Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
U.S. Attorney General Blanche Speaking at the White House; Supreme Court Blocks Trump's Plan to Change Mail Ballot Rules; 78th Primetime Emmy Awards. Aired 2:00-3p ET
Aired September 15, 2026 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
ISA SOARES, HOST, ISA SOARES TONIGHT: A very warm welcome to the show, everyone, I'm Isa Soares. Tonight, President Donald Trump lashes out at the
U.S. Supreme Court after it refuses to back his plans to limit mail ballots in November's Midterm election.
We'll have the very latest for you from the White House. Then multiple European countries are shoring up their borders after some reported
altercations with Russia overnight. We have the latest on that. Plus, a new report from the Pentagon Watchdog reveals what the Iran war has really cost
the U.S., we'll be live from Capitol Hill for you this hour.
But first, tonight, we do begin in the United States with just 49 days until the November Midterms. U.S. President Donald Trump is lashing out at
the U.S. Supreme Court for blocking his attempt to completely reshape how elections are conducted.
Late Monday, the high court blocked the President's effort to restrict mail-in voting across the nation, a move that would have given the U.S.
Postal Service unprecedented power to potentially withhold millions of ballots and essentially decide who has the right to vote.
Mr. Trump appointed several of the conservatives who rejected his executive order, and he blasted them, as you're seeing there on your screen, saying,
"these are not the people I interviewed for the Supreme Court.
However, we should note that Justice Kavanaugh, who sided with the majority, rejected the President's proposal due to time limits, not
necessarily its legality, leaving the door open to possible future rulings."
Well, U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche is expected to brief reporters at any moment, and we may get more reaction, you're seeing there, the view
from the White House and our reporter there standing by, who will be attending that press conference.
Outside on the other side, we have our White House reporter, Kevin Liptak, with much more. So, Kevin, we are waiting, of course, to hear from Todd --
Attorney General Todd Blanche, who will no doubt be peppered with numerous topics.
And most significant, I think, is that decision we're talking about from the U.S. Supreme Court on mail-in voting. We mentioned that a bit of what
the President said, clearly, he is not happy, ripping into the Supreme Court. Talk us through what he said.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, and he's going after the court, but he's also very specifically going after those three
conservative justices that he named in his first term. So, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who he is essentially accusing of
disloyalty, by not dissenting in this majority opinion that blocked the voting rule from going into place.
And he is really decrying it, saying that the Supreme Court has really let our country down. And he says that certain justices are quote, "petrified
of these crazed and depraved Democrats who were totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America."
And he sort of lumped this decision in with a number of other decisions that blocked aspects of his agenda, including when it deemed his sweeping
tariffs illegal, and when they blocked his attempts to get rid of birthright citizenship.
Now, it should be said that the Supreme Court has ruled in the President's favor a number of times, including I think probably the most landmarked
ruling of the last many years, which essentially gave him criminal immunity from acts that were deemed official acts of the presidency.
That was a sweeping ruling that has had enormous ramifications. And just last week, the Supreme Court allowed the construction of his ballroom to
proceed. So, this is by no means a court that is universally opposed to what -- to what the President is doing.
But clearly, this decision and the President's response to it, I think just shows how significant it was. You know, this is perhaps the most important
ruling of this term so far for the Supreme Court. This -- the mail-in ballot rules that the administration was trying to put into place, really
would have made it very difficult for a number of these states to go ahead with the elections as planned.
In the Midterms, a lot of these states that already sent out the ballots. And so, the President's response there, I think just reflecting how
important, how significant this ruling was, and how meaningful it will be, and how more -- how difficult it will be for the President to implement
changes to voting going forward.
[14:05:00]
SOARES: Right, and I do -- I mean, clearly, given the reaction we heard from the President, you just outlined that, Kevin, clearly, it is very
important to the President. So, I wonder whether you could explain to our international audience here why he thinks the mail-in ballots are
fraudulent. I mean, why he -- this is something he keeps going on about what evidence is there. Speak to that.
LIPTAK: Well, there's no evidence. I think that's an important thing just to say from the get-go. The President says that mail-in ballot -- mail-in
voting is rife with fraud. But there's been no evidence for that over the last many elections.
And in fact, President Trump himself sort of exclusively votes by mail. He says that's because he's the President and can't get down to his voting
precinct in Palm Beach, Florida. But he's there almost every weekend in the Winter.
So, that explanation has never made a lot of sense. I think what the President is actually trying to do here, and despite the ruling, still is
somewhat successful, is to just sow a lot of confusion around the whole concept of mail-in voting.
And his critics argue that this is his attempt to get people not to vote by mail, because they don't think their ballots will be counted, or they think
it's illegal. And if his attempt is to sow confusion, that, in fact, has been successful just by a ding of these rulings and this very sort of
dizzying back-and-forth legal challenge that this has ensued since the ruling went into -- or their rule went into effect in March.
SOARES: Yes, plenty of confusion, no doubt. Kevin, thank you very much. We're all expecting, of course, to wait to see what Attorney General Todd
Blanche says. We're keeping an eye on those doors. It's going to be at the Rose Garden there. Thank you very much, appreciate it.
