attorney

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta abruptly pulled out of a planned mediation session Monday to seek a resolution to the antitrust lawsuit that has stalled Paramount’s blockbuster $111 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

Bonta, in a statement, cited Paramount’s alleged leaking and misrepresenting information the two sides discussed during a preliminary session Friday.

Representatives of Bonta and Paramount Skydance came together late last week to set ground rules for Monday’s meeting, which was to involve Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison.

One of the rules had been confidentiality of the mediation process.

“I have pulled down this meeting,” Bonta said in a statement. “As I have said before, generally for all cases, I prefer to resolve disputes in the boardroom, not the courtroom. As I’ve also said, if the opposing party in litigation wants to meet in good faith to make a sincere effort to resolve the case.”

Bonta went on to say “Not only did Paramount leak the alleged substance of the settlement discussions, but they misrepresented these discussions, demonstrating a lack of good faith.

“As soon as Paramount stops playing games and engages sincerely, my office is happy to meet again.”

This is a developing story.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Minnesota Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison sued Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday, seeking to compel the extradition of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent to stand trial for assault and falsely reporting a crime in the wounding of a man during the agency’s crackdown in Minneapolis.

Ellison said he would request a temporary restraining order barring the Cameron County Sheriff’s Office in Texas from releasing ICE agent Christian Castro and requiring Abbott to sign the extradition warrant allowing Minnesota law enforcement agents to take custody of him.

Castro was arrested 11 days after Minneapolis prosecutors charged him with assault and falsely reporting a crime in the Jan. 14 nonfatal shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis. The criminal complaint alleges that Castro fired a gun at the front door of a home in Minneapolis, striking a victim in the leg before lodging in a child’s bedroom wall, and then knowingly provided false information to an officer about it.

Ellison said at a news conference that unless he’s extradited, Castro faces release from jail next week — 90 days since he was detained — under Texas law, and could flee the U.S. from the border town where he’s being held.

“Christian Castro has been charged with breaking the law in Minnesota,” Ellison said. “He must face justice in Minnesota. Gov. Abbott should have granted Gov. Walz’s extradition request long ago and is required to do so now.”

“Christian Castro is not above the law and Greg Abbott isn’t either,” Ellison added.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said the legal action taken Tuesday to compel Castro’s extradition “should be a completely unnecessary lawsuit.” Officials at the jail and local prosecutors in Texas have been “very cooperative,” she said — “it is not supposed to be controversial.”

She said that since Castro’s arrest, Texas has extradited three unrelated criminal defendants without incident to Minnesota at the request of state authorities.

Gov. Abbott has received communication with us on an ongoing basis, including recently,” Ellison said. “We have to take the position that they are refusing to honor the extradition request.”

Vancleave writes for the Associated Press.

Benjamin Bycel, a civil rights attorney, law school dean and university president who took on the task of cleaning up Los Angeles politics as the city’s first ethics officer, died Aug. 2 in Santa Barbara. He was 84.

His son, Josh Bycel, said the death was due to complications from Parkinson’s disease.

Born in Brooklyn in 1942, Bycel moved to Huntington Park when he was 5. The son of a boxing manager and a teacher, he spent much of his childhood accompanying his father to downtown boxing gyms and the Olympic Auditorium. After graduating from Huntington Park High School, he earned a master’s in history from San José State University.

Bycel served with the Peace Corps in Uganda, taught at Manual Arts High School in L.A. and reported for the Associated Press in New York. As a law student at UC Davis, he was a press aide for San Francisco Mayor George Moscone’s campaign for governor of California.

After earning his law degree, Bycel worked as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in Sacramento. As a civil rights lawyer in Santa Barbara, he successfully argued a landmark California Supreme Court case, which upheld the right of adults unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption to live together as a family. In 1986, Bycel took on the role of dean for the Santa Barbara and Ventura Colleges of Law, helping steer the ship after the former dean was accused of misappropriating funds.

Five years later, he took on his most high-profile role as founding director of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.

The Times called it “a Herculean task.” The commission was created in 1990 after a wave of political corruption scandals engulfed Mayor Tom Bradley’s administration. When the City Council initially declined to pass tough anti-corruption laws, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition H to create an independent watchdog tasked with enforcing a tough new set of regulations governing city officials’ conduct.

“The idea of getting paid to reform the system and make it better is a thrill,” Bycel told The Times when he was selected. He vowed not to “conduct any witch hunts.”

There was controversy from the get-go. In the commission’s first year, The Times reported, investigators raided the offices of City Attorney James K. Hahn after getting a tip that city workers were engaged in political activities. When the district attorney later dropped the investigation, citing lack of evidence, Hahn publicly condemned Bycel.

