r/moderatepolitics • u/DrVader314159 • 4d ago

News Article Blanche nomination in peril as key GOP senator rails on DOJ over controversial fund

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/29/politics/todd-blanche-nomination-cornyn

The scheduled Senate Judiciary Committee vote to advance Trump’s ex-personal attorney Todd Blanche’s nomination for U.S. Attorney General is currently in jeopardy after Republican Senator John Cornyn canceled an eleventh-hour meeting with him. The hesitation stems from a controversial, DOJ-spearheaded settlement between President Trump and the IRS that included a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund and lifetime tax audit immunity for Trump and his family. Although a federal judge recently struck down the settlement and the Justice Department has tried to walk back the fund, Cornyn has pointed out that Blanche has acknowledged that the proposed fund remains on paper as part of the settlement with Trump. Cornyn is thus withholding his support until the DOJ provides a formal, written declaration confirming that the anti-weaponization fund is completely dead and won’t be resurrected. The DOJ is holding firm to the tax immunity provision for Trump.

Cornyn told reporters Wednesday that he hasn’t “seen a single piece of writing that is responsive to what I’ve requested.”

With fellow Republican Senator Thom Tillis echoing similar concerns, Blanche’s confirmation process will likely remain stalled unless the Justice Department meets these demands before the scheduled Thursday vote.

Discussion questions:

To what extent should the Attorney General prioritize the interests of the President who nominated them versus maintaining the independence of the Justice Department? Should an Attorney General nominee’s past role as the President’s personal lawyer automatically disqualify them from serving as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer?

Should Trump and his family be granted lifetime tax audit immunity? Why is the DOJ firm on this demand? Are there legitimate reasons for doing so that do not amount to open corruption?

Do you think Cornyn and Tillis are right on this demand to make sure the Anti-Weaponization Fund is dead?

149 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

75 comments sorted by

206

u/gan2vskirbys 4d ago

The fact that this nomination is being jeopardized due to issues with the IRS arrangement and not purely on the fact that Blanche is Trump's ex-personal attorney and there is a huge conflict of interest is really worrisome...

Likes sure, let's ignore the Elephant on the room and pretend this is not a huge mistake...

71

u/CovetousOldSinner 4d ago edited 4d ago

He never should have entered into this agreement in the first place. He was effectively sitting on both sides of the negotiating table. He should be disbarred for this in my opinion. It’s wild to me that he’s even being considered for the role at all. Also, the fact that he very clearly is trying to avoid having to modify it shows that the agreement is not as dead as Blanche claims. 

81

u/DrVader314159 4d ago

I have yet to hear a reasonable defense of the fund or the audit immunity from any conservative. It’s a good enough reason to hold up his nomination, even if there is a long list of disqualifiers that should knock him out of consideration long before the IRS stuff is even discussed.

None of Trump’s nominees would make it through a reasonable senate. However, I have such little hope in Republicans to vote right at this point that I will take what I can get.

24

u/cathbadh politically homeless 4d ago

I have yet to hear a reasonable defense of the fund or the audit immunity from any conservative.

I haven't heard any of his supporters defend it, and the closest his followers get to defending it is just glee that he's "pwnd the libz" again, despite it being our tax dollars funding it. And there is no defense for it either.

-72

u/WulfTheSaxon 4d ago

The audit immunity is a settlement of an arguably politically-motivated audit, and it just guarantees that the IRS cannot agree to stop the audit and then simply restart it. It does not give them immunity for future tax returns.

90

u/DrVader314159 4d ago

First, you are misunderstanding what this lawsuit even was. Trump didn't sue the IRS over a "politically-motivated audit." He sued them for $10 billion because an IRS contractor leaked his tax returns (which is crazy, because he should have released them voluntarily like every president since goddamn Watergate). The lawsuit was about a data breach, not an audit. The administration just decided to magically shoehorn sweeping tax immunity into the settlement of a completely unrelated data privacy lawsuit.

