-and-file prosecutors and FBI agents because of the cases they were assigned to, slashing grants for law enforcement and public safety.  These are some actions that, in your previous confirmation hearing before us, you said you would not take. Now, I appreciate your statement walking back the $1.8 billion 'weaponization fund' that you created, but I question how it got that far, and we'll get into that.  You sat in an appropriations hearing earlier this year before me and defended it at that time. In fact, if I remember correctly, you told me I was wrong for criticizing it. But following questions by Senators Durbin and Cornyn, I'm concerned it's not dead yet, and I think we should talk that through.  Overall, this is not what I believe the American people expect or deserve from the Department of Justice.  Having spent critical parts of January 6 in this room taking shelter from the mob, I just wanted to open with some questions. How many people were convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers on January 6?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I believe around 120, approximately, but I could be off a few more.

Senator Chris Coons: You are. The answer is more than 200. And how many of those individuals had their sentences commuted or were pardoned by President Trump?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: President Trump either commuted or pardoned every defendant from the January 6 events.

Senator Chris Coons: That's correct. And in this room right now, and outside this room, are Capitol Police officers protecting us in this hearing room. How many of them do you think might have friends or colleagues who were attacked by supporters of the president on January 6?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure many of the Capitol Police officers who are here today worked, either were working on January 6th, or knew people who were.

Senator Chris Coons: I'll just say that I consider a shameful slap in the face of the men and women of law enforcement for those convicted of assaulting police officers to have been pardoned. I know you were not serving as deputy attorney general when President Trump pardoned those folks, but you said just a few moments ago that you were not celebrating this decision by the president. He was exercising his constitutional power. But earlier this year, in front of CPAC, a conservative event, I would say, from the transcript, you actually trumpeted it as an achievement. And I quote, saying, "If you look at what happened to the men and women convicted because of January 6, by 5 p.m. on January 20, every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted by President Trump. So, when folks say you’ve done nothing, I say you have a very short memory."  Would you say that you're proud of President Trump's decision to pardon individuals who assaulted law enforcement?

Acting Attorney General Blanche: No, that's not what I was saying there at all, Senator. So, I was responding to inquiries around why more hadn't been done by the Department of Justice with respect to January 6 defendants. And so, my answer was that the January 6 defendants and some of their lawyers had a short memory because a lot had already been done. Indeed, by the end of the day on January 20, they had all been pardoned or commuted. So, I wasn't celebrating it. I was merely stating a fact, which is that the January 6 defendants did receive a very generous pardon or commutation from President Trump. Every one of them on January 6.

Senator Chris Coons: A generous -- and in my view, for those who had assaulted police officers – unwarranted, unjustified, ahistorical, and a terrible precedent.



Chump's slush fund and IRS get-out-of-jail pass that Blanche signed off on -- and that the court has ruled against -- came up as well.  Let's note Senator Adam Schiff.

senator Adam Schiff: You signed an agreement for the U.S. basically indicating that the Justice Department's position that the statute of limitations applies doesn’t matter. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I didn't. That's not what I said. I didn't say that anywhere. 

Senator Adam Schiff: Who rejected the 25 defenses the IRS had to this sham lawsuit? Who rejected them? Who said that these defenses we're not going to accept, we're just going to go with the president’s agreement and the slush fund and this immunity? 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: There was a lot of discussion internally about the case. 

Senator Adam Schiff: But you made the decision? 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I -- what's the decision? What do you mean? What decision? 

Senator Adam Schiff: You made the decision to not defend the IRS and the Justice Department. You made the decision and said to sign this slush fund agreement. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: We made the decision to settle the case. Correct. 


Let's stop for just a moment.  A stipulation should have been submitted to the judge over the case after a proposed settlement was reached by 'both' sides.  That did not happen.  That's among the reasons we need to stop calling it a "settlement" because that term gives the appearance of all legalities being met when that was not the case.  I'm sure that factored in to US District Judge Kathleen Williams declaring that what was 'reached' was not a settlement. 


Senator Adam Schiff: Yeah, and in doing that, you basically decided that you were going to be the lawyer for the president and the lawyer for the IRS and the Justice Department. As the court found in this case there was no adversarial relationship. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Yes --

Senator Adam Schiff: The court found it was a sham. It was a collusive relationship, and what I don't understand, Todd Blanche, what happened to the Todd Blanche who was a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York? What happened to the prosecutor people had respect for? What happened to the prosecutor who once respected the rule of law? What happened to the prosecutor who said that there wouldn't be a whiff of political partisanship and then prosecutes the president's enemies over seashells cases, over making a video stating the plain law and Constitution? What happened to the Todd Blanche of the Southern District of New York that could convert him into you. Someone willing to say the president has both the right and the duty to prosecute his political enemies. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I never said that. 

Senator Adam Schiff: I cannot imagine the Todd Blanche of the old days would have ever done that. What happened to you, Todd Blanche? I'll tell you this. I think Robert Caro had it right when he said that "Power doesn't corrupt as much as it reveals." I suspect it has just revealed who you are. And who you are is someone willing to sacrifice everything you once believed in for that title, for that position of Attorney General. And it is a sad story that we have seen from Trump appointee after appointee after appointee. We have seen people compromise themselves little by little, and then a lot by a lot until they're sitting before this committee and trying to justify the unjustifiable. 


Also on the deal deriving from the slush fund, let's note Senator Peter Welch's questioning which gets Blanche to admit he was the one who signe

Senator Peter Welch: I mean, that is truly bizarre that the chief executive gets his appointed person --who was formerly his personal attorney -- to negotiate on his behalf, where at the end of the day, taxpayers are going to pay. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: The other thing I'll correct, though, is you used the word as if I negotiated. I wasn't part of the negotiation, which I've said before. 

Senator Peter Welch: Your department is—you had to sign off on it. That is your signature.  

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Yes, that's true. Yes, that is my signature. 

Senator Peter Welch: I mean, look: you're at the top of the pile here. So, you don't get involved in all the phone calls and all the details, but at the end of the day ,you have to do due diligence and satisfy yourself that you, in good faith, can sign off on the agreement. And you did. So that is your responsibility and I'm sure you accept that. 

Acting Attorney General Todd  Blanche: Correct. Yes, oh I do have responsibility for it. I agree with that. 

Senator Peter Welch: That's right. 



Let's note some coverage of the hearing. 





Back on May 19th, Toad met with a Senate Appropriations subcommittee and he kind of, sort of gave his word that he'd meet with the Epstein survivors. 

Two months later and he hasn't.  So Senator Durbin wanted to know about that.