We're going to stay here on this. Legal experts had widely expected the U.S. Supreme Court to block Mr. Trump's mail-in ballot order. The U.S.
Constitution gives the President no direct power over election administration.
And to help us sort out through the legal ramifications of all of this, we're joined by Jill Konviser; she's a former New York State Supreme Court
Justice. Jill, really warm welcome to the show. We are keeping an eye on that Rose Garden, waiting, of course, for Todd Blanche.
So, apologies in advance if I have to interject. Let me get your take first of all, on this decision, because this is a hugely significant ruling, as
we heard from my correspondent, it comes seven weeks before the Midterms.
Now, the Justices did not explain their ruling, but what was noteworthy was that four of the conservative Justices said that was probably
unconstitutional. Actually, let me stop there for one second, we are now hearing -- do we have sound on this? Todd Blanche is about to speak. Judy,
do stay with us for just a second.
TODD BLANCHE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: Few minutes talking about the work that we're doing at the Department of Justice. The first
thing I'm going to talk about is terrorism. Since President Trump returned to office, FBI data shows 4,260 arrests related to FTOs, including 1,039
individuals prevented from carrying out alleged terrorist attacks.
That's 38 percent increase from the last administration. I want to talk about some recent cases. An ISIS, Butler County, pair of -- Butler County,
Pennsylvania terrorism arrest that just took place this morning out of our Pittsburgh office.
A 21-year-old man, Jonathan Kramer, was charged and arrested for receiving a firearm and ammunition with intent to commit terrorism on behalf of ISIS.
He was arrested. The investigation is ongoing and there will be more from that in the future.
Just today in the Southern District of New York, an indictment was returned that since -- charging multiple Russian individuals that since 2024, these
individuals who worked for the services of the Russian Intelligence Community, were charged with financing terrorism and conspiring to commit
murder for hire around the world, including efforts to murder a Russian dissident who they believe was located in the Washington D.C. area.
I want to talk next about the great work that we're doing, and President Trump talks about it all the time, but it's never -- it's never too much,
and reducing crime in this country. Under President Trump's leadership, crime is the lowest it has been in modern history.
In 2025, murder rates were down nearly 20 percent. Violent crime was down nearly 10 percent. DOJ's federal law partners, our state and local
partners, we're working together and coordinating as never seen before.
And that's why you see the results that you're seeing to make America safe. Another point to talk about is the work that we've done in Memphis.
[14:10:00]
Today is the one-year anniversary of us signing the Memorandum of Understanding with Memphis to do the great work that we've done over the
past year, nearly 13,000 arrests in the Memphis area, more than 2,000 illegal firearms seized and nearly 1,500 known gang members arrested over
the past year.
We also located more than 200 missing children. Saint Louis over the past four weeks, our HSTF platform has been extraordinarily successful,
arresting over 250 violent criminals, many with outstanding warrants and extensive criminal history, and they've taken over 100 illegal firearms off
the streets.
That's just in the past four weeks. And today, you may have heard Director Patel announce that the FBI has arrested ten out of ten of the criminals on
the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list in the first 18 months of the administration.
We've talked a lot about fraud. Yesterday, we were -- I was in -- I was in Missouri with the Vice President, talking about a COVID fraud takedown that
we've been working on in Missouri and the neighboring states.
This surge resulted in fraud enforcement actions spanning over 160 criminal defendants and involved approximately $245 million in intended loss. And
again, this was an effort just between June -- mid-June and September 1st of this year.
We worked with the Small Business Administration and the Office of Inspector General, the FBI, our federal prosecutors, and 40 U.S. Attorneys
Offices to obtain these charges. Between newly-charged defendants, approximately 43 defendants have already pleaded guilty to SBA-related
COVID fraud with nearly $50 million in intended loss.
And one more -- one more highlight on fraud. This is just today, our great U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of California, Adam Gordon, just
held a press conference and announced just about an hour ago that there were 12 daycare fraudsters who were arrested this morning for funneling
more than $10 million intended to help low-income families pay for childcare to what were really just completely bogus daycare facilities.
Now, all 12 of these individuals were naturalized citizens from Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Somalia. When it comes to unlawful voting,
which I expect there may be a question about in a moment. The DOJ and DHS are working together to prioritize unlawful voting in our elections.
Election integrity should not be a partisan issue. Those who are not legally allowed to vote shouldn't. And if you knowingly break the law, you
will be held accountable. In just the past ten days, the Department of Justice has announced charges against 11 individuals for illegally voting
in 2024 and 2022, or fraudulently registering to vote.
What we are seeing is illegal aliens voting, non-citizens who are not eligible to vote voting, or those fraudulently registering to voters who
are not eligible to vote. So, just to put a finer point on this, in under two years, this administration has charged nearly four times as many non-
citizen voting cases as the last administration brought in four years.
And we're currently investigating hundreds of cases across the country. And our great U.S. Attorney, Ryan Raybould, in the Northern District of Texas
will be announcing a big development on this topic in about an hour.
So, shortly after this briefing. So, with that, I will take questions if there are any. And I know it's a different environment than before. I
noticed you guys are sweating, which is nice. I love to see that. We'll start out with Caroline Downey from the -- they gave you a list, guys.