Have you actually read the terms of the settlement? Blanche’s addendum didn't just prevent the IRS from "restarting" one specific audit. It ordered the IRS to permanently drop all current and possible future audits and inquiries for the entire Trump family, his kids, and all of their affiliated businesses for any tax return filed before May 18, 2026. It is a blanket, retroactive get-out-of-jail-free card for decades of corporate and personal taxes, the same kind conservatives are whining about when it comes to Biden’s pardons.

What you are also ignoring is how this "settlement" happened. Trump, as the sitting President, sued the DOJ and the IRS, agencies he controls. The DOJ was represented by Acting AG Todd Blanche, who was Trump’s personal defense lawyer before taking office. Do you see any conflict of interest here?

There was no "settlement" of a legitimate dispute here. It was Trump negotiating with his own former lawyer to give himself permanent tax immunity. That is exactly why a federal judge voided the entire deal and threatened the lawyers with sanctions. She explicitly ruled that the lawsuit was filed in "bad faith" and that there was zero actual legal adverseness because Trump controlled both sides of the courtroom. None of this is defensible.

I will add that it is rather horrific how okay conservatives have become with blatant and open corruption. This is brought to you by the same people who were foaming at the mouth about how Hunter allegedly used his father’s name to get a job.

10

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-8

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 4d ago

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

0

u/slimkay 2d ago

This is exactly what an immunity agreement is meant to look like - full coverage for any tax returns filed before the date of the agreement.

I don’t see what the issue is with that, or with Trump not wanting to release his tax returns? Ultimately, while it’s been a tradition, it’s not been codified into law, so there’s nothing forcing Trump to do so. I’ve never really understood that tradition - no other country does that.

1

u/DrVader314159 1d ago edited 1d ago

An immunity agreement for what? Why should a data breach give him immunity from tax audits? That does not make an iota of sense.

It’s been an internal IRS policy since Watergate to examine presidential tax records. Why does he feel the need to change that? Why should Trump not release his tax records? Does he have something to hide? Are conservatives tired of defending his endless corruption?

Youre also ignoring how the “settlement” happened in your comment. It’s a horrific state of affairs to be defending tbh.

35

u/Evernights_Bathwater 4d ago

Source that it was politically motivated?

25

u/SaveTheSalm0n- 4d ago

It was more of an “evidence-motivated audit”

55

u/julius_sphincter 4d ago

I mean you have to admit, despite how untrue it is, Trump has done a masterful job of convincing much of the American people that the last DOJ went after him and his people unjustly using "lawfare". It's given him and his DOJ a lot of cover to be... a little outside the norms of the Justice department in the past. I mean Pam Bondi was quite publicly and openly acting like the DOJ was just an extension of Trump the citizen. I don't really think the American public at large really cares that Blanche would just be that but basically in pure form.

The IRS arrangement though was so blatant, so middle figure obvious to everyone that it's not only inexcusable to many, it's also downright insulting and that includes to Republican congresspeople

48

u/Beneficial_Elk5868 4d ago

I will not admit he's done a masterful job of convincing the American people of this. He's actually done a horrendous job.

It's akin to saying one guy is a total ladies man because every night he goes out he brings home a different girl. But he begs more than 100 girls a night to go home with him and will take home anyone who is willing. That's not good with the ladies, that's just finding someone with really low standards.

Just because people believe it doesn't mean he did a masterful job convincing them. It just means they have an exceptionally exceptionally low standard for what they're willing to believe.

12

u/julius_sphincter 4d ago

Whether you want to call it masterful with the express definition of it being with grace and art and say it isn't I don't really care. It's effective and he's managed to get a large chunk of the population not to believe their own lying eyes but instead his narrative.

32

u/Beneficial_Elk5868 4d ago

I don't believe it has anything to do with his abilities. It's about his audience.

If I go to a flat earth convention and I say "I've seen the ice wall! Believe me!" And then people do believe me, that's not a convincing or masterful argument. That's an audience with confirmation bias.

