Uh, what did you share with Kansas City and the entire nation today, and what should the message be to Kansas Citians and, frankly, the entire nation when it comes to cracking down on fraud in the country right now?

Thank you.

It's, it's great to be here.

I mean, look, our, our message, w- we had a couple different messages.

One was to tout some success that we've had recently in Kansas City.

So just in the past couple months, we've indicted 10 fraud cases, and this is the federal government, and this envi- i- it involved nearly $60 million in loss.

So very short period of time, and did a lot of work on important cases.

When did this really start to, as you understand it, pick up in prevalence, and what's been the motivator behind that?

Can you speak to that, some of what has been worked on specifically in the Atlanta area, some of the cases you're highlighting there as examples of the sorts of high-profile, uh, drug trafficking, corruption, a- and other cases that are an absolute focus for your Department of Justice?

Oh, absolutely.

So yes, Atlanta is a, a shining star at the Department of Justice for the great work that they're doing combating violent crime, combating the narcotics problem in, in Georgia and Atlanta and everywhere in the country.

Fraud, which is a, a big issue in, in every city, but, uh, Atlanta is not excluded from that.

And, and so d- down here, what they do, like in a lot of our cities, is the Homeland Security Task Force, which is a group of federal, state, and local law enforcement, kinda get around a big table, and they tackle a problem, whether it's a gang, whether it's a, a fraud problem, whether it's human trafficking, and that's what they've been doing here.

I think there's, there's a great...

There's two great cases to talk about that I think your listeners will-- that will resonate with them.

What did the court say, the Supreme Court, and why was it significant? Uh, I'll let you analyze it.

Can you speak to that, some of what has been worked on specifically in the Atlanta area, some of the cases you're highlighting there as examples of the sorts of high-profile, uh, drug trafficking, corruption, a- and other cases that are an absolute focus for your Department of Justice?

Oh, absolutely.

So yes, Atlanta is a, a shining star at the Department of Justice for the great work that they're doing combating violent crime, combating the narcotics problem in, in Georgia and Atlanta and everywhere in the country, fraud, which is a, a big issue in, in every city, but, uh, Atlanta's not excluded from that.

And, and so w- down here, what they do, like in a lot of our cities, is the Homeland Security Task Force, which is a group of federal, state, and local law enforcement, kind of get around a big table, and they tackle a problem, whether it's a gang, whether it's a, a fraud problem, whether it's human trafficking, and that's what they've been doing here.

I think there's, there's a great...

There's two great cases to talk about that I think your listeners will-- that will resonate with them.

The first is a, a guy that, that, that they just indicted this week.

What did the court say, the Supreme Court, and why was it significant? Uh, I'll let you analyze it.

Any scenario in which it comes back? Or what do you say to Democrats who say, "Well, there are other funds and other measures within DOJ you're using to do the same thing"?

No, I mean, the fund is, is dead, or whatever word you want to use.

It never started, so it's not as if the fund is coming back.

It's the fund never started.

And, and Senator Schiff, um, is not being honest.

He's not being honest with the American people and he, and, and he knows it.

So he knows that I have said under oath.

He says courts are gonna strike it down.

Any scenario in which it comes back, or what do you say to Democrats who say, "Well, there are other funds and other measures within DOJ you're using to do the same thing"?

No, I mean, the fund is, is dead, or whatever word you want to use.

It never started, so it's not as if the fund is coming back.

It's the fund never started.

And, and Senator Schiff, um, is not being honest.

He's not being honest with the American people, and he, and, and he knows it.

So he knows that I have said it under oath.

He says courts are gonna strike it down.

Any scenario in which it comes back, or what do you say to Democrats who say, "Well, there are other funds and other measures within DOJ you're using to do the same thing"?

No, I mean, the fund is, is dead, or whatever word you want to use.

It never started, so it's not as if the fund is coming back.

It's the fund never started and, and Senator Schiff, um, is not being honest.

He's not being honest with the American people, and he, and, and he knows it.

So he knows that I have said it under oath.

He knows that I have put it in writing.

He says courts are gonna strike it down.

Any scenario in which it comes back? Or what do you say to Democrats who say, well, there are other funds and other measures within DOJ you're using to do the same thing?

The fund is dead, or whatever word you want to use.

It never started.

So it's not as if the fund is coming back.