Everybody, calm down. Caroline Downey from the "National Review".
CAROLINE DOWNEY, EDUCATION & MULTIMEDIA REPORTER, NATIONAL REVIEW: Oh, sorry, does the Supreme Court's ruling on the mail-in ballot executive
order present an obstacle to future ballot fraud prosecution, in your view?
And as we look to 2028, do you foresee a future legal battle for the Postal Service when it comes to preventing non-citizens from voting?
BLANCHE: The Supreme Court's decision today or yesterday doesn't affect ongoing criminal investigations into illegal voting, no, I mean, look, I
think the -- we -- President Trump, there's nothing -- there should be nothing surprising about what we're trying to do when it comes to mail-in
voting.
Which is -- we want to make sure that there is safe voting, and that there is integrity, free and fair elections, and that there is one person placing
one vote and that, that person is eligible to vote.
[14:15:00]
And so, well -- you saw part of the decision was the timing, and that we ran out of time because of the litigation in part. And so, our efforts to -
- and President Trump's efforts to make sure that we have free and fair elections are not going to stop just in November or after or thereafter.
So, I expect you're going to see that work continue. Mary Margaret?
MARY MARGARET OLOHAN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE DAILY WIRE: Hello, thank you, sir. I have two questions for you if that's OK. The first, Tom
Homan said on Sunday that Homeland Security investigations is actively investigating Ilhan Omar.
If she's found and committed immigration fraud, will the Trump administration deport her? And then, second question is, there's concern
among the MAGA base that there's a lot of ideological actors in the FBI and DOJ still, that are waiting out President Donald Trump and the next
possible Republican administration to get back to doing what they were before. Are you concerned about that, and what are you doing about that?
BLANCHE: So, on the first -- I'm not talking about ongoing criminal investigations. And so, I'm not -- I don't have anything to say about your
first question or anybody that's -- or public reporting about what others have said about ongoing investigations.
Ideological -- any ideology that any federal employee has, whether it's a federal agent or somebody, the Department of Justice or any other agency
that works in this administration and the executive is never -- is never a good thing, whether it's Republican or Democrat.
And so, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, except for just generally. But one of the things that Director Patel has been doing, and
that I've been doing, and other cabinet secretaries have been doing is making sure that everybody that works in this administration.
Whether you're a career or a political about doing work that's consistent with the President's agenda. And that's what you have to do if you're going
to work in the executive. That's what Article 2 says. And so, I don't -- it's not something that I quote, "worry about", unquote.
But when we -- and if we learn about that happening, we'll do whatever we can to stop it. You? Sorry, you have to use microphones, it gives me a
chance to catch my breath.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No worries --
BLANCHE: Good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you for joining us. Two things I want to clarify. You said prosecutions of potential election fraud are going to continue
despite the court ruling. But does the Justice Department plan to suspend the attempts to establish federal mail ballot standards for the 2026 cycle?
Will that end for now?
And then I'm curious what you make -- whether you agree with the President and what he said about his three Supreme Court nominees that they, quote,
"are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court. They are merely a shell of their original selves."
BLANCHE: So, we're -- of course, we're going to comply with the Supreme Court's decision, as we always do. That doesn't mean that we're not going
to do everything in this administration that we can to make sure that there are free and fair elections.
And again, there's this -- there's this constant pressure and this effort by the media and by mostly by Democrats that somehow doing that is a bad
thing. Everybody should want that. The Republicans and Democrats should want free and fair elections.
So, while the Supreme Court did what it did, we're not going to stop the work that we're doing, but we are, of course, going to -- going to follow
the orders of the court. As far as President Trump's truth about the Justices, he is very frustrated.
And I wasn't at the interviews that he was -- that he participated in during the last administration when he selected these folks to be on the
Supreme Court. He has every right. And indeed, he should communicate his concerns with the Supreme Court whenever he has them.
This isn't the first time that he's done it, and it won't be the last. He's also publicly very appreciative of the Supreme Court when there's decisions
that he very much agrees with. That's what a democracy is about.
A democracy is about three branches of government. And President Trump being critical of folks on the Supreme Court, we very much disagree with
the Supreme Court's decision. And that should be obvious from our papers and from our -- what we've said publicly about the case.
And so, I am also upset about the Supreme Court decision, but the idea that President Trump shouldn't be allowed to communicate to the American people
his frustration, I don't share that. Just next to you. See, there's a microphone, so I can't hear you. Don't you love that? Next question.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you ask for Joe DiGenova's resignation? And did he tell you that he felt there wasn't enough evidence to move forward with
the grand conspiracy investigation?
BLANCHE: So, I don't want to talk about communications I have with prosecutors. It's not fair to them. It's not fair to the process. I -- he
resigned last week.
[14:20:00]
He came out of retirement to help -- to help the President and to help us, and we're very appreciative of the work that he did. Beyond that, there's
been a few news stories about -- he said some different things to different outlets, which is fine.
I'm just going to leave it. I very much appreciate the work that he did for us and for the administration. Any investigations that he's working on, of
course, continue like they do, like any investigation does when somebody leaves and we're not going to slow down just because somebody leaves. Jared
Halpern. Jared Halpern.
