Senate passes symbolic resolution on Ghislaine Maxwell’s future



Todd Blanche is aiming to be the next attorney general of the United States. Standing in his way are the Epstein survivors who say he brushed them off, two senators with nothing left to lose, and a questionable connection to one of Epstein’s closest partners in crime.

On the second day of Blanche's confirmation hearing earlier this month, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said a meeting with survivors needed to happen before he would vote to confirm Blanche. Survivors weren't having a stand-in — they wanted Blanche and got him that same afternoon, pressing him on compensation, prosecutions, and unaddressed leads.

Blanche interviewed Maxwell and granted her immunity for her statements.

Blanche reportedly said only the FBI could open new investigations and that he couldn't make commitments that day.

Dani Bensky, who has been identified as one of Epstein’s victims, described a frustrating meeting with Blanche, telling CNN, “He danced around his wording, repeatedly interrupted us, and could not commit to anything that would demonstrate good faith or begin to restore trust.”

That's the survivors' side of Blanche's trouble.

The other side is a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund tied to Trump’s May settlement with the IRS, which Blanche has since declared dead — though concerns, raised chiefly by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Tillis, remain regarding the possibility of a revival of the fund.

RELATED: Trump BLASTS Cornyn and Tillis for holding AG nomination HOSTAGE

Oliver Contreras/AFP/Getty Images

These threads have spelled trouble for Blanche — as has his connection to Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted partner in crime, Ghislaine Maxwell. On Wednesday, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution declaring that Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker who aided Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of underage girls, should never receive a presidential pardon — though it carries no legal force.

Last year, as deputy attorney general, Blanche interviewed Maxwell and granted her immunity for her statements.

In her floor remarks, Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), who introduced the resolution earlier this year, cited a report that Blanche had floated the idea that Maxwell's attorney "might expect something in return for her candor."

Rosen said she was pushing for a vote now specifically because Senate Republicans are inching toward confirming Blanche as permanent attorney general.

RELATED: DAMNING report at prestigious academy finds Jeffrey Epstein — and 46 other alleged abusers — molested students

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

Trump, for his part, has floated another option entirely: pulling the nomination and resubmitting it after Cornyn's and Tillis' terms end in January, when neither will still be in the chamber to block it.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Charlie Kirk’s Murder ‘Has Turned Into Infotainment … Instead Of A Spiritual Revival’

'More people are realizing they are being lied to, not by the government or TurningPoint, but by people desperate for clicks and revenue.'

Trump’s Declassified Docs Detail Massive Michigan Voter Registration Fraud

The declassified records offer a window into a massive voter registration fraud operation in Muskegon, Michigan.

'Moderate' Gov Abigail Spanberger Taps Former FBI Official Behind Retracted Biden-Era Memo Targeting Catholics as Terror Threat To Lead Prison Reform Council

A cabinet official "moderate" Virginia governor Abigail Spanberger (D.) tapped to co-lead a prison reform council headed the FBI field office in Richmond that issued an infamous, since-retracted Biden-era memo identifying traditionalist Catholics as potential domestic terrorists. DOJ leaders subsequently said they were "aghast" at the memo, which they described as "appalling."

The post 'Moderate' Gov Abigail Spanberger Taps Former FBI Official Behind Retracted Biden-Era Memo Targeting Catholics as Terror Threat To Lead Prison Reform Council appeared first on .

Ubiquitous Porn Will Keep Destroying Lives Until We Honor Those Who Fight It

The sexual revolution's final victory is the inversion of honor and shaming anyone who fights obscenity.

Grassley: Trump’s DOJ Is The Most Transparent, Shining A Light On Dark Biden-Era Secrets

'The fact that he’s been able to bring some transparency to government is a tribute to his independence,' the senator said.

Trump’s Immigration Enforcement Really Is Slashing Violent Crime

Americans shouldn’t blindly accept crime statistics, but they need to understand what the different numbers actually measure.

The feds don’t need a conviction to ruin you



The Trump administration’s push to examine alleged political weaponization inside the Justice Department is not merely about looking backward. For many patriotic Americans, it is about people whose lives were turned upside down because the government decided to investigate them.

That is where the conversation often gets lost.

Justice isn’t measured only by what happens in the courtroom. It’s also measured by what it costs an innocent person to get there.

Everyone focuses on the indictment, the headlines, and the courtroom drama. Far less attention goes to what comes before a verdict. It does not take a conviction to ruin someone’s life. Sometimes an accusation is enough.