Ranking Member Dick Durbin: Let me talk to you for a moment about the survivors who are in the room. There are 10 individuals who were exploited and abused by Mr. Epstein. They are here today. None of them had a chance to speak to anyone in the department or FBI though they've asked repeatedly. So can I get your word under oath that within the next 30 days you will personally sit down with these ten victims and hear their case in terms of what needs to be done by the Department of --

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  Chairman, I appreciate them being here today.  I also have somebody from my office who's spent her entire career working on cases like Mr. Epstein's.  She's in charge of our task force investigating human trafficking.  She's available to talk to them.  

Ranking Member Dick Durbin: She can sit right next to you. She can sit right next to you when you meet with these survivors. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I have never said I will not meet with survivors. 

Ranking Member Dick Durbin:  Will you meet with these ten survivors?  I'm asking you on the record. 


Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  If they have lawyers, as you know, I'm prohibited from meeting directly with them. I have met with counsel for survivors -- as have many people in the Dept of Justice -- over thirty.  But if they are represented by counsel, we will work with their counsel. If they don't have a lawyer, I will certainly make arrangements to make sure the right people at the Dept of Justice meet with them.  Absolutely.

Ranking Member Dick Durbin:  Will you get it done with the next 30 days?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  I will get it done today if that's necessary. My point is there's somebody here who can meet with them today to get their information and arrange to meet with them.

Ranking Member Dick Durbin:  I think you ought to be in the room.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  Pardon me? 

Ranking Member Dick Durbin: I think you ought to be in the room because you ought to hear this. You had a singular responsibility for these files. There is a delay in meeting the statutory requirement of disclosure.  You were involved in that.  I think you ought to be part of this. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  I am definitely part of it and I have been from day one.

Ranking Member Dick Durbin:  And it will be done within the next thirty days?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  I have -- I can keep on repeating myself -- but I said it could get done as soon today.  It could have gotten done last week.  We remain available to meet with any victim or their  representative at any time you notify. 

Ranking Member Dick Durbin:  I'm asking you if you'll notify the Committee when you've done this?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  That would be prohibited by law if they're talking about an ongoing --

Ranking Member Dick Durbin:  I'm asking you if you'll notify the Committee that you met with the survivors.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: It depends on what they say.  I'm not sure I'm allowed to notify you if there's an ongoing investigation. 

Ranking Member Dick Durbin: You are dancing on the head of a pin here. 


Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm not dancing on any pin at all. 

Ranking Member Dick Durbin:  Survivors who have the courage to come before this Committee, have the courage to tell their terrible stories -- how they were exploited.  Don't you think it's important that we have a prompt response by our government to these survivors? 

 Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  And there will be a prompt response. My heart breaks for every survivor, every victim of Mr. Epstein.  And I would love to prosecute anybody that did any harm to these victims. 

Ranking Member Dick Durbin: Absolutely. Will you meet with them within the next 30 days?  The last time I ask this question, you can say yes or no. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I can keep on answering it the same way. I can meet with them, my staff will meet with them.  We have a staff member who specializes in it.

Ranking Member Dick Durbin: Absolutely. If you can meet with them, will you meet with them?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm not sure what you're looking for me to say.  As I said, there are, if they're represented by council, I'm not allowed to meet with them directly as you know.  Uhm, I assure you the FBI who are experts in this space -- prosecutors who are experts in this space -- and me if necessary will absolutely meet with them.  I promise you this. 
 

Durbin was looking for a yes or no answer.  And he never got it from Blanche.

Blanche might have someone meet with the survivors.  Someone.

Not him.

He can -- and did -- fly to Florida to interview Ghislaine Maxwell but he can't speak to survivors if they have attorneys.  He could and did move Maxwell from a low security facility to a minimum security facility. But he can't meet with survivors if they have an attorney.

Two more exchanges that we need to note.  First up Senator Cory Booker.

Senator Cory Booker: This isn't a job interview. You've sat before this committee before. You've made promises time and time again before you got the job—first as Deputy Attorney General and now as Acting Attorney General. So this isn't a confirmation hearing. This is more of a performance review. And clearly, when it comes to the treatment of Epstein victims, when it comes to politically motivated prosecutions, when it comes to avoiding the appearance of impropriety with corporations, you failed.

And Senator Mazie Hirano told Blanche, "It is clear to me your leadership will be a continuation of what we have seen so far at the Trump Department of Justice. You are more likely to be called the Department of Retribution and Corruption."


Yesterday, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee issued the following:

Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durbin on the Senate Judiciary Committee urging them to reject the nomination of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. During testimony before the House Oversight Committee, former Attorney General Pam Bondi identified Blanche as responsible for the White House cover up of the Epstein files and referred to him by name over 30 times as being in charge of the Epstein investigation.

“Todd Blanche’s failed handling of the Epstein files and his personal involvement in moving Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum-security prison raises serious concerns about whether he is working for the American people or just protecting Donald Trump. The Attorney General’s job is to uphold the rule of law, not serve as the President’s personal lawyer. Blanche is unfit for the role, which is why we’re calling on the Senate to reject his nomination,” said Ranking Member Robert Garcia.

In the letter to Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durbin, Ranking Member Robert Garcia wrote, “I write to urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject the nomination of Todd Blanche to serve as Attorney General of the United States. More than any other individual, Mr. Blanche oversaw and implemented the White House coverup of the Epstein files. He oversaw the violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), botched the release of the files, and continues to withhold millions of documents from Congress and the American people. He released information which put Epstein’s survivors in danger, while the names of Epstein associates and accomplices were and remain withheld. Further, he is a central architect of the Administration’s policy of providing preferential treatment to Ghislaine Maxwell in exchange for favorable testimony. Mr. Blanche’s handling of the Epstein files shows his only loyalty is to President Trump, his former client, and not delivering justice to Epstein’s survivors or transparency to the American people. No nominee with his record should be confirmed to lead the Department.”

 
###

ICE.  Gabe Whisnant (NEWSWEEK) provides this overview:

A 28-year-old man died Tuesday morning after being struck by a tractor-trailer while fleeing an encounter with federal immigration agents in St. Augustine, Florida, authorities told Newsweek.

The man was among four vehicle occupants who ran from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents after stopping at a gas station before 7 a.m., according to authorities. The Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) told Newsweek he ran across State Road 16 and into the path of a semi-truck.
[. . .]
The death comes amid heightened scrutiny of immigration enforcement operations and marks the third death in roughly a week linked to encounters with federal immigration agents, following separate shootings in Texas and Maine.