JARED HALPERN, PODCAST HOST, FOX NEWS AUDIO: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, two questions for you. First, from a law enforcement perspective,
what are your concerns about Artificial Intelligence? What regulations are needed?
Do you think there should be a slowdown in that technology, especially with how it's being used increasingly in law enforcement operations? And then
secondly, more broadly, what role should Americans expect the Justice Department to take in the upcoming Midterm elections?
BLANCHE: So, I'll answer the first question -- I mean, the second question first. The federal government is always involved in elections. That's not
new to this administration. It's not new to the Biden administration. And so, our role is going to be the same role that federal government play in
elections under the law, as we're required to do and as we should do.
So, we're going to continue to do that in this election just like the Biden administration did it during the elections when Biden was President. And
so, as far as A.I. is concerned, we have a lot of -- there's a lot of criminal laws.
And so, if anybody associated with A.I. violates criminal law, we'll investigate that. We already have. There's plenty of cases involving A.I.
that we've charged individuals. I do not think it's the job of the Department of Justice to regulate, we're prosecutors, not regulators.
So, we're not going to try to regulate A.I. A.I. is extraordinarily beneficial to our society. There's a lot of great work that A.I. does, and
it's also something that conveniently has become a flashpoint this week.
And the President spoke about that, and I very much agree with him. The second, second row, Steven Nelson. Oh, it's my favorite paper, the "New
York Post".
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh --
BLANCHE: Amazing.
STEVEN NELSON, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK POST: Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General --
BLANCHE: I actually didn't know that when I called on him, I promise.
NELSON: Yes, I'd like to ask you about the Iran war and about Anthony Fauci. On the Iran war, Congressman Thomas Massie today introduced articles
of impeachment against Secretary Hegseth.
BLANCHE: Who did?
NELSON: Thomas Massie --
BLANCHE: OK --
NELSON: For allegedly violating the war powers resolution by conducting the war without congressional authorization. What's your current legal
assessment of how long the work can continue without specific congressional authorization?
And secondly, on Anthony Fauci, could you describe the status of your review of his alleged contempt of Congress? Are we any closer to charges
there? And can you explain why your department didn't prosecute him for allegedly perjuring himself?
BLANCHE: So, the first question is Secretary Hegseth is doing a phenomenal job, and the Secretary of War doesn't just go off and do things. So, he
follows the law. And so, the DOJ plays a role in most of Congress.
And so, there's been votes on whether it's a -- on whether -- on whether it's a war and what to do, and why votes through Congress which have
determined -- there was -- that he's not doing anything wrong, and the President is not doing anything wrong should result in articles of
impeachment.
I guess you'll have to talk to Massie about that. As far as doctor -- as far as Fauci, we're -- again, it's an ongoing investigation. I'm not going
to talk about it. So, we're -- we take any time anybody lies to Congress or potential lies to Congress seriously. But beyond that, I don't have a
comment. Jon Decker.
JON DECKER, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, GRAY TV & HEARTMEDIA: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I wanted to follow up with your remarks regarding
that decision by the Supreme Court regarding mail-in voting.
As you said, the President was not pleased by this ruling by the Supreme Court, and he put out a lengthy social media post. He said, in part, "the
Supreme Court has really let our country down. Certain Justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats, and are totally unable to
show the courage necessary to save our America."
You used to be the President's personal lawyer. You used to be in private practice. Would you ever encourage one of your clients to disparage a court
in the manner that the President has disparaged the Supreme Court?
BLANCHE: I mean, he's -- so, you can't talk about my background and then ask me what I would have done. He's the President of the United States. So,
the real question is whether the President of the United States is allowed to be critical of another branch of government.
And the answer to that is absolutely, of course, he is. And by the way, what he wrote about that is the same thing that he said publicly,
repeatedly. It's the same thing that DOJ's briefs have said about the issue.
[14:25:00]
We do think that this decision is not the right decision. That is OK. That's the way -- the way democracy works. And so, what I would have
advised the client or what I would have done when I was a prosecutor or when I was President Trump's lawyer isn't in any way or shape relevant to
what the President of the United States should be doing in communicating to the -- to the American people.
Are you guys sweating yet? Nice, I love that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you?
BLANCHE: No, I'm comfortable. It's actually really nice.
(LAUGHTER)
BLANCHE: I have water if anybody needs it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right. I want to put a final point --
BLANCHE: OK --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On that last question, and then I have another question related to it. On the comments from the President specifically, that these
Supreme Court Justices in this decision aren't the people he interviewed. Does that undermine even the perception of the court's independence, in
your view?
BLANCHE: Not at all. No, I mean, he wants another one. That's OK, he can have another one. No, I don't think it undermines -- like I think -- look,
what happened after the Dobbs decision. Members of Congress, the administration came out basically threatening judges for months on end.
There's a full security force, OK? Around every Justice because of the rhetoric after the Supreme Court issued that decision. And so, the fact the
President issues a Truth saying that the Justices that interviewed in front of him, you know, six, seven years ago, eight years ago, are not the
Justices he's seeing now.
That undermines the -- no, I don't think in any way, shape or form it does that. I think that that's just something that the media wants to put on it.