Federal and congressional investigations are expensive. Responding to a subpoena is expensive. Hiring lawyers to review documents, prepare testimony, answer investigators, and defend your reputation can wipe out a lifetime of savings long before a judge or jury weighs the facts.

Winning years later does not restore your bank account. It does not rebuild your business. It does not give you back the years spent living under a cloud.

That reality has become increasingly familiar in Washington. During Donald Trump’s first term, congressional investigations became a defining feature of his presidency. House committees launched a steady stream of oversight inquiries into the administration, with then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) leading many of the most high-profile efforts.

Democrats argued they were fulfilling Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibilities. Republicans saw something else: a strategy to keep the administration tied up in investigations while forcing witnesses, aides, and associates to spend enormous sums defending themselves.

Whatever your politics, one fact remains undeniable. Every subpoena carries a price tag. Every interview requires lawyers. Every document request takes time. Every hearing pulls someone away from work, family, and ordinary life.

The financial toll rarely makes the evening news.

Former FBI Special Agent Mark Rossini recently offered a glimpse into that reality during a conversation with A.J. Rice on the “Dangerous Laughter” podcast. Rossini, who later received a presidential pardon after pleading to a misdemeanor in a case many conservatives see as part of the weaponization of the Justice Department under Joe Biden, focused less on the legal outcome than on the years leading up to it.

“What a waste of time,” he said, describing what he called “three and a half, four years of this Kafkaesque experience.”

Then came the part that should resonate with anyone who has ever faced the weight of the federal government.

“No one will hire you. You get no phone calls. You lose your income. It’s just debilitating.”

Rossini also encouraged people to read the court filings instead of relying solely on commentary surrounding the case, arguing that public opinion too often forms before anyone examines the underlying record.

RELATED: The right needs a public defender network for lawfare

tomloel/iStock/Getty Images

His experience does not settle the whole debate, but it illustrates something too often overlooked: The process itself can become the punishment.

That is why discussions about alleged Justice Department weaponization have struck such a nerve among many conservatives. They are not simply asking whether every investigation was justified or unjustified. They are asking a more fundamental question: What happens when the immense power of government collides with the life of an ordinary citizen?

Government has a duty to investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight. Those powers are essential in a constitutional republic.

But those powers also demand restraint.

When investigations stretch on for years, legal bills climb into six or seven figures, careers disappear, and families absorb the emotional and financial burden, Americans have every right to ask whether the system has accounted for those costs.

That is what makes the current conversation about Justice Department reform more significant than another round of partisan finger-pointing. It raises a basic question of public trust: Can Americans have confidence that extraordinary government powers will be exercised fairly and consistently, regardless of politics?

By the time an investigation ends, the damage may already be done. A dismissed case does not erase years of legal fees. A pardon does not restore lost income. Favorable headlines at the end of the story do not undo the quiet suffering that came before it.

Justice isn’t measured only by what happens in the courtroom. It’s also measured by what it costs an innocent person to get there.

Never Forget What The Covid ‘Experts’ Did To Us

'Now is the time is do what you’re told,' Dr. Anthony Fauci, the 'Covid Czar' said at the height of the pandemic. His command proved costly.

The right needs a public defender network for lawfare



The Joe Biden years proved a hard truth: Lawfare works, and the right is far more vulnerable to it than the left.

Stacked judiciaries, activist allies, and unprincipled prosecutors all play their parts. But one factor matters above all others: money.

The left built a legal machine because it understood power. The right must build one because it understands what happens when power goes undefended.

Lawsuits are expensive. So are investigations, subpoenas, demand letters, bar complaints, defamation claims, and congressional inquiries. The left figured out that it could move political disputes into legal disputes and shift the fight to terrain overwhelmingly favorable to itself.

The cost is the punishment

The left has nearly conquered major law firm culture. Despite President Trump’s early executive orders aimed at changing that landscape, little has materially shifted. The left still enjoys a vast network of pro bono and donor-funded legal organizations ready to defend allies and pursue enemies.

Look no further than the nearly billion-dollar Southern Poverty Law Center, which has served as an investigative engine for government action against political opponents. That is one organ in a much larger ecosystem, and it dwarfs anything available on the right.

Similar efforts are already preparing for the possibility that Democrats win a House or Senate majority and then the presidency in 2028. If that happens, the right will return to the Biden years, with one key difference: The left views its earlier campaign as unfinished business. Its base believes Merrick Garland did not go far enough. Next time, they will.

