Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), who is most well-known for her bold purple hair, liberal politics, and many, many meltdowns during congressional hearings, got into an intense exchange with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche concerning allegations that he essentially signed orders that provide President Donald Trump and his sons with tax immunity in a case connected to a lawsuit the president filed against the IRS after they released his tax documents.
DeLauro started off the exchange by asking Blanche if he planned to disavow the orders, asking him to provide a yes or no answer to the question. “I can’t answer that, ‘yes or no.’ Do you want an answer?” Blanche asked the congresswoman. She replied, “Yeah.” Blanche then proceeded to provide her with an in-depth answer on the topic at hand.
“Okay. So, not yes or no. You gave me three documents. The only document I said we’re not moving forward on today is the first document identified, which is the, which is the anti-weaponization fund. There was still a step. There’s still a settlement agreement. The second document I signed is not an addendum, it’s a separate attorney general order,” he said.
“Okay. Okay, so you’re not, you’re not going to rescind the addendum, the not an addendum, the second order,” DeLauro responded. She then referred to the second order as a blanket immunity, which isn’t correct, and Blanche wasted no time calling her out on it. “It’s not a blanket immunity. That’s not true.”
She then read what the order said. “‘United States releases waives, acquits, and forever discharges each of the plaintiffs from, and is hereby forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims, counterclaims, cause of actions, appeals, requests for any reliefs.’ I mean this is an order from you, but you’re not prepared. You are prepared to say that the President and his family will be barred, are immune from…that’s a yes,” she said.
“No, it wasn’t a yes. I had not answered the question. I can’t answer if you want me to. So there was a settlement, which is one of the documents you showed. Okay, part of the settlement included the second order that you just held up, and that is still nothing has changed with that. What I said today, what I’ve said a couple times today, as what we talked about yesterday, as we’re not moving forward with the anti-weaponization,” Blanche clarified.
“But you are moving forward with this second point,” DeLauro said. “It’s not moving forward. There’s a settlement. There was a settlement that the IRS entered into with President Trump and others, his family and his companies, as part of that settlement, as is customary in IRS settlements,” Blanche once again attempted to explain to the congresswoman.
"*" indicates required fields
DeLauro then attempted to make some sort of major point, adding in a sprinkle of dramatic flair, saying, “Friends, listen to what is being said today. This is really pretty extraordinary that we are going to forever bar and precluded from examining or prosecuting the president, his sons, and the Trump Organization’s current tax climate. Simply put, you just gave the president and his family a tax immunity to the tune of about $100 million.”
“Not True,” Blanche responded yet again. DeLauro decided to change tactics and attack Blanche for being paid $10 million between March 2024 and December 2024 to work for President Trump as his personal defense attorney at the time, claiming this was a conflict of interest. “You know, look, and I just want to say this. To Save America PAC paid you nearly $10 million between March of 2024 and December of 2024 to serve as the President Trump’s personal defense attorney.
“My God, don’t you not find there’s any conflict of interest, and what you are doing here as the acting Attorney General of the United States,” she continued. Blanche, clearly confused by this bizarre change in tactics, said, “What are you saying is a conflict on that? I don’t understand what you’re saying.” The conversation shifts back to the alleged “tax immunity” topic, forcing the acting-Attorney General to once again explain the matter again.
“It’s not immunity. Thank you. It’s a problem. It’s immunity. It’s, it’s not immunity. Okay, so it’s not immunity. What it says, it’s like, like anytime the IRS settles with an individual taxpayer or another company as part of the settlement, it’s standard, it’s typical to get rid of past ongoing audits. It’s not a forward-looking document, it’s nothing that gives any sort of immunity in the future to the president or his family or his organizations, and so by you saying that, it just, it’s not true,” he concluded.
Featured Image: screenshot from embedded video