He has a -- the President should be communicating to the American people about cases that are extraordinarily important to him, which this one --
which this one is.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And related to this whole discussion, after all this back-and-forth, are you concerned at all that voters may be confused about
what their options actually are now to vote by mail? And what, if anything, will the DOJ do to kind of educate people on the fallout of this case now?
BLANCHE: I'm not sure that the American people follow this as closely as the folks in this beautiful Rose Garden do. So, no, I haven't seen any
suggestion or any information or heard from secretaries of state that that's an issue.
That's the response -- I mean, listen, ballots are confusing in every election. The way they're distributed, the way they're talked about, that's
something that the state and locals handle very well every single election cycle for one reason or another. So, no, that doesn't -- that doesn't
concern me. Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you so much. And just acknowledging that you're standing in front of the Oval Office and the President might be watching
here. So, if at any point he wants to come out --
BLANCHE: I don't think that -- I don't think that --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And take our questions.
BLANCHE: He's always watching. I don't think the mere fact that I'm standing here --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We would love to see him. AG Blanche, you --
BLANCHE: No offense, I'm standing right here, OK?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're doing a great job. Two questions here. The first -- you know, you go after crooks and criminals and thieves, the
government has made it very clear that China has been -- President Xi, who will be here in Washington next week. Is it time for the President to talk
to him about how China has been stealing from us?
BLANCHE: Well, so when you say China, you're talking to -- about an entire country. And so, the President has -- those two Presidents have a great
relationship, and they're -- they get along, they make deals together.
But does that -- are there separate issues with actors in China and companies in China and bad actors? That has existed long before this
administration, and will exist for the next several years. And the Department of Justice and other agencies in the Executive, of course, we're
doing everything we can to combat that and to go after that in the right -- in the right way.
But I don't think it's fair to just label China as a country, there's bad actors in China that are doing it, which we're definitely going to go
after. All right, somebody in the back.
Yes, the guy pointing to his own head, that's pretty good. See, it's a microphone thing, I can't hear you. Sorry, I can't hear you.
WILLIE NELSON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SALEM RADIO NETWORK: Hey there, thank you. Willie Nelson with "SRN". Mr. Attorney General, reports say
actress Hayden Panettiere may have died after taking a pill laced with fentanyl.
The DEA is looking at her alleged dealer. What is the Justice Department going to -- doing to go after the people that sell these fake pills? And my
second question is, is the A.I. doomsday talk a real national security issue, or is it a way to put the government in charge of the internet?
BLANCHE: So, when it comes to fentanyl, they're not fake pills. They're death pills, right? So, they're pills that kill people. And there's a
federal statute that allows us to go after -- assuming we can prove who the dealer is, to go after them and put them in prison for murder.
And we do it in every district in this country, and it's a big -- it's a big emphasis of DEA, Administrator Cole, and our prosecutors around the
country. So, when we can prove, and sometimes if somebody is an addict, it's difficult to prove who they actually got the pill from.
[14:30:00]
But in the cases where we know who the dealer was and we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person sold the death pill to the victim who then
dies, that's a federal crime and that's something that we will readily prosecute as often as we can.
And as far as the A.I. question, I answered it earlier, but I mean, there's no -- I mean, this should not be breaking news that this A.I. issue that's
suddenly come up two months before an election is being -- and the president calls it a hoax, that the way this has come around today and not
three months ago -- I mean, I was watching the news today, every Democrat Senator suddenly races to a microphone to talk about A.I. after being
eerily silent for months and months and months.
So, to talk about the timing of this as being nothing but an effort to influence the midterms, I shouldn't have to say that out loud. Of course,
that's what it is. And that shouldn't be what drives the decisions that we're making around A.I. We can't lose the A.I. race to China, right?
President Trump says that, everybody says that, but they say it because it's true. Second row, yes.
LIZ LANDERS, PBS NEWSHOUR: Liz Landers with PBS NewsHour. The FBI conducted a raid at Fulton County, Georgia, back in January of this year,
and they alleged that there was impropriety with the 2020 election there. Has the Department of Justice found any evidence from the FBI of that? Why
is it taking so long if you all think that there was election fraud in 2020? Why has that not come forward? Where is the evidence?
BLANCHE: Well, so it wasn't the FBI conducted a raid, it's that a judge authorized a search warrant based upon probable cause to allow us to search
and collect those records. There are hundreds of thousands of records, and they are now many, many years old. And so, I'm not sure what the question
about timing is, but when we have an answer, when the investigation is complete, you will know.
I'm not -- you can't rush an investigation like that, reviewing hundreds of thousands of ballots from many, many years ago. There's -- that's
something, again, it's an ongoing criminal investigation. So, getting into the weeds of what we're doing and not doing isn't appropriate. But it's
also not appropriate to suggest that this is just the FBI or the DOJ going and seizing records. It's a judge reviewing an affidavit and finding that
there is probable cause.
All right. somebody in the back. Yes, you. Sure.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- accepting a gift from Russian oligarch when he decided not to go to Bahamas to his wedding. What was his reaction when he
learned about it? And to you as a public official, was it appropriate for the son of the President of the United States to accept such a gift from a
foreign businessman, from a friend of Putin? And are you going to investigate if everything was appropriately reported as a gift?
