This story is adapted from the Slatest newsletter. You can sign up here to get it in your inbox every day.
On Friday, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana took to the Senate floor to announce his intent to vote for Todd Blanche, Donald Trump’s nominee to be attorney general. Cassidy’s support almost certainly means that Blanche, who faced tough questioning from even some of Cassidy’s fellow Republicans over his loyalty to the president, will be confirmed as the country’s chief law-enforcement officer.
Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid this year after voting in 2021 to convict Trump over Jan. 6, seemed hyperaware of his swing-vote status. For six minutes and 30 seconds, he laid out his case for confirming Blanche. But it turned out to be a weak case, one that falls apart under the weight of its own contradictions, omissions, and leaps of logic. Today’s newsletter offers a close reading.
“Not a referendum”
Cassidy opened with an attempt to reframe the debate. “Mr. Blanche has become a referendum on how people feel about President Trump,” he said. “I have not approached it that way.” Instead, Cassidy continued, the vote should hinge on how Blanche “will go forward in a difficult job.”
But there’s a reason people see Blanche’s nomination that way, even if Cassidy prefers not to. Before elevating Blanche, Trump fired the previous attorney general, Pam Bondi, in part because she failed to prosecute his political opponents fast enough. Trump seems to view Blanche as someone he can more easily control, which makes Cassidy’s choice to confirm him inextricable from the president’s efforts to bend the department to his will.
“Greater leverage”
Cassidy next noted that Blanche, who has led the Department of Justice in an acting capacity since April, could continue to do so even if senators reject him. Then he argued that a Senate stamp of approval will give Blanche “greater leverage to push for things that should be pushed for” in the form of buy-in from rank-and-file department staff—and “more leverage to push back” on the president.
Whether Blanche will meaningfully stand up to Trump remains to be seen; despite trying to distance himself during his confirmation hearing, Blanche at one point accidentally called himself the president’s lawyer. But setting that aside, it’s mighty strange to argue that putting a check on Trump requires confirming his handpicked nominee. By Cassidy’s own logic, wouldn’t Senate confirmation also give Blanche more “leverage” to execute Trump’s pet projects, not just ones that are in the country’s interest?
“I’m not entirely satisfied”
From there, Cassidy moved to mollify his own fears. Cassidy first criticized Blanche for approving a proposed $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” to funnel taxpayer money to Trump allies (including, potentially, pardoned Jan. 6 rioters). Then he noted that Blanche had “made commitments” to shut down the fund in exchange for the votes of two other GOP senators. (At this point Cassidy couldn’t resist a bit of whataboutism, accusing “presidents of both parties” of siccing the law on their foes.)
But then Cassidy did something strange. “I’m not entirely satisfied where this is,” he said of the fund, “and I have no doubts that I’ll have concern in the future.” So why confirm Blanche if his commitments aren’t satisfactory? Cassidy has been down this road before. Last year, he supplied a key vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Trump’s Health and Human Services secretary. Cassidy, a doctor who criticized Kennedy’s anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, ultimately backed him after Kennedy promised not to fire members of a vaccine advisory group or muck with language on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website affirming that vaccines don’t cause autism. When Kennedy ended up violating those pledges, Cassidy disagreed with him from the sidelines but could do little else.
“Episodes of apparent lawfare”
Cassidy is clearly no fan of Trump’s attempts to use the DOJ for retribution. “A never-ending cycle of prosecuting political enemies undermines the rule of law, degrades the public’s trust in our institutions, and makes our politics more extreme when we need to unite to solve the big problems of our time,” Cassidy intoned, before praising Blanche for, he said, focusing the department on violent crime, human and drug trafficking, and fraud.
But Blanche has been a participant, not just a spectator, in Trump’s efforts to weaponize justice. He has overseen transparently pretextual accusations the DOJ has leveled against Trump foes, including former FBI Director James Comey, alleged Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool vandals, and others—none of which Cassidy mentioned. Seems like a big omission!
“It is a reality”
Throughout, Cassidy cast himself as a realist. “The choice,” he claimed, “is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who, indeed, may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”
This is a wild misreading of the situation. For one thing, Blanche may not be as good as Cassidy thinks (see above). But even if he is, Blanche is up for the job only because Trump chose to fire Bondi, whom the Senate also confirmed. So if he does push back, why wouldn’t Trump just run the same playbook and replace Blanche with an even more servile minion?
“True no matter who”
Cassidy closed with what sounded like a lament. “Ultimately,” he said, “decisions are made by the president.” Trump may be “unrelenting” in his pursuit of political prosecutions, Cassidy added, “but this will be true no matter who the attorney general is.”
This is a depressingly resigned and remarkably fatalistic admission from a U.S. senator. If Cassidy is right that no one can slake Trump’s thirst for political vengeance, what’s the point of confirming Blanche at all? And if he’s really so convinced of Trump’s motivations, he has options other than rubber-stamping the president’s nominees. Cassidy might, for example, refuse to confirm Blanche unless Trump signs legislation restricting how long a government official can serve in an acting capacity or adopts roadblocks to political prosecutions. The fact that he isn’t is a tell about even Trump-critical Republicans’ appetite to defy the president. If a senator Trump effectively ran out of office won’t even stand up to him, why would Blanche?
Which leads to one final question: Why did Cassidy really back Blanche? Maybe he’s convinced himself of a flimsy case. Maybe Senate leadership leaned on him or he’s covering for a colleague who faces a tough reelection. Or maybe he just doesn’t care that much. Asked last year if he regretted voting to confirm Kennedy, Cassidy demurred. “You live life forward,” he said. “Let the day’s own troubles be sufficient for the day.” If Blanche does end up playing Cassidy for a fool, at least we know that the senator won’t spend too much time looking back.
Tolga Akdoğan
Congrats! After another long stretch of unrelenting news, the weekend is finally nigh. To help you enjoy it, my colleagues suggest:
Something to look forward to on Monday: Picture a time when plans didn’t require a 12-person group chat, three calendar apps, and a poll just to grab a drink. When you could just … show up? In honor of Slate’s 30th birthday, Dan Kois is challenging you, and your crew, to mentally travel (via newsletter) back to that time and rediscover the lost art of hanging out. Sign up to do the challenges along with him here! (And please enjoy this delightful video of Dan and Slate’s Kate Lindsay having a definitely-not-staged phone call to discuss the challenge!)
Test your news knowledge: Between Iranian cyberattacks, wildfires, and the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, a lot has happened this week. How closely have you been following the headlines? See if you can get more answers right on the news quiz than Slate’s senior director of podcast operations.
One movie to skip, and one not to miss: If you’re having trouble deciding what to watch this weekend, Sam Adams is here to help. First, what to skip: Sam writes that The Last House, Greta Lee’s new flick about a family of four trapped inside their suburban home, offers a pretty self-serving solution for how to spend the end of the world. Instead, consider Jane Schoenbrun’s Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, which riffs on slasher films like Sleepaway Camp and Friday the 13th. Sam writes that it’s a brilliant, funny, and blood-soaked manifesto on how to love people who have less-than-perfect politics.
A very revealing investigation: When did everyone get so shy about nudity? Two generations ago, it wasn’t that weird to be naked in front of other people. Now everyone hates it. To find out what changed, Rowan Jacobsen stripped down and visited the last nudist resort in Southern California. His rollicking investigation might make you yearn for the liberation of a tranquil day spent in the buff.
And with that, enjoy the rest of your Friday evening! We’ll see you next week.