Noting the Maine killing of Joan Sebastian Guerrero, Jack Crosbie (ROLLING STONE) notes, "What we do know is how ICE has responded to past incidents of this matter: with a stone wall of defiance. Maine's various politicians are calling for some version of a 'full investigation' (Sen. Susan Collins) that will 'determine the facts' (Gov. Janet Mills). The investigation is currently being run by the DHS. In the past, such investigations have gone nowhere. The officers who killed Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis have yet to be charged. State prosecutors are working on several cases pertaining to those killings, but have faced stalling and vague obstruction from federal agencies for months."  Alicia Civita (LATIN TIMES) observes


The three deaths have prompted an unusual response from federal officials.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, confirmed that ICE has temporarily suspended most vehicle stops nationwide while the agency reviews its enforcement tactics following the controversial shootings in Texas and Maine. The policy change does not halt other immigration enforcement operations but pauses one of ICE's most common arrest methods as officials evaluate officer safety and procedures.


That was Tuesday.  24 hours hadn't passed before Chump weighed in.  Madeleine Ngo and Zolan Kanno-Youngs (NEW YORK TIMES) report

President Trump on Wednesday demanded that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers continue to stop vehicles as they seek to detain people in the country without legal status, despite two fatal shootings that led to a temporary halt to the practice just a day before.
Officials with the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately say whether they were resuming the traffic stops, which they had largely halted after ICE agents shot and killed one person in Houston and another in Biddeford, Maine, in the span of one week.
The rapidly shifting policy is part of what has been a recurring pattern as the Trump administration has sought to achieve the president’s goal of mass deportations. As the government’s aggressive tactics have drawn intense public backlash, homeland security officials have scaled back the most visible aspects of their crackdown — only to feel the pressure to ratchet up arrests again.


While Chump tries to ignore the deaths and continue business as usual, others are asking questions and making recommendations.  Isaías Alvarado (EL PAIS) explains:why feedback is important:

Joan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a 26-year-old Colombian and father, was unarmed and not the target of the operation. Still, an agent from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who stopped him on a street in Biddeford, Maine, opened fire and killed him. The magazine The Atlantic has reported that the officer who fired had only recently joined the agency, a detail that has renewed scrutiny of the accelerated training given to new recruits in the deportation apparatus, which now numbers about 22,000 officers and has been pushed by President Donald Trump.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not explained a detail that seems crucial: why the agent concluded Durán Guerrero posed a threat that justified lethal force. While it initially said the victim had used his vehicle “as a weapon,” a later DHS statement said only that the officer fired because he “feared for public safety” while the Colombian “was attempting to flee the scene.” Several videos of the incident that have emerged and circulated on social media cast doubt on that account. So far, the government has not revealed the officer’s identity or confirmed The Atlantic’s reporting.

Last week, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a 52-year-old Mexican immigrant, died after being shot by another ICE officer during a traffic stop in Houston, Texas. Neither the officer involved in that case nor the one who killed Durán Guerrero was wearing a body camera, even though the devices were supposed to be part of the standard equipment for most immigration officers conducting street operations, under a DHS commitment following the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis in January. In the recent cases, the absence of those recordings makes it harder to reconstruct precisely what happened; nearby security camera footage, which is often partial, and witness accounts are the only elements so far helping to clarify events.
[. . .]
In February, Ryan Schwank, a former ICE attorney and the agency’s former head of deportation officer training, publicly confirmed what many critics had warned about: that the instruction at the agency’s academy was insufficient. “I am here because I am duty-bound to report the legally required training program at the ICE academy is deficient, defective and broken,” he said during a forum organized by two federal lawmakers.
What he revealed next was even more alarming: “On my first day, I received secretive orders to teach new cadets to violate the Constitution by entering homes without a judicial warrant. For the last five months, I watched ICE dismantle the training program, cutting 240 hours of vital classes from a 584-hour program.” He was referring to the Trump administration’s plan to recruit, train and deploy new immigration officers at an unprecedented pace, with the goal of doubling in a single year the number of officers dedicated to arrests and deportations, to about 22,000 personnel. During that time, recruits were expected to complete an intensive 42-day course.
It was not until June that DHS ordered that incoming agents — many of whom had joined through the accelerated training process — receive additional instruction. From that month, according to the directive, new cadets at the ICE academy in Georgia were to complete a roughly 71-day training program. It was not specified when that process would conclude.

They were trained to violate the Constitution.  How proud Chump must be of that. Rebecca Beitsch (THE HILL) notes:

In an emotional press conference, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus unleashed on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency several of the caucus’s members have argued must be disbanded.
“This is a failure of leadership to allow ICE to continue to go on a rampage, a killing spree,” Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), the chair of the caucus, said Tuesday morning.
[. . .]
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) offered a scathing assessment of ICE.

“This is an agency that is targeting, that is profiling, that is stalking Latinos across the country,” he said, adding he was not surprised both of the men who were killed were not the people law enforcement was initially seeking.

He noted that ICE said neither of the two dead men was the target of law enforcement.

“I think there’s a reason for that, because they have contracted people who are essentially bounty hunters, as well as their regular agents, to go out in the streets to look for people,” said Castro, who added that immigration agents were often looking for construction workers like Salgado Araujo.

“They don’t need names on a paper. They’re driving around to see who’s brown, driving around to see and listen to who speaks Spanish out in public, and then they’re stopping those people. They’re asking them whether they have papers, and in these last two cases, they’ve engaged in cold-blooded murder.”

Trained to violate the Constitution?  It would appear that's happening at one Texas ICE facility.  Michael Biesecker (AP) reports:


Dozens of people held at a sprawling Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Texas say they were either beaten by guards or witnessed others being beaten, according to a new report issued by legal and human rights advocates.

The 84-page report issued jointly Wednesday by Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union also says men and women held at Camp East Montana, located at the U.S. Army's Fort Bliss in El Paso, recounted being denied necessary medical care, forced to live in filthy conditions and fed inedible meals. Detainees also said they were prevented from contacting their lawyers or family members.
Of the 71 detainees contacted over a five month period, 64 — about 90% of those interviewed — said they had either personally been assaulted by the staff or had seen others physically abused, according to the report.

“ICE’s Camp East Montana is a human rights disaster,” said Angélica César, a fellow at Human Rights Watch and the ACLU who was a lead researcher for the report. “The U.S. government should shut it down, conduct independent investigations into all abuses and deaths in custody, and put an end to mass deportations and mandatory immigration detention.”


The report is entitled "'You're Only Getting Out Deported or Dead' Abusive US Immigration Deportation at Fort Bliss" -- Fort Bliss being where Camp East Montana is housed. The report notes:

In interview after interview, detained people told Human Rights Watch that they were beaten by guards, denied necessary medical care, and prevented from contacting family members or lawyers. One woman told us guards and nurses denied her emergency medical care, and she is at risk of losing her vision permanently as a result. Another man said guards groped his testicles during beatings and placed him in solitary confinement arbitrarily. Many detainees told us facility guards denied them outdoor recreation for weeks at a time, in extreme cases leaving them without sunlight or any outdoor recreation for over a month.