BLANCHE: So, I -- the president has already talked about it. So, I wasn't with the president when he learned. So, I can't give you a firsthand
account. But the president has talked about it. Other people have talked about it. The president doesn't know who this person is. I think other
members of the family don't know who this person is. The president's son has said that he's a very close friend and that he accepted a gift in the
weekend of his wedding.
I'm not -- so I don't -- I'm not sure what, when you say am I investigating, am I investigating what? And when you say this person is a
friend of Putin, I don't even know if that's true or not. So, I like that it's fun to talk about this issue and the rhetoric around it. But I think
all the relevant people involved, the president and his kids, have already addressed it. I don't have any information. I don't know this person
either. So, I don't have any information about it beyond that.
OK. We'll take just a couple more. You. You. I was going to say the bald guy, but that's probably going to get in trouble for that.
CARA CASANOVA, LINDELL TV: Cara Casanova from Lindell TV. Thank you so much for taking my question today. And I have two questions that are
deeply, I think, important to our audience. One of them is about the Department of Justice Weaponization Working Group and what the status of
that working group is.
Specifically, under your leadership, will the DOJ finally investigate the treatment of the January 6th political prisoners and the four deaths that
occurred that day, including the killing of two women by police and any federal agency involvement? And will you also consider investigating
whether there was any improper contact, as it was reported by sources, between Merrick Garland's DOJ and activists, D.C. judges?
BLANCHE: So, again, the same question about ongoing investigations is not appropriate for me to talk about them, and it never will be.
[14:35:00]
When it comes to the Weaponization Working Group, we've been putting out a work product almost every month the past several months, including in
August, addressing another one of the issues that we were charged with looking into. So, that work continues.
All the work that we're doing around the anti-weaponization -- fixing what we believe and what we know went wrong during the last administration
doesn't just happen overnight. It involves, like any investigation, reviewing records and interviews and having lawyers and agents, in some
cases, do work. And so, that work continues, but it's not fair to the process, to the prosecutors, or to anybody involved for me to give nuggets
along the way of what we're doing or not doing, so I'm not going to do that. Yes, you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. So, OpenAI has said that they are working with Google and Anthropic on security measures for
their A.I. models. Do they need antitrust waivers? Do you see that in the future? Plus, are you concerned about who controls the information that is
coming out of A.I. models?
BLANCHE: Well, whether entities need an antitrust waiver is not something I can answer from the podium of the White House. There's dozens of factors
that go into that, and there's an application process, and there's a kind of a process that DOJ and others use to determine what. So, I can't address
that. I can say that to the extent that those companies are looking to regulate themselves or fix problems that they have, that they should do
that, but working with us if necessary. So, that's all I can say about that.
All right. one more. Go ahead. Thank you. Sorry. All right. I'll come to you next.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Questions. Earlier today, President Trump said that there was new evidence in the assassination attempt in Butler,
Pennsylvania. He said it was a democratic plot. Moments later, Kash Patel testified that the shooter wasn't speaking to anyone other than his
parents. Can you please explain both how this was a democratic plot and what this new evidence is? And a second question, which is, in the same
post, he said that Christopher Wray should be punished for his lack of oversight during this investigation. Is the Justice Department considering
bringing charges against Chris Wray?
BLANCHE: So, the Department of Justice doesn't punish, by the way. So, look, I was with President Trump during the time period before and after
the attempted assassination attempt on his life, and he was shot. He was a victim.
There was an innocent man killed. There were other people who were very seriously injured when that happened. What President Trump said today about
the new information, and this new information is information that we found, that the FBI found, that produced to the Senate in response to inquiries
that they had. It is new information about the shooter and about his background, about his history, and that's stuff that we didn't know before.
So, that's the new information.
As far as the president's frustration with the FBI, I was there with him. I lived it. I mean, you have a situation where it's not really clear what the
leadership of the FBI were doing in the weeks and months ahead of the attempted assassination to protect President Trump. That's the same
organization that was simultaneously trying to put him in prison until he dies.
So, his frustration and concern about what the former director was doing is something that is not new. He said that for a very long time. I was with
him during the investigation and trying, you know, before he was elected president, trying to understand what happened and why.
And Director Patel has undertaken a Herculean effort to go through all the documents and understand what was missed, if anything, and to provide
anything that hadn't come forward to the American people to the American people. And that's what he's done.
OK. Last question for you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much, Attorney General. Mr. Kurdis (ph) here. Two questions. What is your plan for ISIS prisoners in Iraq and
Syria, including those captured by the Peshmerga forces in fight against ISIS and terrorism? This is a very important issue. And second one, what
are you doing to stop Iran-backed militias in Iraq from using the U.S. financial system to fund their activities?
BLANCHE: Well, the first one, working with Treasury Secretary Bessent and DHS, we spend a tremendous amount of resources and effort to keep our
financial system clear of any terrorist financing. If we find money that is linked to terrorism, to freeze that money and to seize it if we ultimately
can. That's something that we always do and will continue to do.
As far as what we're going to do with prisoners in those countries, it depends. I mean, if the prisoners are charged here with crimes, we'll
obviously -- we want people we charge with crimes to come here and face justice.