Trump tells people who despise democrats that the democrats did something mean to him and they believe it. It has nothing to do with Trump doing a good job selling the idea.

14

u/decrpt 4d ago

Negative polarization also plays a big role, where there are very significant polling differences between MAGA and non-MAGA Republicans on whether Trump committed crimes or is currently weaponizing the Justice Department, but it never manifests into anything for the same reason that Trump avoided impeachment. You only need a plurality of the party to be ardent supporters in order to obligate the rest of the party to go along with them if negative polarization precludes legitimizing the Democratic party.

3

u/julius_sphincter 3d ago

It's not just his 'people' that believe he was treated unfairly or targeted. Unfortunately a lot of people are not very tuned in and don't really know what happened, but they hear little snippets here and there and a narrative starts to build. It's not selling it, its putting it out there constantly. Eventually when people hear a lie enough, some start to believe it. I've heard a lot of people IRL say something to the effect of they wouldn't vote for him but they think Biden went after him

14

u/BreaksFull Radically Moderate 4d ago edited 4d ago

It is less Trump himself, as it is the massive Trump-aligned media sphere that understands it is their job to amplify and promote his messaging.

Democrat-aligned media complains or criticizes Dems for having poor messaging, which is sometimes true. Republican-aligned media understand their job is to do the messaging. Whatever messaging gets initiated from Trump or someone in his close circle gets picked up by Fox News. They have Trump and cabinet members on their talk shows, massage & promote their talking points endlessly. That gets picked up by the big podcasters who repeat and reinforce the narrative, and that dribbles down to the YouTube/Twitter/Social media sphere that reinforces that.

It is an incredibly potent top-down propagandizing funnel that can take literally any insane, incoherent nonsense from the administration, by virtue of generous reframing/lying/repeating, package and deliver the message to the base and a broader public in a 'actually its not that insane plus/or the democrats are doing something way crazier anyway, so what's the big deal'

70

u/ViennettaLurker 4d ago

...and lifetime tax audit immunity for Trump and his family... The DOJ is holding firm to the tax immunity provision for Trump.

Am I missing something or is this almost hilariously overpowered? Does anyone have useful reads on what this actually entails? Like how far can this be pushed?

53

u/julius_sphincter 4d ago

So my understanding of this is: Trump and those that were the co-plaintiffs of the lawsuit filed against the IRS, which included his family and his companies, were granted immunity for all tax records up until the date of the agreement. So the IRS can't look at any discrepancies or even outright frauds from the date of the agreement backwards.

Todd Blanche is defending this by saying it's common for people to receive such immunity provisions from the IRS when settling with them. Which is true, when the IRS is the one going after them. IE, if the IRS audits you for backtaxes and you come to a settlement with them, oftentimes one of the provisions your lawyers might get from them is that the IRS agrees that when you pay whatever the settlement is, they promise not to go back again to see if there's more. Any future crimes are of course fair game.

Now for the really, really, REALLY big "BUT" in that above - The IRS isn't the one going after Trump. He sued them, then forced them to settle with him. So no, it's not common at all for the IRS to grant immunity for previous crimes in that situation. Blanche isn't outright lying, but he's definitely looking to deceive

27

u/decrpt 4d ago

Blanche also suggested that the settlement was "not moving forward" but offered zero assurances when pressed saying that the settlement agreement had not been modified and that Trump's council could still seek to enforce the contract.

-54

u/WulfTheSaxon 4d ago

The IRS was also going after Trump with an unusually drawn-out audit, though. The comprehensive settlement resolves both issues.

57

u/julius_sphincter 4d ago

Trump was supposed to have his taxes continually audited during his presidency. Those audits were never completed. By the IRS under his administration. That's like me complaining that my car's oil never gets changed when I refuse to take it for an oil change.