Detained people described overcrowded housing areas, bathrooms covered in feces and urine, and living quarters flooded with dirty water and dust. They told us they developed infections and other health complications because the facility failed to clean living spaces, did not have adequate ventilation, and did not provide basic hygiene supplies, including soap and hand sanitizer.

[. . .]
The abuses at Camp East Montana continue a troubling history of confinement at Fort Bliss. During World War II, Fort Bliss was one of several Texas military bases used as an incarceration camp for people of Japanese descent, as well as some German and Italian immigrants. [3] In 2021, under the administration of President Joe Biden, Fort Bliss was also used by the US government to detain unaccompanied children who arrived at the US-Mexico border. Government investigators reported the treatment children endured at Fort Bliss hindered case management and adversely affected their safety and well-being.

In April 2026, an ICE internal investigation identified violations of federal detention standards, including unreported uses of force, medical neglect, failures to conduct required suicide and wellness checks, inadequate sexual abuse prevention measures, unanswered grievances, and systemic failures to process detainee requests for assistance. This report’s findings corroborate many of these same patterns of government abuse.

Lastly, as Senator Alex Padilla noted to Todd Blanche in yesterday's hearing, "Here’s the bottom line: Why I’m asking these two questions, because in prior incidents, you referenced Minnesota earlier in your testimony. Alex Pretti and Renee Good were also fatally shot, and as far as we can tell, it’s been months and months. There’s been no justice in these cases. As far as I can tell, those officers were not fired. They have not faced any charges, so it does undermine any confidence anybody should have in the Department of Homeland Security’s ability, through the Inspector General or otherwise, to investigate its own."


The following sites plus Marcia's "The photos tell the story of the decay" and Ruth's "Chump has destroyed the GOP" -- updated:


Wednesday, July 15, 2026

PARAMOUNT caught bribing the FCC

Ann noted the PARAMOUNT grifter yesterday in "David Ellison's efforts to form a monopoly."  Today, PRO-PUBLICA's Corey G. Johnson reports that two FCC commissioners were gifted with tickets to the Kennedy Center's annual honors:

Among the attendees that evening were two lower-profile government officials whose regulatory decisions had been crucial to the future of the gala’s broadcast sponsor, CBS, and its parent company, Paramount.

Five months earlier, Federal Communications Commissioner Olivia Trusty cast a decisive vote approving Paramount’s historic $8 billion merger with Skydance Media. Now, the commissioner and a guest enjoyed the star-studded celebration thanks to tickets gifted to her by Paramount worth more than $12,000, according to ethics disclosure records obtained by ProPublica.

The other commissioner who approved the merger watched from a prized perch. FCC Chair Brendan Carr and his wife sat in a private skybox with Paramount CEO David Ellison and other executives from Paramount and CBS. Such seats sold for $125,000 a ticket, according to Kennedy Center guidelines.

It’s unclear if Paramount gifted Carr the premium seats because the FCC has yet to make public his financial disclosure for last year.

However, past disclosures show Carr and Trusty are among seven FCC commissioners who have accepted Kennedy gala tickets from CBS or its parent company over the last decade. Ethics experts told ProPublica this poses a blatant conflict of interest since the commission regulates the network. Carr’s previous financial statements show he has accepted tickets at least seven times since his 2017 appointment, totaling over $63,000 in gifts.

Last December’s ceremony attended by Trusty and Carr took place as Paramount was launching a hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, a move that would later result in a merger agreement that requires FCC approval.

Federal ethics rules ban employees from taking gifts from any entity that does business with, is regulated by or seeks official action from their agency.

Four ethics experts told ProPublica that by accepting the premium tickets Trusty and Carr compromised the FCC’s impartiality and should not take part in any upcoming decision on the merger.
“There’s no way that any top federal regulator should ever, ever accept a gift from a regulated company with interests their work will foreseeably affect,” said Walter Shaub, who led the federal Office of Government Ethics from 2013 to 2017. “The appearance of taking gifts like that is terrible. What’s at stake is nothing less than the public’s trust in government.”

Virginia Canter, who served as an ethics lawyer at the White House, Treasury Department, and Securities and Exchange Commission during the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, said the commissioners who accepted tickets cannot participate in this matter without damaging the integrity of the government’s decision-making process.

“This is shocking. Pretty disturbing, that’s what I would say. I just don’t understand what they were thinking,” said Canter, who now works as chief counsel for ethics and corruption at the nonpartisan government watchdog group Democracy Defenders Fund.

The FCC’s review of the merger is one of the final hurdles facing a historic $110 billion consolidation of two of the five largest film studios in Hollywood. The deal would unite Paramount Skydance with Warner Bros., bringing under the control of one company Paramount+ and HBO Max streaming services; CBS and CNN; and scores of other major broadcast channels, cable networks, and digital platforms.

This is disgusting.  And it's so typical of the type of corrupt person serving in our government thanks to Donald Chump.  This grifting doesn't even bother them.  They think that being a public servant is a personal bank that they can use to earn favors and money from those they are supposed to oversee.

Chump is the most corrupt president we have ever had and his appointees are just as corrupt as he is. 

And while being appalled by his two corrupt FCC commissioners, let's be appalled by David Ellison and PARAMOUNT for bribing the two which is illegal.

"The Snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS): 

Wednesday, July 15, 2026.  TACO Chump chickens out again, the Iran War continues, Chump continues to tank the economy, he and his family continue to grift, ICE is responsible for another death (this time in Florida), Todd Blanche  faces the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, and much more. 





TACO?  Trump Always Chickens Out.  And he did, as Mike noted last night, over the toll he was going to impose for those traveling through the Strait of Hormuz.  Jenny Gross (NEW YORK TIMES) reports:

One day after proposing a fee for ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump on Tuesday said the United States would instead guarantee safe passage to vessels from Persian Gulf states that agree to invest in the United States.

It’s not clear how Mr. Trump’s plans would play out, and the president’s latest comments left questions unanswered.

But the flip-flop shows how far the debate over the strait, the vital waterway in the Middle East, has strayed from longstanding practices in the shipping industry and underscores the level of unpredictability that businesses working in the region are facing as the conflict between the United States and Iran lurches back to war.


As the cease-fire that he once hailed dissolved, Mr. Trump dismissed its importance, saying in a radio interview that such agreements “don’t mean much,” while outlining no new strategy for how to resolve the conflict.

The developments left the president without a clear path forward, given that neither bombs and missiles nor diplomatic negotiations have yielded a palatable outcome. Oil prices surged and stocks fell on news of the naval blockade and shipping tolls, increasing pressure again even as many Republican lawmakers have expressed worry about the economic toll and sought to put the focus back on domestic issues in advance of this fall’s midterm elections.