[14:40:00]
But it depends on the circumstances around that. OK. Can I just -- no. I'm done with questions. I stayed 10 minutes longer than I was supposed to.
I will tell you, the fact that Karoline Leavitt did this for as long as she did is incredible. So, thank you guys very much for letting me join you all
today. I'm very sorry that you're sweating. I'm not really sorry. But thank you very much. And I want to thank -- publicly thank Karoline Leavitt for
doing this for a long time for President Trump. She's a lot better than me. And so, thank you guys very much. I appreciate it.
ISA SOARES, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Well, you have been listening there to the Attorney General Todd Blanche speaking from the Rose Garden. As you
know, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, she left that role. And so, for the time being, that position hasn't been taken. So, we
have seen Todd Blanche, Attorney General, taking questions.
And he took really an array of questions. He started off by touting a new arrest in alleged terror craze, talked about the work the DOJ has been
doing. But the majority of the questions that you would have heard there for the past, what, 30 minutes or so, were regarding that Supreme Court
ruling and what that means going forward.
He said, Todd Blanche said, there's nothing surprising about what we're trying to do. We want free and fair elections. He did say, we are going to
comply. Of course, this is what he said. Of course, we are going to comply with the Supreme Court decision. But then he kind of spoke about not
dissuading the administration from pursuing investigations.
Let me get you the exact quote because I think this is important. He said, "There should be nothing surprising about what we're trying to do when it
comes to mail-in voting, which is what we want to make sure there is safe voting and that there is integrity, free and fair elections, and that there
is no one person placing one vote and that person is eligible to vote."
So, many questions about that. Blanche spoke about how many people charge 11 individuals for fraudulent registering to vote in the past 10 days. He
was asked on numerous occasions whether, how he viewed the president's social media post when he went after the justices disparaging the Supreme
Court, whether it's allowed to be critical about the branch of the United States. He said, yes. He does not think it undermines the Supreme Court at
all. And many concerns about continuing with this. But also, President Trump was frustrated, he said, about this decision. So, with this, I want
to start.
I think we have Kevin Liptak. Do we still have Kevin Liptack with us?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes.
SOARES: Kevin, give me your take. Many questions from Peppered there. Clearly, President Trump is frustrated. He made that very clear. What did
you take away? You know, they're still going to do some voting reforms here. So, abiding by the rule, but taking a different tact. Your take.
LIPTAK: Right. My interpretation of this is that Todd Blanche and President Trump don't necessarily view this Supreme Court ruling as the end
of the road for this particular rule on mail-in voting. You know, the justices in their ruling said that the reason it could not go into place
was because they didn't give states enough time to comply.
They didn't rule on the constitutionality of it. And so, listening to Todd Blanche, it does sound as if the administration will continue trying to put
this rule into place. It won't be in place in time for the midterm elections in two months. But he's leaving open the possibility that they
could continue trying to pursue it ahead of the 2028 presidential election.
Now, he didn't say that specifically, and we'll have to see exactly how the president decides to go on this. But he's not ruling that out, nor is he
ruling out other steps to try and weed out non-citizen voters and trying to prevent them from voting. And you hear this from the administration all the
time, that sort of waves of either undocumented immigrants or non-citizens are trying to vote.
You know, there has not been evidence of widespread voting by non-citizens in these elections. But you hear him saying that they will continue to try
and go after them. I thought it was interesting when he was asked whether he thought that this had all created a degree of confusion for voters. You
know, we were talking about this earlier, that would result in them not voting by mail because they didn't think that their ballots would be
counted or they thought it would be illegal. And his answer was that people don't follow this necessarily as closely as people in Washington and people
in the administration and people in the media.
[14:45:00]
But I think that answer sort of reveals the problem here. You know, if you are not following this, then you might not know that the Supreme Court
ruled against this decision, this move by the administration. You might just hear that the president has put in new rules about mail-in voting and
think that those are in effect. And so, I think his answer, you know, you could kind of go both ways on that.
And so, clearly, I think Defiant, even in the face of this ruling, really defensive of the president's decision to lash out at those Supreme Court
justices that decided against him on this, saying that the president has the right to talk about other branches of government and that he would
continue doing it.
SOARES: Yes, and he didn't. He defended, didn't he -- on that point, Kevin, defended President Trump's criticism. I mean, President Trump, on
Truth Social, speaking of the justices, said these are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court. They are merely a
shell of the original selves, a court that is costing United States trillions of dollars with shockingly bad rulings. The point you made
earlier on is, in fact, they've gotten plenty of rulings that have gone their way. But I didn't hear Todd Blanche defending the justices, and he
had numerous occasions to do so.
LIPTAK: Right. He could have come out and said, you know, the Constitution delineates these three branches of government and the president is in the
executive branch and the justices are in the judicial branch and that the president shouldn't necessarily lash out at one of the co-equal branches.
But there was none of that in his remarks and in his presentation.
And he really did bolster up what the president was saying, that, yes, the president was frustrated and he was going to vent those frustrations very
publicly, even if, as one questioner put to him, it could undermine the independence of any future justice that he appoints to the court, if he is
now out there saying explicitly that he expects them to be blindly loyal to him going forward.