The mere receipt of a congressional subpoena, demand letter, defamation claim, bar complaint, or federal investigative request can create legal bills that climb into the tens of thousands of dollars. Competent defense costs money, and the people most likely to become targets often cannot afford it.

The old model failed

During the Biden years, several noble efforts raised money for legal defense. But the old model had limits. A few senior-level individuals benefited from donor generosity. The money rarely reached the broader class of people caught in the machinery of political targeting.

The reason was simple: Lawyers are expensive.

I saw this firsthand. A friend of mine, a senior White House official in his early 30s who had not even been at the Capitol on January 6, received a subpoena from the January 6 committee and a not-so-friendly outreach from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He was on his own.

Big lawyers charging big fees were representing bigger players. He received quotes he could never dream of affording just to deal with the investigation. For lack of a better term, he was pretty screwed.

RELATED: The left wants to put MAGA on the couch — then on trial

Photodisc/iStock/Getty Images

I represented him pro bono and handled the January 6 committee and a daylong deposition. Weeks of prep and review went into the matter. Even discounted representation from a firm with relevant expertise would easily have cost tens of thousands of dollars.

The story has a happy ending. My friend now works at the FBI.

But that is one person and one story. My organization, the Oversight Project, does what it can to represent allies across the country caught in the crosshairs of weaponized targeting. Far more must be done before the next wave arrives.

Build the bench

The right needs to rethink legal defense. We can no longer hope to collect vast sums and spend them on a handful of high-priced outside lawyers. A serious movement needs a dedicated defense team.

The fundamental problem is cost. The model cannot depend on hourly fees that crest above $1,000.

The left has built a corps of highly paid attorneys who handle matters ranging from major lawsuits to symbolic complaints over reflecting pools or the naming of the Kennedy Center. Its financiers will pay lawyers to sue constantly and defend constantly.

The right has the opposite problem. It must accept that reality and build the equivalent of a nonprofit public defense network.

That may seem unfair to right-leaning lawyers who deserve the million-dollar paydays available in the left-wing ecosystem. But a serious political movement must be able to sustain itself by defending itself.

The conservative ecosystem needs major structural reform. Policy shops, communications firms, advocacy groups, and convening organizations all have value. But the movement has too much of that compared with the infrastructure needed to gain and maintain power.

A legal defense unit is one of those structural necessities.

A ‘public defender’ for lawfare

What would a public-defender equivalent for political allies on the right look like?

The current model concentrates money in legal defense funds that serve a few high-profile defendants and a few expensive, well-credentialed lawyers. The better model would create permanent, full-time attorneys working on salary inside a nonprofit structure to defend more people at lower cost.

Some cases will still require outside counsel or a hybrid approach. But the goal should be to build, credential, and develop a specialized legal bench equipped to handle lawfare.

RELATED: Republicans took ICE hostage — then bragged about saving it

Paul Campbell/iStock/Getty Images

That bench should also reap the political rewards the so-called conservative legal movement has long monopolized: prominent appointments, elected office, and leadership positions. The days of prestigious Big Law careers converting automatically into prestigious political patronage should end unless they include acts of sacrifice and service to the broader cause.

Defense efforts should prioritize those most in need: ICE officers, mid-level political appointees, local officials, young staffers, activists, and others without meaningful financial resources.

The effort must also maintain integrity. Resources should go only to cases that can honestly be characterized as political weaponization. A legal-defense network cannot become a mechanism for defraying the costs of white-collar crime, contract solicitation, self-dealing, or financial misconduct.

This is not about shielding wrongdoing. It is about ensuring that actual ethical violations, not political speech or service to conservative causes, trigger professional consequences.

Change the incentives

When one side can impose costs without meaningful pushback, it will keep doing so. When the other side develops the institutional ability to absorb those costs and impose consequences in return, the incentive structure changes.

A public-defender-style legal network would create in-house capacity for rapid-response representation when subpoenas, bar complaints, investigations, or lawsuits strike. It would develop specialized expertise in constitutional, administrative, ethics, and First Amendment defenses tailored to political attacks. It would coordinate a nationwide roster of aligned counsel rather than leaving every target to negotiate alone with expensive firms.

Most important, it would operate on a charitable model that directs resources to the most vulnerable clients — the people who would otherwise be destroyed before the real fight even begins.

The left built a legal machine because it understood power. The right must build one because it understands what happens when power goes undefended.