The agreements "don't mean much"?  Yet a few weeks back, at his birthday, he was insisting this same agreement was a major accomplishment.  He just lies.  The editorial board of THE INDEPENDENT notes:

Having declared victory against Iran some 32 times, including five in one 13-second clip in mid-March, the president has now, de facto, gone to war again, with a carefully pre-announced television address to the nation promised for Thursday – clearly intending to convey the impression that a de jure announcement that more war will follow.
Every time Mr Trump declares the war “won”, the Iranians use their leverage to win more concessions. Every time he reacts by launching fresh attacks, he tanks the markets and pushes both the price of a barrel of oil and world inflation higher, damaging America in the process. He cannot win. To borrow a phrase so beloved by the Trump administration, he doesn’t have the cards.


He's succeeded in damaging the economy.  That's his big 'accomplishment' 111 days from the midterms and that's all he can point to as an 'accomplishment.'  Nicolai Haugsted (DAGENS) reports:


Fresh financial data released by the U.S. government shows refunds linked to import tariffs have soared this fiscal year, following a Supreme Court ruling that found a large portion of President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs had been imposed unlawfully.
According to The Guardian via. the newly published budget figures, the U.S. has refunded $81 billion in customs duties since the fiscal year began in October 2025. During the same period a year earlier, tariff refunds totaled just $5 billion.

A Treasury Department official said the dramatic increase was almost entirely the result of the Supreme Court’s February decision, with most of the repayments taking place during May and June.


His tariffs damaged the US economy.  It increased the costs to Americans for various goods.  Tariffs are  a tax.  Let's hope we all learned that lesson.  

Chump, of course, cleaned up and made at least 2.2 billion dollars last year.  He's very good at insider trading and other corrupt schemes.  Eric Lipton and John Yoon (NEW YORK TIMES) report

The lead investor in a South Korean aluminum company that has challenged Commerce Department penalties on certain exports from South Korea to the United States made a $2 million payment last year to President Trump’s holding company.

The payment by the parent company, Base Group, was revealed for the first time in Mr. Trump’s annual financial disclosure form released in late June.
The document offered only a cryptic explanation for the payment, stating that it was part of a “letter of intent” and a “nonrefundable development fee.” In statements to The New York Times, the company and the Trump family said the payment relates to a still-unannounced golf course project.

[. . .]
But historians and former government officials interviewed by The Times said these kinds of direct financial entanglements by a president with foreign entities — and in some cases with foreign governments — had never happened at anything close to this scale.

Most presidents in American history have taken steps to avoid even an appearance of a conflict. George W. Bush sold his stake in the Texas Rangers baseball team as he was considering a presidential run. President Reagan liquidated his stock holdings, and Calvin Coolidge was so concerned about the appearance of a conflict, he did not even want to own a home.


The reason most presidents took the position of avoiding "even an appearance of a conflict" is because  it's not enough for a public servant to have no conflict of interest.  The public servant is held to a higher standard and are supposed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.  Chump's just an ugly thug who doesn't care if the whole world knows he's a cheap grifter.  It's why he never got anywhere in New York upper class and had to move to Florida.  


Nicole Charky-Chami (RAW STORY) reports on Chump's two grifting sons:

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump have quietly raked in billions as the Pentagon has invested in new defense technology, according to a new Washington Post investigation published Monday.

President Donald Trump's sons have made significant investments in military-related startups, "further entangling the United States’ interests and the Trump family’s financial fortunes in an area with immense stakes for national security," The Post reported.
Many of these financial investments have come as Trump returned to the White House.

"The companies have collectively generated at least $3.2 billion in direct government business since the sons invested and an additional $3.1 billion in future contract options," according to The Post. "Some have gained coveted spots on shortlists of preapproved contractors that can bid exclusively on up to nearly $200 billion in future work."


Their grift is so notorious that some are anticipating how to address it.  Nick Hilden notes:

According to former Federal Prosecutor James D. Zirin, President Donald Trump, along with his family and officials, has been engaged in rampant self-enrichment over the course of his second term to the point where it may be illegal. And while Trump is likely to leverage his pardon power to protect himself and his allies, there is one tool that may hold them at least financially accountable: civil lawsuits.
As Zirin writes in the Hill, “Last year was a financial bonanza for Trump, bringing in more than $2 billion. More than half of that came from crypto, even as his administration was gutting the primary regulator of the industry. The president is exempt from federal conflict of interest laws. But they would prohibit other executive branch officials, and presumably their affiliates, from profiting from their relationship with the government.”
Zirin cites a number of recent grift endeavors by those in Trump’s orbit. His sons, for example, “stand to reap a fortune from a billion-dollar Tungsten mining venture in Kazakhstan. The deal is set to receive up to $1.6 billion in federal financing. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and his sons have also joined the party.” Then there’s the administration’s effort to eliminate restrictions on buying guns by mail, which would enrich Don Jr. to the tune of millions thanks to his involvement with the online gun store GrabAGun.
As all this is going on, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner appears to be preparing an escape plan, buying an island in Albania, “a country refusing extradition for ‘political offenses’ that has granted citizenship to the indicted former New York City Mayor Eric Adams.” But according to Zirin, “Kushner’s presence in Albania is unlikely to shield him from civil suits.”

Civil suits, argues Zirin, may be the only viable way to hold the Trump administration accountable. As he notes, even if the Democrats take the House and Senate in the midterms, impeachment will be out as the party will lack the two-thirds Senate majority necessary for conviction and removal. What’s more, “if the Democrats take the White House in 2028, you can almost rule out criminal prosecutions of Trump and his flock. Trump will certainly pardon friends and family on the way out and may even try to pardon himself. Constitutional experts argue that a self-pardon won’t hold water because of the venerable principle that ‘no man can be the judge of his own cause.’ But I would like to see what our reactionary Supreme Court does with that one. After all, they barely upheld birthright citizenship.”



Today, Toad Blanche appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee as he tries to make the case for confirming him as Attorney General.  Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff (REUTERS) notes:


Todd Blanche will walk into his confirmation hearing on Wednesday carrying baggage that might have sunk past attorney general nominees.

That includes a client list featuring the president who nominated him, a since-shelved $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund" that many Republicans called reckless and a stack of demands from Democrats, former prosecutors and Jeffrey Epstein survivors urging senators to vote no after they say he botched the release of the Epstein files. 
 



Two Democratic senators are calling out acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for not meeting with survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, saying Blanche has more interest in protecting President Donald Trump “than providing transparency to survivors.”

Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) are holding Blanche to his word from two months ago that he would meet with survivors of the late sex trafficker. In a letter, they said they know Blanche, who is Trump’s former personal attorney, met last summer with other close advisers of Trump, a group they believe is “more interested in minimizing damage to the President relating to his personal friendship” with Epstein.
“Your responsibility as Acting Attorney General is to pursue justice, not to shield the President,” the senators’ letter to Blanche reads. “We therefore expect a response no later than July 28, 2026, confirming a date for the meeting with survivors you committed to hold.”