Can I just mention one other question that he was asked, which was about this Russian billionaire who apparently financed Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding
in the Bahamas earlier this year? His answer was really kind of extraordinary. He said, on the one hand, no one else in the Trump family
has any idea who Umar Kremlev is. But on the other hand, he is a very close friend of Donald Trump Jr.'s who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to
rent a Bahamian island for their wedding reception.
And he said that essentially there was nothing wrong with that. He said that, yes, he accepted this gift, even though we know that Kremlin --
Kremlev is very close to the Kremlin and received an award from Vladimir Putin and accompanied him on a state visit to Beijing earlier this year. He
really dismissed all of that and said, what would I possibly be investigating, even though it is, I think, by almost every account this
really remarkable flouting of any kind of ethical norm that would be assumed of a family member of the president.
SOARES: Yes. And just -- this is ProPublica reporting. We -- I'll be speaking to the lead reporter on that on ProPublica in the next hour. But
he did say -- you're right, he said it's fun to talk about this issue. I think all the relevant people involved have already addressed it. So, thank
you for bringing that up. I think it is important. Kevin, appreciate it. Kevin Liptak for us there at the White House.
Let me stick to the legal ramifications I think we were talking about before I had to interrupt the former New York State Supreme Court Justice
Jill Konviser,. Jill, thank you so much, and I appreciate your patience.
Look, I'm hoping that you heard Todd Blanche there, as you were speaking, the attorney general, addressing, of course, the media, saying they will --
saying he will do everything they can. They will -- going to comply with Supreme Court decisions. But that wouldn't dissuade the administration from
pursuing investigations and voter fraud, kind of hinting at the fact that this might not be the end of the road. How did you interpret what he said?
JILL KONVISER, FORMER NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUDGE: I think what he said was what he had to say, which is we will continue to follow the mandates of
the Supreme Court. To say otherwise, it would be just spectacular and inappropriate. But they are still going to fight this battle.
So, just to go back, in March of this year, President Trump issued an executive order essentially changing the manner in which mail-in voting is
done in this country, enabling the Department of Homeland Security to create this list, and enabling the United States Postal Service to make
sure that ballots only go to those on the list, and to make -- and to enforce this, they were going to have unique barcodes to make sure those
people voted.
Those people that we're talking about are the people that this administration wants to make sure vote and wants to make sure others do
not. They do it under the guise of making sure that those who cannot or are ineligible to vote. They do it under the guise of saying, well, we want to
make sure that doesn't happen.
[14:50:00]
But what's significant here -- and I don't think anyone really alluded to it at the Blanche press conference -- is that there is no allegation of
fraud with respect to mail-in ballots. That is precisely what the district court in Massachusetts said. She said, I am enjoining you from this
executive order, from performing these tasks, because there is no evidence, none, zero, that there is fraud.
So, it seems to me when Todd Blanche and President Trump say we're trying to cure this evil of stopping ineligible voters from voters, what they are
really saying, at least arguably, is that we want to make sure that we know who's voting and prevent votes that we don't want to get through the
system. And that is very, very dangerous.
SOARES: And that is such important that you've given us that context and that background for our viewers. And you're right, it was not addressed.
And I think that's something that really should have been brought up.
What was questioned, and you would have seen this as well, you'd have heard, is President Trump's comments on social media about the Supreme
Court justices saying he appointed the people he appointed, not the people I interviewed, their shell of their original selves, after, of course, they
ruled at the rulers' part against his administration. I mean, where do you draw the line here?
As a former judge, how concerned are you about this sort of language, the kind of public pressure this has put on the Supreme Court and justices? He
doesn't think -- I mean, Todd Blanche doesn't think it undermines at all the Supreme Court. Your thoughts?
KONVISER: I disagree with Todd Blanche. I think he is dead wrong. I think he is dangerously wrong. He is right on one point, that the president, the
executive, can certainly disagree with a decision of the United States Supreme Court, just like anyone can disagree with a decision that I write.
But to disparage a judge in the manner that the president did and does is so beyond the pale and such an attack on judicial independence that it
should alarm anyone.
I sat on the Supreme Court bench for 18 years in the state of New York. And if the governor or any elected official spoke about something I wrote in
the manner in which the president somehow thinks he can, there would be outrage from me. There would be contempt proceedings from me. It is
absolutely inappropriate, and it undermines the fundamental principles of democracy and judicial independence.
SOARES: Very well said, Jill. Jill, I really appreciate you sticking with us. Jill Konviser there from New York. Thank you very much. Really
appreciate it. It was very long, and you had to wait, and I'm grateful for that.
Do stay right here. We're going to take a short break. See you on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:55:00]
SOARES: Well, the best of U.S. television was honored Monday night at the 78th Primetime Emmy Awards. Among the big winners of the night, the Apple
TV show, "Widow's Bay." The horror comedy took home six awards for the night. "The Pit" was honored for best drama. Other winners included Jean
Smart and Allison Janney. Special tributes were given to Michael J. Fox, Dolly Parton and Rob Reiner. And for the first time, Mariska Hargitay took
on the hosting duties.
And that does it for this hour. Do join me in the next what minute or so. I'll be back with "What We Know" after a very short break. Do stay right
here. You are watching CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
END