The fund never started.

And Senator Schiff is not being honest.

He's not being honest with the American people, and he knows it.

Why don't you just go to Congress?

What do you mean by potential vandalism? Who did it?

Well, what, there's a witness that said, "I observed the defendant, um, vandalizing the, the, the reflecting pool." Now, that's different than whether ultimately we had the proof and, and you saw what US Attorney Piro said about that in her filings.

And, and I, I've said this before.

This is, we're talking about a single case, okay? We're talking about one case.

We had another case of vandalism, um, against the memorial earlier this week.

This is horrible what's happening in our nation's capital with, with some of these, um, really, really sick people, um, vandalizing our national monuments.

And so, and Attorney General, I mean, US Attorney Piro is, is doing a phenomenal job of enforcing that, going after anybody who's doing it.

Would you take his opinions into consideration when he says, "I think this case should be revived"? Will you take that into consideration?

I'm just telling you what I know.

Do you have signage for where 100 feet is?

Now, how do you reconcile that with obviously the federal law that prohibits federal law enforcement to be armed at these locations?

If you're here illegally, you are not allowed to vote.

So I, I also am not sure of the uproar of the risk of having a border patrol or an ICE agent at a polling location or looking into whether somebody is voting that shouldn't be.

If you are here illegally, you cannot vote, and so what's the risk?

That's why we've teamed up with AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens, to build a real community of folks who care about faith and our country's future.

There is no force on Earth that can stop us from saving our country.

[smacks lips] And right now, we're gonna discuss that in a moment, but right now, we are gonna go to Todd Blanche, who is speaking, and, uh, let you hear that.

We haven't done it because of me.

We haven't done it because of anybody standing behind me.

We've done it because of each and every one of you.

And the goal, our goal was simple: create a city that's as beautiful and as amazing as the country that it represents.

Whether it's a world leader coming to negotiate peace or trade with the President of the United States, or a third grader or a fifth grader from Kansas coming to see the sights of this great city, they have every right and every expectation to do it in an environment that is safe and beautiful.

Talking about alignment, from DOJ's perspective, how do you ensure consistency in corporate enforcement outcomes across the districts while respecting the judgments of the individual U.S. attorneys?

Yeah.

Look, we just issued a new enforcement policy, and I think this happens every...

For those of you that practice in this space, this happens every three to seven years, depending on who's in the administration.

And that is the most important thing that companies want and expect, is some sort of stability in these types of investigations.

And I think what we tried to do and what we're trying to do is provide that so that no matter what district's investigating the company, no matter whether it's main justice, whether it's a particular d- criminal division, or whether it's antitrust, or whether it's a U.S. attorney's office, civil division U.S. attorney's office, criminal division U.S. attorney's office, there's some standard that will always apply.

It was frustrating, and I think it's frustrating to anybody in this room that's either gone through investigations or represented companies or individuals in investigations, to have to adjust what you do because of the office you're in front of.

Can you help us to read those tea leaves to determine what do those cases give any indication of what DOJ's broader approach to FCPA is going to be under those revised guidelines?

So where does that sit now?

Look, uh, there's, it's an indictment, so it's moving forward.

The investigation's ongoing bec- uh, as, as folks know.

We, we charged the company a few weeks ago.

And the indictment lays out pretty clearly what, what, a lot of what you just described.

And, and, uh, the, the things that I think the, the serious conduct alleged in the indictment is, is that there were massive amounts of money sent to the, the very organizations that they were advertising against.

And separate from the indictment, their public messaging for many, many years, there were, there were banks that used w- if, if, if the Southern Poverty Law Center said, "This is a racist organization," banks de-bank them.

but, uh-

Should individuals who were convicted of assaulting law enforcement on January 6th be able to get money from this fund?

So, as I said yesterday, I don't know why this needs clarification.

I said it multiple times yesterday.

The commissioners will determine who receives money.

Now, the conditions, uh, uh, the settlement's public.

My order is public.

There's nothing that's not transparent about this process.

So are, are you saying this was not an effort to help him avoid financial liability?

It's great to be here, uh, in, uh, in the great state of Florida.

Florida.Today, we are announcing an indictment charging Raul Castro and several others with conspiracy to kill US nationals.

[audience applauding] Mr. Castro and the others are charged with additional crimes as well, including destruction of aircraft and four individual counts of murder.