During a May hearing in front of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Blanche said he would “absolutely” meet with Epstein survivors, adding he had already met with several of them.


Let's drop back to the May 20th snapshot for more on Blanche's meeting with survivors:

Senator Patty Murray:  So let me move to another topic. This Dept of Justice is sending the message that if you're wealthy. if you're powerful, if you are well-connected, you won't be held accountable even if you abuse children.  You know, it's after Congress passed The Epstein Files Transparency Act and DOJ finally began to release the files, your department exposed survivors' names, their sensitive personal information and even nude photos while redacting names of alleged perpetrators of those crimes.  The message that sends is this Dept of Justice worked harder to protect the privacy of potential child abusers than the survivors. Your predecessor refused to apologize to those victims but I want to give you the same opportunity to apologize for the way the department handled the release of these documents. Will you apologize to the survivors?  

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: When the president passed The Epstein Transparency Act, that was the only time -- 

Senator Patty Murray: Pardon me?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: When the president signed The Epstein Transparency Act, that was when we were legally allowed to release the files prior to the passage of the act, which you all passed.  I agree -- 

Senator Patty Murray: That is still not the question I'm asking. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  It was the question.  You asked five or six questions.  I'm answering them in order.  That was one of the questions you asked.

Senator Patty Murray:  The question I want you to answer is: Will you apologize to the victims whose names, sensitive personal information and even nude photos were not redacted by your department?  Will you apologize to them?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Of course. That was -- We never want to release a single victim's name --

Senator Patty Murray: That is what we are hearing.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  Can I answer the question, please?  Is it --

Senator Patty Murray: I'm asking if you'll apologize? 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  So, I -- and I just said yes, but I wanted to -- I would like an explanation to be given to that.  What-what this act did is it required us to review over 6 million pieces of paper in a very short period of time.  And so 0.0001% we made mistakes and we owned up to them.  And the second that a victim or their lawyer told us that we made a mistake, we pulled that document down and we put lawyers 24-7 in being responsive to victims and their lawyers to make sure that we fixed every single problem.  And so, yes, --

Senator Patty Murray:  I hear your anger.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm not angry.  No, I'm not angry.  I'm just making sure it's understood.  

Senator Patty Murray: I hear your anger and I will tell you who is really angry is the people who had their nude photos released -- 
 
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm just making sure it's understood that we matter. 

Senator Patty Murray: I just want to hear you say, ''I apologize to those victims.''

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, as I just said, of course any time that we release a victim's name that shouldn't be released, we have failed as a Dept of Justice and so we have to do everything we can to not fail --

Senator Patty Murray: Well, I still haven't heard the words, "I apologize to those victims."

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Well I'm trying to give you an explanation of what happened but I don't think you're really interested in that because you keep on cutting me off.

Senator Patty Murray:  Well I am but I have a few more questions here and I want to know -- and I know that Senator Van Hollen raised this -- but I want to ask will you personally commit to meeting with the survivors?  I have heard from them personally that DoJ refused to meet them and I'm asking about you, I'm asking about the Justice Dept reaching out to them to be heard.  Not waiting for them to navigate a legal system that has obviously repeatedly failed them so far.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  Can I answer?

Senator Patty Murray:  Yeah, will you reach out to them?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, as we have said repeatedly, of course any lawyer -- Now if the victim has a lawyer, I am not allowed to reach out to the victim directly.  You know that.  But any lawyer can reach out to the Dept of Justice.  They have and I've met with many victims and their lawyers -- as has the FBI, as has the SDNY.  We will always meet with victim's counsel and if any victim or their lawyer can come forward to the FBGI at any time -- 

Senator Patty Murray: You will always meet with victim's counsel?  Well these women -- and I've met with them and I know Senator Van Hollen has and so many others -- they are personally so feeling abused, again and again and again, by what happened to them originally and now what's happening to them.  I am saying to you as a human being, don't make them navigate a system that's impossible to navigate, that has already abused them.  Reach out and ask to meet with them.  That's all I'm asking. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  Wait.  You're asking me to call?  You want me to personally call the victims?  Is that what you are asking me to do?

Senator Patty Murray: I can help you reach them.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  Oh, that would be great.  Yes, because we have said from day one that --

Senator Patty Murray:  And you would meet with them if I reached out to them?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:  Of course, there have been members who have done that and we immediately reach out to the victims or their lawyers when their lawyers say they ant to do it.

That hearing was May 19th.  It's now July 15th and he still hasn't met with any of the survivors.  

Here's the release that Senator Murray's office issued yesterday:

Senators’ letter follows Blanche’s commitment to meet with Epstein survivors in response to the Senators’ questioning in front of the Appropriations Committee

ICYMI: At Hearing with Acting AG Blanche, Senator Murray Blasts Outrageous Creation of $1.8 Billion MAGA Slush Fund, Presses for Apology to Epstein Victims

Washington, D.C. – Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS), called on Acting United States Attorney General Todd Blanche to fulfill the commitment he made at the May 19, 2026, CJS Appropriations hearing to meet with Epstein survivors.

The senators’ letter comes nearly two months after Acting AG Blanche committed to meet with the survivors in response to the senators’ questioning at the hearing and nearly seven months after the first tranche of Epstein files were released by DOJ in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Despite repeated attempts from the senators’ offices to facilitate a meeting, Blanche has still not done so.

The senators begin, “At the May 19, 2026, hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, we asked whether you would meet with Epstein survivors if we connected you with them. You responded, ‘Absolutely.’ It has been nearly two months since then, and even though we provided the Department of Justice (the Department) with the point of contact for the Epstein survivors—and have followed up on this request multiple times—the survivors have not received the promised outreach.”

“Recently, reporting revealed that you were present at several meetings last summer in the White House Situation Room with the President’s closest advisors, confirming that the White House and the Department have been more interested in minimizing damage to the President relating to his personal friendship with Jeffrey Epstein than providing transparency to survivors and holding accountable those who may be implicated in Epstein’s crimes,” they note. 

“Your responsibility as Acting Attorney General is to pursue justice, not to shield the President. We therefore expect a response no later than July 28, 2026, confirming a date for the meeting with survivors you committed to hold,” the senators conclude. 

The full text of the letter is available HERE and below:

Dear Acting Attorney General Blanche:

At the May 19, 2026, hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, we asked whether you would meet with Epstein survivors if we connected you with them. You responded, “Absolutely.”

It has been nearly two months since then, and even though we provided the Department of Justice (the Department) with the point of contact for the Epstein survivors—and have followed up on this request multiple times—the survivors have not received the promised outreach. Additionally, our offices have not received any substantive responses from the Department indicating when the meeting will be scheduled.