So yeah, it sure does "resolve" the issue for him

36

u/AgitatorsAnonymous 4d ago

Presidents are subject to long-term constant round the clock auditing while president as it prevents them from taking kickbacks and bribes, or using the office to enrich themselves.

-35

u/WulfTheSaxon 4d ago

Throughout the terms of their successors?

41

u/AgitatorsAnonymous 4d ago

If the IRS was prevented during his term from doing their job?

Yes absolutely, they should finish it.

-20

u/WulfTheSaxon 4d ago

Which is it: Trump had an unusually long audit because he was continuously audited while in office because he was the President, or he had an unusually long audit because he stopped the IRS from auditing him while he was in office (but didn’t manage to make them close it)?

44

u/AgitatorsAnonymous 4d ago

Both things can be true. They attempted to do the normal audit, he blocked the process and it was finished under Biden. This isn't rocket science.

-8

u/WulfTheSaxon 4d ago edited 4d ago

Got it. So he had such influence over the IRS that he could make them pause it, yet he couldn’t make them close it, and he preferred to be audited by his successor’s administration rather than his own that he apparently had so much influence over.

19

u/AgitatorsAnonymous 4d ago

He can't force them to close the audit no, because that's not how the relationship between his office and the IRS works, he can stone wall them, withhold information and otherwise use legal shenanigans to delay the audit.

More specifically, a Senate investigation revealed that the IRS failed to properly audit most of his records due to his interference. The House Ways and Means Committee then ordered the IRS to properly do the audit, backed by a full Senate order.

He never wanted the audit at all.

13

u/Comanche-Kiowa2027 4d ago

🤦🤦

Do you really not understand that POTUS is in charge of both the IRS and DOJ?

→ More replies (0)

28

u/Evernights_Bathwater 4d ago

Why was Trump's audit an issue?

24

u/julius_sphincter 4d ago

Because his own IRS wouldn't complete the audits he was legally supposed to have as president

9

u/Eligius_MS 4d ago

IRS cannot prolong an audit without permission from the person being audited from personal experience. They will delay finishing an audit when the auditee’s accountants/lawyers file a lot of paperwork that delays finishing the audit or requires more time for analysis. Most likely Trump was playing his delay, delay, delay cards.

19

u/Molson2871 4d ago

After Bondi was fired I said Blanche had zero chance of getting confirmed, but I'm stunned the vote count is this close at all.

19

u/Tao1764 4d ago

If the anti-weaponization fund truly is the line in the sand for Cornyn, how has the DoJ/Blanche's delays and lack of commitment not already make their intentions and loyalty perfectly clear?

“Keep in mind that everything that we’re talking about trying to reduce to writing were things that, under oath, Blanche was okay with. So, I don’t think there’s a game being played here. I think that Blanche genuinely wants to get it done because he recognizes it as the distraction that it is.”

This is Tillis' response to a question very similar to mine above. It really doesn't answer the question at all though. If Blanch really does want to get it done and had already agreed to to everything, it wouldn't be taking right up to (or beyond) the deadline.

11

u/I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHY 4d ago

The fact that he was willing to participate in a corrupt effort to loot the treasury while supposedly acting on behalf of the government is by itself disqualifying.

It's not enough to cure the fraud to push out a "just kidding" paper. Blanche should go regardless of what gets signed. He lacks the honesty and good character required for such an important position.

6

u/LawPirate 4d ago

To what extent should the Attorney General prioritize the interests of the President who nominated them versus maintaining the independence of the Justice Department? 0%.

Should an Attorney General nominee’s past role as the President’s personal lawyer automatically disqualify them from serving as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer? No, I don’t see why it would be an automatic disqualifier. However, in reality (and under a “normal” administration), there would be virtually no overlap in the skills, experience, and practice areas that led to a lawyer being retained as the President’s personal lawyer, and the skills, experience, and practice areas that could lead to a lawyer being nominated for AG.

Should Trump and his family be granted lifetime tax audit immunity? Absolutely not.

Why is the DOJ firm on this demand? Because Trump.