The indictment was returned by a grand jury sitting in this district in Miami on April twenty-third, twenty twenty-six, and was unsealed today.

For nearly thirty years, thirty years, the families of four murdered Americans have waited for justice.

On February...

This is a, a story all too familiar.

willing to takeTo get him back here.

Is the United States at war with Iran?

Uh, no.

But what President Trump said, uh, this weekend is, is absolutely true.

My, my job as the acting attorney general is to, is to make sure that the president, that, that we all are doing the right thing legally, and we absolutely are.

As we said to Congress last week, there has been nothing going on, no hostilities, no exchange of fire since, in, in almost a month, in almost a month.

And how do you end a conflict? How do you end this? You have a ceasefire, and that's exactly what we have.

And, and Congress knows that, and the leadership knows that, and there's a lot of, uh, drama.

Blanch, when Mr. Comey himself said he didn't understand that some people would look at that and think about violence?

Don't you wish everything was more rewarding? With Rakuten, almost everything is.

You can earn cash back on those new shoes you've been wanting.

You can save on the next trip you book.

You can cash in on groceries.

Just join, shop your favorite brands, and save.

Target, Instacart, Expedia, Macy's, Sephora, CVS.

Yeah.

You got the White House counsel, Dave Warrington, who is the biggest Second Amendment proponent you've ever seen, okay? You have me, you have Harmeet Dhillon.

What is the very latest you can share about the investigation into the suspect and any potential motive?

motive?So we, law enforcement, FBI, Secret Service, police departments in Los Angeles and, and in DC worked through the night executing search warrants on a couple of different locations and also on devices to try to, uh, continue to investigate.

It's been about 12 hours or so since the incident happened.

And what, what we believe happened, at least as of now, is that the suspect traveled by train from Los Angeles to Chicago and then Chicago to Washington, DC, where he checked into, to the hotel where the, where the, the Correspondents' Dinner was at, um, in the na- in the last day or two.

We believe that the two firearms he had on him, he had purchased within the past couple of years.

And, and there's also, there's a- We're, we're still investigating motive, and that's something that will necessarily take a couple of days at least.

Uh, we believe that he was targeting administration officials in, in this attack, attempted attack.

Does the Justice Department commit to not reopening this investigation if and after Kevin Warsh is confirmed?

So how do you put those two together? I know people are saying, well, why can't you fix everything by the end of work today?

It takes a while.

It's a great question.

So the important thing for everybody to realize is that the way this country works is regulations are put in place and it takes time to unwind them.

And that's a bad fact, but it's true.

And so what we're doing and what President Trump did on January 20th, he issued an executive order.

And it said, very simply, we are going to restore Second Amendment rights.

In a certain way, you're actually moving at warp speed right now.

Would you agree with me that this is the most pro-gun administration in American history?

I mean, if you have one minute, let me just tell you.

Let's just talk through this, okay? Please.

You have a president of the United States who has fiercely protected the Second Amendment.

You have his two sons, who are some of the best shots in America, who obviously are not only gun owners but stand for everything.

You have a White House counsel, okay? So that's usually a very wonky job by a lawyer from Washington, D.C., who is the biggest proponent of Second Amendment protections that we've ever had in that building.

And then you have, you know, respectfully me.

What position is that going to put the DOJ in if we don't get this solidified or codified? And do we have to nuke the filibuster to get it done?

What are your thoughts on both those topics, sir?

been working on voter integrity since january 20th we have you know there's public information out there we've got the ballots from fulton county we've gotten a lot of information out of arizona as well but we're looking at pennsylvania and we're looking from all over the country not only to understand what happened in the past which is important for the american people to know but also to keep to make sure that our elections are free and fair to make sure that nobody's voting that isn't supposed to vote to make sure that the person voting is actually the name on that ballot.

And so we have multiple investigations.

I mean, it's not just Department of Justice.

That's a White House effort.

Odie and I is working on that as well.

And so that's a whole-of-government approach to making sure our elections are fair.

time we got about a minute and a half uh i noticed last night on uh they're also melting down because you're removing immigration judges can you give the audience just a uh what are your thoughts on that sir

Uh, what are your thoughts on both those topics, sir?

We've been working on voter integrity since January 20th.

We have-- Look, you know, there's public information out there.

We, we've got the ballots from Fulton County.

We've gotten a lot of information out of Arizona as well.

But we're looking at Pennsylvania, and we're looking all over the country.

Now, not only to understand what happened in the past, which is important for the American people to, to know, but also to keep-- to make sure that our elections are, are free and fair, to make sure that nobody's voting that isn't supposed to vote, to make sure that the person voting is actually the name on that ballot.

What are your thoughts on that, sir?

What do you know about that investigation into him, his role lying under oath, the Russian investigation and everything predated you being there?

So I will tell you that there's a lot of public information about what, what Brennan did, and, and that's something that the American public can, can comment on and read for themselves.

There are, to date, there are criminal investigations ongoing, a-as has been reported, and I, I will not comment on the status of that, but I-- except to say the following.

Except to say the following, that we, we have very limited time to fix what happened in twenty sixteen going forward.

We have very little time to address what happened with, with Comey and with the entire change of administration from Obama to President Trump and the decisions that were made by individuals to try to stop President Trump before he even took the oath of office.

And, and if you think that has not happened in our history before, that has never happened before.

And now that it's twenty twenty-six and we're looking back and finally having, having a, um, a full all-government effort to under-- that-- when I say all government, I mean the intelligence community, I mean the Department of Justice, Tulsi, the FBI, all looking inward and saying, "What did we do?" Um, there-- I, I-I assure you there will be results from that investigation.

That's scary to me.

What do you know about that investigation into him, his role lying under oath, the Russian investigation, and everything predated you being there?

So I will tell you that there's a lot of public information about what, what Brennan did, and, and that's something that the American public can, can comment on and read for themselves.

There are, to date, there are criminal investigations ongoing, a- as has been reported, and I, I will not comment on the status of that, but I- except to say the following, except to say the following, that we, we have very limited time to fix what happened in 2016 going forward.

We have very little time to address what happened with, with ComeyAnd with the entire change of administration from Obama to President Trump, and the decisions that were made by individuals to try to stop President Trump before he even took the oath of office, and, and if you think that has not happened in our history before, that has never happened before.

And now that it's 2026, and we're looking back and finally having, having a, um, a full all-government effort to under- When I say all government, I mean the intelligence community, I mean the Department of Justice, Tulsi, the FBI, all looking inward and saying, "What did we do?" Um, there, I, I, I assure you there will be results from that investigation.

That's scary to me.

Yeah.

It's, it's a culture change.

I'll, I'll ask, uh, you know, without getting into too many details at first, what is your sense of where that case is? Do you feel like enough has been done, or would you like to see more?

Look, I-- what we have said since day one is that if there's any victim or witness that is-- that can come forward and give us any evidence that we can use to charge, we welcome it.

And, and that's something that the Attorney General has said, that's something Director Patel has said, and, and I've said it as well.

And, and the challenge that we have, the challenge that we have is that everybody in the co- in this country and a lot of people throughout the world expect that there should be, um, new investigations and new charges brought.

And we want that too.

We want to be able to vindicate the rights of, of the victims that were harmed and destroyed, had their lives destroyed by, by Epstein.

Um, but the challenge there is we need evidence, and we have to be able to prove it.

So, so you can understand why when people look at this, and not to mention the UK, Prince Andrew, former Prince Andrew, the US ambassador, or the UK ambassador to the US, that you can understand why people, when they see those names, what would you say to them to say, "Why aren't we seeing criminal proceedings against high-profile individuals like those?"

What is your, I'll ask, you know, without getting into too many details at first, what is your sense of where that case is? Do you feel like enough has been done or would you like to see more?

Look, what we have said since day one is that if there is any victim or witness that can come forward and give us any evidence that we can use to charge, we welcome it.

And that's something that the Attorney General has said.

That's something Director Patel has said, and I've said it as well.

And the challenge that we have, the challenge that we have is that everybody in this country and a lot of people throughout the world expect that there should be new investigations and new charges brought.

And we want that, too.

We want to be able to vindicate the rights of the victims that were harmed and destroyed, had their lives destroyed by terrorism.

So you can understand why when people look at this, and not to mention the UK, Prince Andrew, former Prince Andrew, the US ambassador or the UK ambassador to the US, that you can understand why people when they see those names, what would you say to them to say, why aren't we seeing criminal proceedings against high profile individuals like those?