Recently, reporting revealed that you were present at several meetings last summer in the White House Situation Room with the President’s closest advisors, confirming that the White House and the Department have been more interested in minimizing damage to the President relating to his personal friendship with Jeffrey Epstein than providing transparency to survivors and holding accountable those who may be implicated in Epstein’s crimes.

Your responsibility as Acting Attorney General is to pursue justice, not to shield the President. We therefore expect a response no later than July 28, 2026, confirming a date for the meeting with survivors you committed to hold.

###



Lawmakers are also expected to press Blanche over a now-abandoned $1.776 billion compensation fund that emerged from the settlement of Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. The proposal was initially intended to compensate Trump allies who believed they had been unfairly targeted by the criminal justice system.
Blanche became the public face of the proposal before announcing it had been scrapped.

"We are not moving forward with the fund, period," he said.

Democrats are expected to question whether the idea could be revived. Tillis has separately criticized another IRS agreement granting Trump and his family immunity from audits, a deal that has also drawn questions from a federal judge.




Donald Trump has resorted to begging the Senate to confirm acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to officially run the Justice Department.

In a lengthy Truth Social post Tuesday, the president claimed that Blanche was responsible for the lowest murder rates in 125 years, yet that arrests for violent crime were simultaneously “UP 100” percent.
[. . .]
But the main reason Trump wants Blanche for the job came at the end of the post. The president lauded Blanche—who prior to his stint in the Justice Department served as Trump’s personal attorney—for representing him throughout several criminal trials. Blanche defended Trump in his New York hush-money case, his classified documents case, the federal 2020 presidential election interference case, as well as the Fulton County, Georgia, RICO case.
As an apparent reward for his ongoing loyalty, Trump gave Blanche a plum position with the Justice Department. Since then, Blanche has utilized his office to enact Trump’s retribution campaign against his perceived enemies, attempted to force through the president’s $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, worked to squash the Epstein files, and has even arrested local officials—such as Newark Mayor Ras Baraka—for attempting to conduct oversight of ICE’s regional detention facilities.

Other concerns on Blanche's mind?  Well David Edwards (RAW STORY) reports

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche faces a proposed $1,000-a-day fine for refusing to comply with a federal judge's order to release more Epstein files.

The motion, filed Monday by independent journalist Katie Phang's legal team in Washington, asks U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to hold Blanche in contempt — meaning the court would punish him for defying its order.

[. . .]

Sullivan ruled in June, as Politico reported, that Blanche had "conceded" he was violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a 2025 law Trump signed requiring the full public release of Justice Department files on convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Sullivan had ordered Blanche to unredact emails, release FBI interview notes, and publish a log explaining every redaction — and Blanche refused.
"The Attorney General refuses to review foreign-language documents," the filing states. "He refuses to produce an explanation for his redactions. And he refuses to produce documents he concedes contain no victim information."
According to the filing, when Sullivan ordered Blanche to begin reviewing foreign-language Epstein documents that the Justice Department had never reviewed at all, Blanche claimed he didn't have to—arguing that because he had told Congress it was "impracticable" and Congress hadn't complained, he was off the hook.
"This isn't how the law — any law — works," Phang's attorneys fired back.



In casting off those formative lessons cultivated and practiced by generations of Department of Justice prosecutors across administrations of Republicans and Democrats alike, Blanche has emerged as something altogether unrecognizable. In their place, he has adopted a guiding tenet of get-ahead expediency, playing to the politics (and politicians) of the moment. The man now freely spouts incendiary falsehoods, including his recent claim that there is “a ton of evidence that the [2020] election was rigged” — despite the conspicuous absence of even a single criminal charge by the Justice Department he leads.

Blanche’s cynical, truth-optional approach has elicited condemnation from DoJ alums, virtually all Democrats, and even some Republicans. But it has also landed him at the doorstep of the permanent gig as the most powerful law-enforcement official in the country.

,

(Now for the full disclosure: I’ve known Blanche since our early days as trial prosecutors at SDNY in the mid-2000s. We worked in different units — me in organized crime and Blanche in violent crimes and gangs and later the White Plains satellite office — but we were colleagues and friends. I publicly defended him in 2024 when he was under fire for representing Donald Trump personally in various criminal cases. And I have criticized him, frequently and sharply, since he became a senior DoJ official in 2025. I stand by all of it.)

,

On Wednesday, at a confirmation hearing following his nomination as attorney general by President Donald Trump, Blanche will face questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee. With Republicans holding a narrow majorities of 11-10 in the committee (with one vacancy following the passing of Senator Lindsey Graham) and 52-47 in the full Senate, Blanche has little margin for error. I suspect he will squeeze by, barely. He has undertaken a campaign to meet individually with Republican senators, and he is savvy enough to say all the necessary things behind closed doors. But Blanche’s confirmation is hardly assured, and there’s much yet to be determined at the hearings. Democrats will come ready for battle, and even some Republicans harbor doubts.


Turning to ICE, Madeleine Ngo, Hamed Aleaziz and Zolan Kanno-Youngs (NEW YORK TIMES) report:


The Trump administration has ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to halt most vehicle stops while carrying out operations across the country, according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly about the directive.

The order comes after ICE officers killed two people over the past week in Houston and the coastal city of Biddeford, Maine, amid a recent surge in immigration arrests. Both were shot after agents tried to stop their vehicles, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

The pause on vehicle stops could hamper the agency’s ability to increase arrests as it faces increasing pressure to deliver on the president’s promise of mass deportations. But it comes as some influential lawmakers and state officials have demanded answers about the latest shootings.


But yesterday, another man died.  David Ovalle and Hamed Aleaziz (NYT) note:

A 28-year-old man running from “an encounter” with federal immigration agents at a gas station in St. Augustine, Fla., was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer on Tuesday morning, according to a state highway patrol spokesman.

It was not immediately clear whether the man interacted with the ICE agents, or if they were pursuing him.

The death happened shortly before 7 a.m. near a Wawa gas station on a busy thoroughfare. Agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security Investigations were at the station at the time, according to Sgt. Dylan Bryan, the Florida Highway Patrol spokesman.




Let's wind down with this from Senator Elizabeth Warren's office:


New DoD responses also reveal 347 percent increase in use of NDAs by private military landlords from 2020 to 2025

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released new data from the Department of Defense (DoD) revealing a 347 percent increase in the use of DoD-approved nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) by private landlords in settlements with service members and military families. 

The new data comes in response to Senator Warren’s December 2025 letter pressing DoD on its failure to properly implement a housing complaint database and formal dispute resolution process for residents in privatized housing on military bases across the country.