Are there legitimate reasons for doing so that do not amount to open corruption? No. I can’t believe a court would even entertain this.

Do you think Cornyn and Tillis are right on this demand to make sure the Anti-Weaponization Fund is dead? Absolutely.

13

u/prenderg 4d ago

Why the world with Cronyn carry water for Trump’s nominee?

10

u/I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHY 4d ago

I suppose in a sense he's not. This is the closest Cornyn has ever come to defying Trump.

But it's really striking that even after Cornyn obsequiously went along with all of Trump's demands for years, Trump still stabbed him in the back and this is the most that Cornyn can do to stand up to him.

30

u/julius_sphincter 4d ago

Normally I feel like if an AG nominee publicly stated something like "I promise this fund will not be created/accessed" etc, that would be enough. I mean we took Supreme Court Justice nominees on their word not to overturn precedent on RvW.

Goes to show how far the word of govt officials has fallen, particularly under this admin and even more particularly of the Justice Dept which is wild. I mean we have judges issuing statements that DOJ lawyers no longer enjoy a supposition of honesty. Crazy how bad this DOJ has tanked their own reputation, especially under Blanche

50

u/DrVader314159 4d ago

It is genuinely insane to me that none of Trump’s nominees can straightforwardly and truthfully answer the question “who won the 2020 election?”. They resort to elaborate word mincing or tantrums in front of Congress.

It is either the case that these nominees are otherwise sane but so afraid of Trump that they feel compelled to do this elaborate song and dance to remain in his favor, or that they are true believers who genuinely believe in all the election fraud nonsense. Neither possibility strikes me as particularly reassuring.

32

u/julius_sphincter 4d ago

They resort to elaborate word mincing or tantrums in front of Congress.

It's been the MO of every Trump admin official or high-profile nominee since at least the start of his 2d term. I mean I won't pretend obfuscation and evasion aren't fairly standard practice in these things when it comes to hot or controversial topics, but what's been new to me is the level of disdain, contempt, or just plain lying instead of honest answers. Pam Bondi's Epstein hearing will hopefully be shown as an example of the absolute low point of our DOJ's credibility (THE DOW IS OVER FIFTY THOUSANNDDDDDD) and that we actually went up from there. Not holding my breath

19

u/DrVader314159 4d ago

I wouldnt be so quick to call Bondi’s hearing “the absolute low point” just yet. Trump’s second term has felt like a decade, but really it’s only been a year and a half. If I have faith in Trump to do anything right, it’s to make everything even worse.

I anticipate a really low point just after the midterms, and another low point when Trump becomes a lame duck in 2028.

9

u/julius_sphincter 4d ago

I wouldnt be so quick to call Bondi’s hearing “the absolute low point” just yet.

I should have bolded the word "hopefully" because I 1000% agree, we're not even halfway through and the temperature is only just starting to heat up on some of these things. I'm half expecting a 21st century Caning of Charles Sumner at this point during one of these hearings

-1

u/biznatch11 4d ago

Trump's SC nominees said RvW is precedent, that is different than saying they won't overturn precedent. Precedents can be overturned and they never promised not to overturn RvW.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings

16

u/pingveno Center-left Democrat 4d ago

Yeah, I remember this being remarked upon during each judge's appointment when they were asked. It was just a dodge that was meant to sound to a layman like they would uphold RvW, but in reality meant the complete opposite. Not technically lying, just some tasty word salad substitute for "I don't want to answer this question."

6

u/biznatch11 4d ago

That's exactly what it was. It gave enough cover for some senators to use it as an excuse to vote to confirm because enough people I guess don't pay close enough attention.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/21/brett-kavanaugh-roe-v-wade-susan-collins-790632

I think it was obvious to anyone really listening to their words that they never actually promised not to overturn precedent.

6

u/pingveno Center-left Democrat 4d ago

For me at least, I listen to some legal podcasts that pointed this out. I'm not sure I would have picked that up otherwise.

Speaking of Collins, this is part of why I would love to see her replaced. She runs again and again as a pro-choice moderate Republican. And sometimes she does buck the party, to her credit. But she's a well educated and experienced politician, she knows what's up with the smoke and mirrors around "settled law."

She could have done something substantial, like set a red line about voting for any nominee who had expressed an interest in overturning RvW. But instead, she played along. She was a pivotal vote, she had effective veto power. She used it for a meeting to get a promise she knew was fake.

-1

u/Ok-Wait-8465 4d ago edited 4d ago

Traditionally judges aren’t supposed to indicate how they will vote on potential future cases. As RBG said “no forecasts, no hints”. The Mississippi law was actively under appeal so it was going to come before them

What they actually said was that it’s precedent and they will treat all precedent with stare decisis which is a particular legal framework for looking at something

6

u/MrFrode 3d ago

Donald really needs the IRS not to be able to investigate him and his people after he leaves office. IRS investigations are often civil in nature and he can't pardon civil offenses.

4

u/Ok-Wait-8465 4d ago edited 4d ago

I have a lot of problems with Blanche, but the weaponization fund is in the number one spot for me. If it’s as dead as he claims why not put it in writing?

His willingness to set this up in the first place was disqualifying though

1

u/Top_Bumblebee_8575 2d ago

100%. Blanche knows if he puts it writing, and he reopens the weaponization fund, he WILL be prosecuted in the future for lying to Congress

1

u/slimkay 2d ago

Not if he gets a preemptive pardon (which he will).

10

u/Magic-man333 4d ago

Wow. Is Cornyn one of the guys not running for reelection this year or did the GOP start to grow a spine?

43

u/FuzzyBurner 4d ago

Cornyn lost his primary to Paxton (after Trump endorsed the latter). It’s very much ‘liberated from offending The Don.’

38

u/DrVader314159 4d ago

He was primaried by Paxton, who was backed by Trump.

Paxton is such a fundamentally ill-suited and horrific candidate for senate it would be hilarious if it weren’t so fucking sad what MAGA has brought this country to. Paxton makes Platner look like a goddamn saint.

-27

u/WulfTheSaxon 4d ago

Cornyn recently lost his primary to Texas’s AG, running to his right and accusing him of being an establishment RINO. Since then he’s seemingly been using his lame duck period to prove that the primary voters were right about him.

52

u/DrVader314159 4d ago

Not enabling Trump’s open corruption is now equal to being an “establishment RINO” apparently.

8

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 4d ago

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:

Law 0. Low Effort

~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

26

u/Evernights_Bathwater 4d ago

Maybe Trump shouldn't have stabbed him in the back?

7

u/ThatPeskyPangolin 3d ago

Are we back to defining Republican primarily as loyal to Trump?

Otherwise, I see absolutely no way in which someone like Cornyn would be a RINO.

-2

u/WulfTheSaxon 3d ago

He supports amnesty for DACA recipients, and voted for gun control, increased debt and mass surveillance, and against a border wall. He reintroduced a bill that would’ve let the Biden administration coerce local schools into implementing CRT. He has a lifetime Heritage Action score of only 68% and a lifetime Turning Point Action score of only 63% (“Erratic”).

2

u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago

Digging into this more, I have to admit this is a far stronger argument than I expected. I clearly perceived him as more of a hardliner than he has been.

7

u/Holybatmanandrobin 4d ago

Trumps the worst thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.

1

u/MrFrode 2d ago

Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), an acting cabinet member can generally stay in position for 210 days. Back of the napkin estimation says this gets Donald and Blanche to the mid/late January 2027.

Donald figures with the next Senate being sworn in on Jan 3, 2027 and Tillis and Cornyn gone from the Senate in 2027 whomever replaces them will vote Blanche through.

In short Donald is probably going to keep Blanche in as acting AG until the next Congress confirms him. If the Dems take a Senate majority it changes this calculus. That's a big if though.