Questions abound as Blanche confirmed as AG

When he was Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche was in contempt of court and made a knowing material misrepresentation to the Senate. He thereby compounded the fraud made on the District Court for the Southern District of Florida with a fraud on Congress. He was rewarded with confirmation as Attorney General.

To conclude that Blanche committed wrongdoing, we examined four documents: The Order by the SDFL on July 13, 2026; the document that the court named by always surrounding it by quotes, to wit, “Settlement Agreement;” the untitled May 19, 2026 document signed by Blanche; and the August 2, 2026 document signed by Blanche entitled “Department of Justice Rescinds Anti-Weaponization Order and Addresses the May 19 Release.”

Although the title of the August 2 document identifies the May 19 untitled document as a “Release,” the text of Blanche’s document states twice: “the May 19, 2026 Order.”

The court, at 47, sanctions the parties, prohibiting them “from referring to the purported ‘settlement agreement,’ or using, offering, admitting, or citing any of its provisions in any judicial, administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or any other official proceeding as evidence of a ‘settlement’ reached in this matter …” Plaintiffs are defined to include all the named parties in the lawsuit, including Trump, and “any of their agents, representatives …, or any other person acting in concert with the party or under the party’s control, whether directly or indirectly.” The court, at 54, states: “President Trump controls the actions of … all Executive Branch actors.”

By submitting Blanche’s nomination to be Attorney General to the Senate, Trump commenced an “official proceeding.” Blanche was barred from referring to the “Settlement Agreement,” or offering, admitting or citing any of its provisions to the Senate or its members to the effect that a settlement has been reached in this matter.

The “Settlement Agreement” provides at IV.A.: “An accompanying order of the Attorney General, issued within 30 days of the Effective Date, shall establish funding and any other relevant requirement, rules, conditions, terms and waivers, which shall be treated as incorporated herein.” An order of May 18, the same date as the “Settlement Agreement,” established the “Anti-Weaponmization Fund.” The May 19 Order in Part A, recites the language of the “Settlement Agreement” which “directed the attorney general to issue an order establishing funding and any other relevant requirements for the fund.” No other authority is relied upon for the general release and discharge that applies to “any matters currently pending or that could be pending (including tax returns filed before the effective date) before defendants or other agencies or departments.”

Thus, the May 19 document is an order incorporated in the “settlement agreement.” If Blanche asserted to the Senate that the May 19 order is in effect, then he violated the court’s sanction order and is in contempt. And, boy, did he ever. First, his August 2 order rescinds the May 18 Anti-Weaponization Order but only discusses the May 19 order. Second, the August 2 order speaks of the May 19 order in the present tense: “applies by its terms only retroactively” and “the order only has any effect, including on any release of claims, on the named parties in the lawsuit referenced in the order.” Third, Blanche states in the August 2 document that the May 19 order was “regarding a mutual release of claims.” But the May 19 order only provides for a release of claims by the United States; it becomes mutual only when paired with III.B. of the “settlement agreement,” which provides for a release by plaintiffs. For each of these reasons, Blanche cited a provision of the “settlement agreement” as evidence that a “settlement” has been reached.

No “settlement” was ever reached; Blanche’s statements violated the court’s order and defrauded the Senate.

Blanche has been confirmed, so why bring this up now?

We set forth this roadmap for three reasons: (1) past being prologue, the Senate (Article I) understands that Blanche was willing to defraud it; (2) the Court (Article III) can consider whether to proceed against Blanche for contempt; and (3) any future administration (Article II) can safely ignore the fraudulent release when bringing civil tax fraud actions against Trump, or the other plaintiffs. If the release is raised in defense, sanctions will be warranted against the then-defendants and their attorneys. And Trump should know that there is no time limit on civil tax fraud actions. I.R.C. §6501(c).

We close with the words of Judge Kathleen M. Williams: “This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. The nature of the suit and the conduct of the parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the president and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law.”

Trump has no immunity, his felons have no money, and Blanche enters his new office bathed in shame.

Editorial Advisory Board Member Debra G. Schubert did not participate in this opinion.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

James B. Astrachan, Chair

Gary E. Bair

Jill P. Carter

Arthur F. Fergenson

Nancy Forster

Susan Francis

Julie C. Janofsky

Ericka N. King

George Liebmann

George Nilson

Steven I. Platt

Angela W. Russell

Debra G. Schubert

Jeff Sovern

H. Mark Stichel

The Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board is composed of members of the legal profession who serve voluntarily and are independent of The Daily Record. Through their ongoing exchange of views, members of the board attempt to develop consensus on issues of importance to the bench, bar and public. When their minds meet, unsigned opinions will result. When they differ, or if a conflict exists, majority views and the names of members who do not participate will appear. Members of the community are invited to contribute letters to the editor and/or columns about opinions expressed by the Editorial Advisory Board.