Zev Yaroslavsky, a former L.A. politician who served then as a City Council member representing district 5, said the new ethics role represented a “dramatic, profound cultural change in municipal government.” Bycel, he said, rose to the occasion.

“Institutionally, he was a new power, a new person with influence over the vitals of elected officialdom, and I thought he did an excellent job,” Yaroslavsky said, noting that Bycel did not go in with guns blazing. “He was very judicious and even-handed and he gave the new institutional credibility out of the starting gate.”

Still, some complained Bycel was a publicity hound, and he made powerful enemies. In 1995, Bycel told The Times that he feared for his job: Mayor Richard Riordan’s new appointee as the ethics commission president, UCLA law lecturer Raquelle de la Rocha, he said, had told him that she had decided he should be fired. De la Rocha denied his claim, but said that she had called a closed personnel hearing on Bycel’s status.

A few weeks later, the commission fired Bycel, taking a vote in closed session. They refused to say why.

“Though outspoken and at times overly aggressive, Bycel has made an important contribution to political reform here in Los Angeles,” The Times said in an editorial. “Under his tenure, the commission staff has worked rigorously to enforce the toughest local ethics laws in the nation, including a gift ban and restrictions on lobbyists.”

Josh Bycel said his father reveled in the challenge of cleaning up L.A. politics and was frustrated by his abrupt ouster.

“Even though he felt he made great progress and they were doing good things, I think he felt that the job was not done … There were forces that did not want him to do the job.”

In 1997, Bycel was appointed president of the University of West Los Angeles, and in 2001 he moved to Washington to serve as the vice president of Common Cause, the national advocacy group. Later, he served as the executive director of the Connecticut Office of State Ethics before moving back to Santa Barbara to practice law.

Bycel died at a memory center in Santa Barbara he had moved into just a few weeks earlier, Josh Bycel said. He was surrounded by his beloved longtime partner, children, grandchildren and dog, he said, in a room filled with photos and quotes of his longtime hero, boxing champion, Muhammad Ali.

“For good or for bad, my dad was a fighter and someone who would speak his mind,” Josh Bycel said, noting that was probably what got him in trouble at the ethics commission. “He always believed that you had to fight the righteous fight.”

Los Angeles police Officer Daniel Flores may have broken the law when he secretly recorded his colleagues making ugly, unacceptable comments that were variously racist, homophobic, misogynistic or otherwise gross and unprofessional at best.

So L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman is right to take this, or any, violation of the law by a badge-wearing member of our police force seriously, no matter what Flores’ intent was.

But Monday, Flores was arraigned on 16 felony counts that could lock him up in state prison for 13 years (he pleaded not guilty).

That court hearing was preceded by an unusual and disturbing summary of the case filed with the court by Hochman. It seemed like an inappropriate attempt to smear Flores as a money-grubber with a convoluted plan to sue taxpayers into a sweet retirement (as opposed to intending to expose misconduct), while simultaneously giving an aw-shucks, it-was-all-in-good-fun defense of the ugly commentary of the recorded officers.

Regardless of what Hochman’s intent is in throwing the book at Flores, the result is one that will haunt this city for years to come: a police force in which the officers are clear that if you rat out the cops for misconduct, you get what you get.

“The message to everyone in the police department is keep your mouth shut,” said David A. Harris, a law professor at University of Pittsburgh and an expert on police misconduct. “You cannot stand up for principle or even for the policy of the police department, except at the risk of your own career and your own well-being, and perhaps your freedom.”

Hochman spoke with me for nearly an hour about his reasons for what many, myself included, see as his prosecutorial overreach in this case. Before I tell you the reasons why I think Hochman has it wrong — dangerously wrong — in the decision to charge Flores’ so harshly, I’ll tell you where we agree.

First, we agree that cops shouldn’t do things such as refer to Black people as “monkeys,” as my colleagues Libor Jany, James Queally and Richard Winton reported allegedly happened in this case.

Cops, we concur, should not call women “bitches.” They also should not call women “rapeable,” even if, as Hochman’s filing assures us, “the use of the phrase ‘rape’ was not in a sexual context.”

I am not sure what the nonsexual context of rape is, but OK.

Cops should not make fun of, in no particular order, people with disabilities; candidates applying for jobs; co-workers; Asian people; Hispanic people; or people who may be overweight — as the officers in this case allegedly did.

“These comments are deplorable. They’re despicable. They’re racist. They’re homophobic. They’re sexist,” Hochman told me. “There’s no place in our society for them, and they should be punished.”