“For too long, the DoD has allowed privatized military housing companies to silence military families, forcing them to deal with dangerous living conditions,” said Senator Warren. “Our troops and their families deserve better. I’ve got a bill to make sure military families have access to safe housing and don’t have to live in fear of retaliation for reporting unsafe living conditions — it’s time to get this done.”

DoD’s responses revealed that NDAs were used in housing dispute settlements 15 times in 2020, 19 times in 2021, 38 times in 2022, 35 times in 2023, 56 times in 2024, and 67 times in 2025 — a 347 percent increase over five years. DoD also revealed that it conducts a “direct review” of each NDA before it is finalized, raising concerns that the Department is complicit in silencing military families. 

According to DoD, private military housing companies are not required to inform residents of their rights or publicly post information about the DoD Housing Feedback System (DHFS), a formal dispute resolution process for residents facing inadequate housing conditions. 

The Department also confirmed that it does not provide private military landlords with guidelines on how to resolve tenant feedback, potentially contributing to unresolved housing issues for tenants. 

Senator Warren has introduced the Restore Military Families’ Voices Act, which would put an end to these practices by prohibiting private military landlords from requesting that tenants sign an NDA and strengthening tenant protections against landlord retaliation. The bill is included in the House and Senate versions of the FY2027 NDAA. Senator Warren also secured language in the Senate’s FY2027 NDAA that would prohibit DoD from suppressing or altering tenant complaints submitted through the DHFS.

Senator Warren has long sounded the alarm about problems with privatized military housing and has led the push to protect military families:

  • In June 2026, U.S. Senators Warren (D-Mass.) and Ossoff (D-Ga.), along with Representative Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) led the reintroduction of the Restore Military Families’ Voices Act, which would bar private military housing companies from requesting that tenants sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) as a condition of housing and related services. The bill would also strengthen existing tenant protections against landlord retaliation in private military housing. 
  • In February 2026, Senator Warren published new responses from the DoD revealing the Department had entered into another 50-year-lease to extend the privatization of military barracks at Fort Irwin, removing accountability measures and threatening to cause housing quality problems for servicemembers.
  • In December 2025, Senator Warren (D-Mass.) wrote to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth with concerns that the Department of Defense (DoD) is failing to properly implement a housing complaint database and the formal dispute resolution process for service members and families living in privatized housing on military bases around the country.
  • In September 2025, Senator Warren pressed Department Secretary Pete Hegseth for answers about the potential privatization of military barracks, given the long history of substandard conditions and exploitative practices by providers of privatized military family housing.
  • In April 2025, Senator Warren pressured Trump’s nominee for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment, Dale Marks, to commit to holding private military housing landlords accountable.
  • In February 2025, Senators Warren and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) urged the Department of Defense to investigate whether landlords were utilizing RealPage price-setting software to artificially raise rents for military families.
  • In December 2024, Senator Warren and Representative Jacobs reintroduced the Military Housing Oversight and Service Member Protection Act, which would comprehensively reform the privatized military housing system.
  • In July 2024, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) led colleagues in calling out the Department of Defense (DoD) for failing to protect military families living in housing operated by private companies under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI).
  • In May 2024, Senator Elizabeth Warren led an annual hearing highlighting personnel priorities for the DoD and called for increased investments in military services, including military housing and child care, for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025.
  • In April 2024, Senator Elizabeth Warren questioned Army Secretary Christine Wormuth on the need to increase military housing supply and the damaging impact of non-disclosure agreements between private landlords, servicemembers, and their families on housing safety at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  • In December 2023, Senator Elizabeth Warren announced further enforcement of the Tenant Bill of Rights for military families as one of the key priorities passed in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2024, as well as the creation of a working group made up of DoD officials and military families to ensure ongoing oversight of deficiencies in privatized military housing.
  • In December 2023, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, sent a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin requesting information on the DoD’s plans to address the unhealthy prevalence of mold, lead-based paint, and asbestos in housing for America’s servicemembers.
  • In October 2023, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) sent a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin raising concerns that Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) families had to pay out of pocket to modify their homes to meet their families’ needs and asking for additional information about DoD’s oversight of the program.
  • In June 2023, Senator Elizabeth Warren, along with other Senate Armed Services Committee members, announced the reintroduction of the bipartisan Military Housing Readiness Council Act, which would provide a platform for oversight and accountability of privatized military housing to give military families a voice and bring together experts to ensure military families have the safe housing they deserve.
  • In December 2022, Senator Elizabeth Warren and other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin expressing concern over reports that military families are being forced to sign non-disclosure agreements with privatized military housing companies in order to receive compensation for poor housing conditions.
  • In December 2022, Senator Elizabeth Warren announced she had secured provisions in the FY 2023 NDAA to require military housing companies to disclose mold and the health effects of mycotoxins before a lease is signed. 
  • In August 2022, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) introduced the Military Housing Readiness Council Act, legislation that would ensure oversight and accountability on safe housing conditions for servicemembers and military families. The legislation would create a Military Housing Readiness Council composed of DoD officials, servicemembers, military families, and military housing experts to ensure ongoing oversight of deficiencies in privatized military housing.
  • In June 2022, Senator Elizabeth Warren announced the Military Housing Oversight and Service member Protection Act as one of her key priorities for the FY 2023 NDAA. The proposal would ensure medical care for military families affected by unsafe housing by directing DoD to establish a health registry for all servicemembers and families and establishing a presumption of service-connected disability for servicemembers and lifetime medical care for dependents.
  • In February 2022 during a Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing, Elizabeth Warren pressed Pentagon nominees for tough oversight as they improve military housing conditions
  • In July 2021, Senator Elizabeth Warren announced improving military housing as one of her key priorities for FY 2022 NDAA
  • In January 2021, during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Elizabeth Warren asked then-Defense Secretary Austin for his public commitment to respond and make her requests about military housing issues a priority In March 2021, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) wrote to Defense Secretary Austin, and Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge, continuing the lawmakers’ investigation into whether the largest military housing providers under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative are complying with federal laws that protect Americans with disabilities.
  • In December 2020, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) questioned the five largest private military housing providers about their reported failure to provide adequate housing to families with disabilities.
  • In May 2019, Senator Elizabeth Warren released the findings from her three-month-long investigation of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative and of five private companies that have contracts with the military services to provide on-base housing under the program. She sent letters to then-SASC Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and then-Ranking Member Jack Reed, and to the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to provide each with the results of her investigation, revealing how and why private military housing developers failed to meet basic housing standards, which in some cases resulted in severe health problems for military families.
  • In April 2019, Senator Elizabeth Warren and then-Representative Deb Haaland introduced the Military Housing Oversight and Service Member Protection Act, a comprehensive bill to address a series of disturbing reports revealing unsafe and unsanitary conditions in privatized, on-base housing for military personnel and their families.

###





The following sites -- plus Betty's "Alito" and Elaine's "Hepburn" -- updated: