Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
Jul 7, 2026 · 1 hr 4 min · 9 segments
This week, we'll be talking about the nomination of Todd Blanche to become the permanent Attorney General of the United States. That's controversial because in part of Mr. Blanche's prior role as…
Andrew McCarthyGuest
Mike FragosoGuest
Henry OlsenHost
I guess, perhaps coming from my time in the Senate, how does it discipline him if he's going to get what he wants one way or the other, right? So if Blanche doesn't get confirmed, he'll stay as Attorney General, most likely, potentially for the duration of the administration, unless President Trump decides that he wants, you know, Ed Martin there instead or something.
what practical consequence in terms of disciplining the administration does this have?
Mike, I think that we've seen a number of occasions over the last 18 months or close to two years, whatever it's been, where when the administration gets blowback, it actually does – amend its behavior.
And I agree with your overarching point that futile gestures are to be avoided because they're just a waste of time and they don't advance the ball up the field.
I wrote a book about impeachment back in 2014, and the argument that I made in the book, which I think is equally relevant here, is that whether you have impeachable offenses or not, or whether you should proceed on impeachable offenses or not, comes down to two things.
And while I appreciate the old Gerald Ford observation that an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives decides an impeachable offense is, I think that we can objectively say that there are certain abuses of power which rise to the level of something that's impeachable.
But the other consideration that has to be taken into account is the likelihood of removal of the president.
And to my mind, if you don't have a political case where you get support for removing a president.
uh that would cut across partisan lines and ideological lines then it's a mistake to start the machinery of impeachment in the first place because it takes the country in a dark place and to no good end because at the end you not only don't get the president removed uh you probably encourage him in his lawlessness by having tried to take a shot at him and uh and missed so I'm not insensitive to your point that you want to avoid things that actually won't work in terms of addressing misconduct.
And I think if you tell the president that we're not going to fill these positions, There's a good chance that he'll change his behavior.
But I simply don't accept the proposition that because Trump is lawless, you were more diplomatic about it.
I think using the Justice Department as an offensive weapon against one's political enemies is a lawless thing.
And I think if you tell the president, we're not going to fill your positions, we're not going to confirm your nominees, you at least have a chance of bending him into lawful behavior.
I guess, perhaps coming from my time in the Senate, how does it discipline him if he's going to get what he wants one way or the other, right? So if Blanche doesn't get confirmed, he'll stay as Attorney General, most likely, potentially for the duration of the administration, unless President Trump decides that he wants, you know, Ed Martin there instead or something.
what practical consequence in terms of disciplining the administration does this have?
Mike, I think that we've seen a number of occasions over the last 18 months or close to two years, whatever it's been, where when the administration gets blowback, it actually does – amend its behavior.
And I agree with your overarching point that futile gestures are to be avoided because they're just a waste of time and they don't advance the ball up the field.
I wrote a book about impeachment back in 2014, and the argument that I made in the book, which I think is equally relevant here, is that whether you have impeachable offenses or not, or whether you should proceed on impeachable offenses or not, comes down to two things.
And while I appreciate the old Gerald Ford observation that an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives decides an impeachable offense is, I think that we can objectively say that there are certain abuses of power which rise to the level of something that's impeachable.
But the other consideration that has to be taken into account is the likelihood of removal of the president.
And to my mind, if you don't have a political case where you get support for removing a president.
uh that would cut across partisan lines and ideological lines then it's a mistake to start the machinery of impeachment in the first place because it takes the country in a dark place and to no good end because at the end you not only don't get the president removed uh you probably encourage him in his lawlessness by having tried to take a shot at him and uh and missed so I'm not insensitive to your point that you want to avoid things that actually won't work in terms of addressing misconduct.
And I think if you tell the president that we're not going to fill these positions, There's a good chance that he'll change his behavior.
But I simply don't accept the proposition that because Trump is lawless, you were more diplomatic about it.
I think using the Justice Department as an offensive weapon against one's political enemies is a lawless thing.
And I think if you tell the president, we're not going to fill your positions, we're not going to confirm your nominees, you at least have a chance of bending him into lawful behavior.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