So Hochman and I agree that Flores may have broken the law, and that the comments of his fellow officers are unacceptable.

And now the roads diverge.

Because faced with those competing truths, Hochman could have used prosecutorial discretion — the art of tempering the law with the mores and ethics of the community.

He could have used that discretion to cut Flores a break, charge him at a lower misdemeanor level or not at all, and put the focus where it belongs — on the officers who disgraced their badge with their behavior, and what is seemingly a culture of disrespect and degradation within the unit charged with choosing the next generation of officers.

These are the officers charged with recruiting the officers of the future, so the stakes here are high. This is misconduct that the people of L.A. need to know about, because if these officers are so casual in their hateful comments, can we trust their judgment on hiring?

“On one hand, being a whistleblower doesn’t give a person the right to violate the law,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Berkeley’s law school, who did an investigation on police culture in the LAPD in 2000 in the wake of the Rampart scandal. “On the other hand, I would hope that the district attorney would take context into account. And 16 felony charges seems really excessive.”

LAPD Officer Daniel Flores, left, listens as his attorney Alan Jackson speaks to reporters Monday.

(Libor Jany / Los Angeles Times)

But Hochman argues that a “message has to be sent” because it’s a police officer who broke the law.

“If you don’t hold police officers accountable, it’s very hard to hold anybody accountable,” Hochman said. “I believe that no, we’re not going to let the ends justify the means, even if the ends may be laudable, like exposing bigotry, because it leads us down a very slippery slope.”

Hochman said Flores simply could have taken notes on the inappropriate comments and turned them in to superiors or the independent inspector general, which strikes me as either sweetly naive or disingenuous.

“The officer would be shunned; his career would be over, and he would probably find himself on the receiving end of some kind of retaliation,” Harris, the law professor, said of the likely outcome of that plan.

Chemerinsky said retaliation against whistleblowers has long been a part of the culture of the department. Make a complaint, his report in 2000 found, and an officer might get “freeway therapy,” transferred to someplace far from where they lived to send a message, or even find themselves without backup in a dangerous situation.

This decision to treat Flores so harshly, Chemerinsky said, comes off as “part of that long history of LAPD trying to very much crack down on whistleblowing.”

Hochman told me that he wants to make it “crystal clear” that “nothing in this prosecution should be read that we are in any way trying to chill whistleblowers.”

He added that he did use discretion.

“I hope you note in your article that the district attorney could have brought 122 felony charges, or 122 misdemeanors, or some combination of felonies and misdemeanors up to 122,” Hochman said.

Flores made 122 total recordings of 16 people. Hochman charged on the number of people recorded, not the number of recordings, he pointed out.

So sure, we can count that as discretion, I guess?

This is where Hochman has his messages dangerously backward. Sure, hold Flores reasonably accountable for taking matters into his own hands, if he broke the law in doing so. Certainly, Flores knew there would be consequences to his actions.

But that Hochman is trying to frame this as a fair and reasonable prosecution, while protecting the officers who made the comments by giving us their weak-sauce excuses about having no ill intent, does not provide this city the justice it expects and deserves.

Hochman, you may recall, replaced George Gascón, a prosecutor who was accused of forcing his own values on the city.

Now, Hochman seems to be doing the same with his heavy-handed approach to Flores.

Hammering on Flores does not reflect the values of the majority of the Los Angeles community that wants a police force in which integrity and respect are fundamental, impunity is the outcast, and whistleblowers aren’t attacked, even if it turns out their motives aren’t pure.

Personally, I don’t care what Flores’ intent was in making the recordings. I don’t care if the officers caught on tape didn’t intend to offend, and I don’t care what Hochman intends the message to be with his vast over-charging of Flores.

I care about the result: a city in which misogyny and racism are just locker room talk, but breaking the blue wall of silence is a serious crime.

Aug. 10 (UPI) — Todd Blanche, President Donald Trump‘s former personal attorney, was sworn in as U.S. attorney general on Monday, making the role he’s held for several months official.

Blanche succeeds Pam Bondi, who was fired by Trump in April. He took over as acting attorney general and was officially confirmed in the role by the U.S. Senate, which voted 50-49 to confirm him early Saturday.

“I am deeply honored by the trust and confidence President Trump has placed in me to lead the Department of Justice as our great nation’s 88th attorney general,” Blanche wrote on social media Saturday after the vote. “I am grateful to the Senate for staying late to finish the process.”

The vote was largely along party lines, with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voting with every Democrat against Blanche. While other Republicans, including Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.; John Cornyn, R-Texas; and Bill Cassidy, R-La., had expressed concerns about Blanche’s independence and earlier actions, they voted for him anyway.

Blanche was Trump’s personal defense lawyer and represented him in a New York hush-money case and other criminal matters, The Guardian reported. He became a deputy attorney general in early 2025.

As acting attorney general, Blanche approved Trump’s $1,776 billion “anti-weaponization fund” and a deal that promises the Internal Revenue Service will not investigate Trump’s tax returns or those of his family members. Blanche rescinded the order establishing the fund last week.

As acting attorney general, he has overseen the departure of more than 200 prosecutors and agents who worked on Trump-related investigations and dealt with controversy from the handling of the Epstein files, The Guardian reported. Lawmakers continue to seek the full release of the records.

Epstein survivors and family members had called on the Senate to block Blanche’s nomination, as had more than 1,200 former Justice Department employees.

WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Todd Blanche as attorney general in a vote early Saturday, cementing the command of President Trump’s former personal lawyer at a Department of Justice that Trump has sought to bend to his will.

The Republican-led Senate voted 50 to 49 to make Blanche the second confirmed attorney general since Trump returned to the White House last year with a stated desire to use the law enforcement agency to investigate his political enemies. While Blanche has already been leading the department in an acting capacity, his confirmation could free him to pursue the administration’s agenda even more aggressively.

Blanche said on social media that he was “deeply honored by the trust and confidence President Trump has placed in me,” adding that he was “grateful” to senators for working late to confirm him.

The vote followed a tumultuous confirmation fight that exposed deep concerns — from some Republicans as well as Democrats — about installing Trump’s close ally atop a Justice Department that historically prided itself on its independence from the White House.

In the end, Blanche was confirmed by the narrowest of margins, opposed by two Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — and by every Democrat.

The path to confirmation for Blanche was unusually rocky, due in large part to Republican concerns about a controversial settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS.

Under pressure, Blanche publicly promised in writing that the department would abandon Trump’s proposed $1.8-billion compensation fund for the president’s allies, including those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and rein in another piece of the settlement designed to shield Trump and his family from IRS tax audits.

His appeals were enough to win over Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, the decisive vote who threw his support behind Blanche on Friday morning. Cassidy said no other nominee may be able to run the department better under Trump and suggested Blanche’s role as Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer can make him more effective at resisting the Republican president’s demands.

“This is not a referendum on President Trump. It is a decision regarding Mr. Blanche in very specific circumstances,” said Cassidy, who lost his primary this year to a Trump-backed challenger.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said confirming Blanche would be a “serious mistake.” He begged his colleagues not to be on the “wrong side” of history.

“If there is ever a moment in history when we need an attorney general above reproach, who is clearly dedicated to ending corruption, even at the highest level of our government, it’s right now,” Durbin said.

Loyalty to Trump

The vote capped off a bruising confirmation fight, with Blanche’s loyalty to Trump at the center of the stalemate.

Blanche was elevated to the top Justice Department post in an acting capacity after Trump fired Pam Bondi in April. Blanche moved swiftly to advance the president’s interests, accelerating investigations into Trump’s perceived foes and announcing the settlement that created the $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization fund” to compensate Trump allies who feel mistreated by the criminal justice system and provided the president and his family members with immunity from tax audits.

The controversial settlement threatened to torpedo Blanche’s nomination until he formally rescinded the fund in writing under pressure from Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The deal reached between the senators and the department unlocked a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which advanced Blanche’s nomination earlier this week.

Even after the deal, Blanche faced opposition from some Republican senators concerned with the settlement fund and the tax audit immunity.

Murkowski announced early Friday that she would join Collins in opposing Blanche’s nomination, saying the country needs an attorney general “who will check the worst impulses of this administration.”

Former prosecutor rises as Trump’s defender

A former federal prosecutor in New York, Blanche rose to public prominence as a lead attorney on Trump’s defense team, including during Trump’s hush money trial in New York in which he was found guilty of felony fraud.

He also defended Trump against criminal charges in the two federal cases brought by the Biden administration’s Department of Justice, related to Trump’s attempts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election and his hoarding of classified documents at his home in Florida. Both cases were dropped after Trump won reelection in 2024, and despite the seriousness of the charges, Blanche said that experience provided him a firsthand look at what he claims was the weaponization of the criminal justice system against Trump.

Blanche entered the Justice Department last year as deputy attorney general under Bondi, overseeing the agency’s day-to-day operations and serving as the public face for high-profile and controversial matters, like the release of millions of investigative files related to disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Democrats have accused Blanche of prioritizing his loyalty to Trump above all else through investigations against perceived Trump foes such as former FBI Director James Comey and a radical reshaping of the department. Under Bondi and Blanche’s leadership, the department has lost thousands of employees through firings, resignations or voluntary departures.

Blanche’s supporters say his experience as a federal prosecutor and the trust he earned from Trump in the courtroom make him better equipped than Bondi to explain to the White House the legal constraints of its demands. Republicans have also touted his efforts to bring down violent crime, tackle illegal immigration and combat violent cartels and drug trafficking.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, gave a full-throated endorsement of Blanche ahead of voting, saying he’s led the Justice Department with distinction. “Mr. Blanche is the right choice,” said Grassley (R-Iowa).

It is unclear whether Blanche will fare any better in delivering on Trump’s desire for retribution than Bondi, whom Trump fired amid resistance from judges, grand jurors and the department’s own workforce as prosecutors sought to establish criminal conduct by one Trump foe after another.

Shortly after Blanche took the top post, the Justice Department moved to indict Comey on charges of threatening the 47th president by posting a social media photograph of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47.” Comey’s lawyers are pressing to have the case dismissed, accusing the department of misleading judges, submitting documents containing false statements and withholding key facts.

Blanche has also appointed Joseph DiGenova, a former Justice Department prosecutor from the Reagan administration, to oversee a Florida-based investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired over the last decade to undermine Trump. But it remains uncertain whether that inquiry will result in any criminal charges.

Durkin Richer and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Bill Barrow in Atlanta and Kevin Freking and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

Aug. 8 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate confirmed Todd Blanche, President Donald Trump‘s former personal defense attorney, as U.S. attorney general early Saturday morning.

Two Republicans, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted against the confirmation. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., missed the vote.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., was a critical vote because he had raised concerns about Blanche. He, along with John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said they were uncomfortable with the politicization of the Department of Justice, as well as the controversial settlement between the president and the IRS in which Trump was given $1.8 billion fund to compensate people that he believed were victims of political prosecutions.

All three of them voted to confirm Blanche.

Cassidy said he chose to vote for Blanche because Trump might nominate someone worse.

“The choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche,” Politico reported Cassidy said on the Senate floor. “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.”

The vote tally was 50-49 at 4:31 a.m. Saturday. The Senate then left for a five-week recess.

Blanche has been acting attorney general since Trump fired Pam Bondi from the position in April.

“I am deeply honored by the trust and confidence President Trump has placed in me to lead the Department of Justice as our great nation’s 88th Attorney General,” Blanche said in a post on X. “I am grateful to the Senate for staying late to complete this process.”

Not everyone supported Blanche’s nomination.

“The problem with confirming Todd Blanche is that he has never been able to shed his role as criminal defense lawyer for Donald Trump. He just can’t do it,” Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote to advance the nomination. “He will never do what’s best for the American people. He will only do what’s best for Donald Trump, and you cannot leave someone like that as the nation’s No. 1 law enforcement official.”

“The biggest concern is whether he is now going to be emboldened to go even more gung-ho on Trump’s campaign of using the Justice Department for retribution,” former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson told NBC News in an interview before the confirmation. “There are no guardrails.”

“America is safer with Todd Blanche at the helm of the Justice Department,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a statement.

Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he disagrees.

“It was a grave mistake for the Senate to approve Todd Blanche as the next Attorney General,” he said in a post on X. “If there is ever a moment in history when we need an AG above reproach, who is dedicated to ending corruption, it is right now. This nation deserves an Attorney General who loves the Constitution more than he loves the President. Sadly, Todd Blanche is not that person.”

US President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Todd Blanche has been confirmed as attorney general – the nation’s top law enforcement official.

Blanche won confirmation in a 50-49 vote, with Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski opposing him.

Senator Bill Cassidy was the deciding vote after announcing he believed Blanche was the best option the president would put forward. Washington had been anxiously waiting for Cassidy’s decision due to years of acrimony between Trump and the senator.

The vote brings to an end a lengthy standoff between Senate Republicans and the Trump administration over Blanche, who has served as acting attorney general since April.

All Democrats voted against his nomination to lead the Justice Department.

Some Republican senators had raised concerns about his handling of the release of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents and his role in establishing Trump’s $1.8bn (£1.3bn) “anti-weaponisation” fund.

The fund was planned to provide compensation to individuals who alleged government persecution but critics including Murkowski feared it would go to individuals who were prosecuted for participating in the 6 January attack on Congress.

Blanche eventually pledged to walk back the fund after blowback from Republican senators during his confirmation hearings.

It remains unclear whether the commitment is legally binding or whether Trump could later persuade Blanche, his former personal attorney, to revive a similar scheme under another name.

These issues meant Collins and Murkowski held off from backing Blanche, with the latter citing her lack of confidence in Blanche to “check the worst impulses of this administration”.

Murkowski announced on Friday she would oppose Blanche, citing concerns over the “politicisation” of the justice department.

Stephen Cloobeck — a one-time California gubernatorial candidate ensconced in Democratic political circles — pleaded not guilty to witness tampering charges Friday related to a burglary case against his former paramour, OnlyFans model Adva Lavie.

Cloobeck, 64, was arrested in May and charged with three counts of attempting to dissuade a witness from testifying and one count of harassment for making annoying phone calls, according to a criminal complaint. Cloobeck allegedly contacted Lavie’s attorney, swore at him and threatened him, his property and members of his family, according to the complaint.

Cloobeck’s former girlfriend, Lavie, was charged in March with burglarizing the homes of older wealthy men she met through dating apps.

The pair have since broken off their engagement, according to the California Post.

He entered a plea of not guilty Friday morning during a brief court appearance in Van Nuys. His next hearing date was set for October. David Chesnoff, who was part of the legal team that defended Robert Durst during his Los Angeles murder trial, appeared on Cloobeck’s behalf.

The defendant and his legal team declined to speak with a throng of reporters outside the courthouse. Cloobeck remains free on $300,000 bond.

Cloobeck got rich in the timeshare industry, eventually selling his Las Vegas-based Diamond Resorts company to a private equity firm for $2.2 billion. He immersed himself in Nevada Democratic politics, growing close with the late U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, and later launched a long-shot bid for California governor.

He quickly faded in the crowded field, failing to garner above 1% in any poll, and then threw his support behind Democrat Eric Swalwell, who dropped out of the race in disgrace amid a torrent of sex assault and harassment allegations, which he denied.

According to prosecutors, Lavie posed as the girlfriend of numerous men between 2023 and 2025 before pilfering cash, gold and high-value items from homes in Westlake Village, West Hollywood, Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. She has also pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors have yet to say exactly how Cloobeck allegedly threatened Lavie’s possible victims. Lavie’s attorney, Lou Shapiro, has declined to discuss the case with The Times.

Lavie was arrested again last week on a new theft charge out of Riverside County. Responding officers from the Beverly Hills Police Department noticed she was not wearing the ankle monitor she was required to keep on as a condition of her bail last week, leading L.A. County prosecutors to file a new misdemeanor count against her.

She is scheduled to appear in the Van Nuys Courthouse early Monday.

A state judge Thursday rejected a challenge to how California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office summarized a strict new voter ID measure on November ballots — ruling that the summary language accurately describes the measure’s effects were it to pass.

Another judge dealt the backers of the measure a second loss by tentatively finding that their description of the measure, submitted for the official state voter’s guide, was misleading. They had claimed that Proposition 39 would make voting easier.

In the first case, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell ruled that the label, title and summary of the certified ballot measure accurately describe Proposition 39 as a measure that “prohibits citizens from voting” — language the measure’s backers specifically objected to — unless they provide a government-issued ID.

According to minutes from a Thursday hearing on the matter, Rockwell concluded that, to the extent the measure’s backers object to that language, they are objecting to “the provisions of the measure itself.”

Rockwell rejected the argument put forth by the measure’s backers that it would not prevent people without ID from voting, only their votes from being counted — a distinction the judge found lacking.

Both parties had asked the court to move quickly ahead of printing deadlines for November ballots.

The attorney general’s office is responsible for preparing titles and summaries for ballot measures, and is not required by law to use the same language as a measure’s proponents when gathering the necessary voter signatures to place the measure on the ballot.

Bonta’s office had argued in court that his office applied the same standard of review to the voter ID measure as every other ballot measure that has come before his office.

Bonta praised Rockwell’s decision on social media Thursday, writing that it “confirms what we have said from the start: the ballot materials at issue — the ballot title and summary and ballot label — give a true and impartial statement of Proposition 39’s chief purpose and points.”

“My office followed the law and fulfilled its duty to provide California voters with clear, accessible, and accurate information,” he wrote. “We’re pleased that the court agreed with us.”

California Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the chief backer of the court challenge and chairman of the group Reform California, responded to the ruling with a video post to social media, writing that it was “expected” but nonetheless “disappointing.”

DeMaio accused Bonta of trying to “manipulate the vote” with “rigged” language, and Rockwell of being a “liberal judge” who had unsurprisingly decided that Bonta “gets to do corruptly what he wants to do.”

“It’s pissing me off,” DeMaio said in his video post.

DeMaio predicted that Proposition 39 will still pass, but that it will take “all of us spreading the word that the attorney general has tried to manipulate the title on the ballot measure.”

Voter ID requirements are being pushed by Republicans across the country — from President Trump down — as necessary to prevent voter fraud, including by noncitizens, despite elections experts saying that such fraud is exceedingly rare and that there is no evidence that it exists in volumes large enough to swing elections.

Democrats, including in California, have argued that states already have robust measures to ensure that only eligible voters cast ballots, including through existing security measures such as signature verification. They said stricter voter ID requirements would lead to eligible voters without ready access to documents being denied access to voting — including poorer, elderly and rural voters and married women who have changed their names.

A majority of California voters back stricter voter ID requirements, according to recent polls.

The Trump administration has been pressing for new voter ID requirements nationwide, including in Congress, without success.

Passage of Proposition 39 in liberal California would represent a massive win for the administration and a setback for California’s Democratic leaders. It would require substantial reforms to how the state accepts ballots both in person and through the mail — the latter being the preferred option for the vast majority of voters in recent California elections.

Backers of Proposition 39 also took a hit in a separate court proceeding Thursday, where another judge — siding with top Democratic lawmakers — issued a tentative finding that the measure’s backers were misleading voters by claiming in voter guide language that the measure would make voting easier in the state were it to pass.

“It is hard to conceive how it would be ‘easy’ or ‘easier’ to vote if a voter has to take the extra step of either bringing government-issued identification when voting in person or search for their government-issued identification and supply the last four digits if they vote by mail,” wrote Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang.

The voter guide language will need to change as a result.

California leaders who brought the challenge — including State Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) — praised the decision.

“Prop 39 is a MAGA-backed power grab by Donald Trump’s closest allies,” Rivas said in a statement. “As today’s ruling underscores, Prop 39 isn’t about election security or fair elections — the real goal of the MAGA activists who wrote Prop 39 is to make it harder for Californians to vote.”

DeMaio denounced the decision, accusing Chang of having “sided with the politicians” in California to “strike legitimate arguments on why Voter ID is needed to improve election integrity.”

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said Friday he will vote to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, likely delivering the decisive vote needed to push President Trump’s embattled nominee to oversee the Justice Department.

Cassidy, who had expressed reservations about Blanche’s nomination, had been the last undecided Senate Republican, and his support all but locks in the 50 votes Blanche needs to be confirmed after two other GOP moderates — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — said they would vote no. All Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the nomination.

Speaking from the Senate floor, Cassidy acknowledged Blanche was an imperfect pick, but that he had come to the conclusion that he would be better positioned to lead the Justice Department than another candidate, in part because he “knows the law.”

“Mr. Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this,” Cassidy said. “But the choice 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.”

Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid to a Trump-backed challenger, said he is aware his decision will come with criticism, but said: “What’s new?” He then appeared to become emotional, as he assured his constituents that he worked “hard to understand the issue and make the right decision.”

The Louisiana lawmaker’s decision puts Blanche’s turbulent nomination process back on course. His path to confirmation was complicated over his involvement in a settlement agreement that included the creation of a nearly $1.8-billion so-called anti-weaponization fund that would have been used to pay Trump allies, including Jan. 6 rioters.

In an order issued Sunday night, Blanche declared the settlement dead. It was seen as an effort to appease GOP senators who threatened to block his confirmation. Despite the promise to terminate the settlement, Murkowski said she was worried the Trump administration could proceed with the proposed compensation fund, noting that the Senate only had leverage over the fund because Blanche’s nomination is pending.

“Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds,” she said.

The Justice Department also clarified in writing that a tax audit immunity agreement, which was part of the settlement agreement Blanche negotiated, would apply only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings.

It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement. The fund and the immunity were the result of the settlement reached after Trump, two of his sons and their businesses sued the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of tax documents.

Lawmakers and legal experts have questioned the lawfulness of the tax protections for Trump. A federal judge who oversaw the IRS case has described Trump’s lawsuit as an improper exercise in self-dealing, and on Thursday the union representing IRS workers asked another judge to block the immunity agreement.

Trump has continued to support the idea of the fund and told reporters this week that he would still like to compensate Jan. 6 rioters, who he said have been “hurt so badly.”

Asked about Trump’s continued support for the fund on Tuesday, the day the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche’s nomination, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said “there’s nothing we could do” to change Trump’s mind on it.

“Well, there’s nothing we could do to rein in the president when he said he likes the fund and he wishes it still exists. But the fact of the matter is it’s dead, and that’s all we could do under these circumstances,” Cornyn said.

When Cassidy announced his decision, Blanche was in Colombia, leading a U.S. presidential delegation to the inauguration of the country’s new president, Abelardo de la Espriella. As of Friday afternoon, he had not commented on the developments in Capitol Hill.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, posted on social media a news article with only its headline: “Todd Blanche wins votes for Senate confirmation.”

This article includes reporting from the Associated Press.

During the 2021 season, NFL players who had not received a COVID-19 vaccination were subject to daily tests for the virus and restrictions, such as wearing masks inside team facilities and practicing social distancing.

Rodgers did not get vaccinated — he has said he’s allergic to an ingredient in the vaccines — and instead opted for an alternative treatment to help prevent him from getting the virus. Still, he told reporters he was “immunized” and did not follow all of the league’s protocols for unvaccinated players.

In early November 2021, Rodgers tested positive for COVID-19 and admitted he had “misled people about my status.” He was fined $14,650 for the protocol violation and missed a game because unvaccinated players had to isolate for 10 days after testing positive.

Rodgers clearly still had a lot to get off his chest during Tuesday’s show.

“A lot of people had probably fake vac cards back in the day, too,” Rodgers said. “They didn’t have a problem with that. I mean, I remember seeing some of the vax cards. It was, like, written in crayon. I’m like, all right, so we’re gonna pass that on, but we’re gonna be second-rate citizens over here — I gotta wear a yellow armband, train in the back, can’t be around more than three people.

“Oh, you know, you got to wear a mask when you do your your interview, and all of us are going to be masked up the entire time back here, 20 feet away from you, because that’s safety first. What crock of s— we had to go through! Crazy times.”

Although McAfee tried changing the subject multiple times during the first several minutes of the interview, the host eventually embraced the topic and applauded Rodgers for standing “on your side of the truth throughout the entirety of that thing.”

“Your name was slandered,” McAfee told Rodgers. “You were called a murderer. You were called a lot of things.”

WASHINGTON — Two Republican senators who threatened to block acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche’s bid to lead the Justice Department said Monday that they will vote to advance his nomination, ending an impasse over plans to create a fund to compensate allies of President Trump.

The statement from Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Thom Tillis came after Blanche issued an order late Sunday formally rescinding the $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate people who believe they were unfairly prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Cornyn and Tillis, whose votes Blanche needs to advance through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, had said they would not endorse his nomination without written confirmation that the fund is dead.

“We want to express our gratitude to Mr. Blanche and his staff for working with us on this, and we look forward to voting to advance his nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee soon,” Cornyn and Tillis, who are not returning to the Senate next year, said in a statement.

DOJ order says ‘beyond any doubt’ that fund is dead

In a statement accompanying the order, the Justice Department said that “although the Acting Attorney General has repeatedly advised Congress through testimony, including under oath, as well as in written responses, that the Fund is not moving forward, and the Department has repeatedly represented to district courts that the Fund is not moving forward, today’s Order officially rescinds the May 18, 2026 Order.”

Since the settlement of the president’s lawsuit against the IRS was announced, “No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” the order says. “This order establishes, beyond any doubt, that there is no Fund.”

The document released by Blanche on Sunday night also limits the scope of another provision of the settlement that provided broad immunity for Trump and members of his family from tax audits.

The deal clarifies that the tax audit immunity agreement “applies by its terms only retroactively” to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect the president from examination of future tax filings.

Cornyn, who lost reelection this year after Trump endorsed his primary opponent, and Tillis, who is retiring when his term ends in January, have blocked Blanche’s nomination as many of their GOP colleagues have criticized the fund.

The Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on Blanche’s nomination that had been scheduled for Thursday morning after Tillis and Cornyn said they needed more from the administration before they could provide the necessary votes.

The two senators have repeatedly said the Justice Department seemed interested in reaching an agreement, but the White House wouldn’t budge even to aid the confirmation of Trump’s loyal former personal attorney, who has aggressively pursued the administration’s priorities as acting attorney general.

“I think as far as Blanche and the Department of Justice, we were pretty much on the same page,” Cornyn said Thursday. “But then when the president got wind of it, he wasn’t willing to go along with it.”

Trump continues to express support for his settlement

The two sides have been negotiating for weeks, but Trump has said repeatedly during the talks that he thinks the fund should go forward and threatened to move forward with it if Blanche was not confirmed.

After the Thursday vote was delayed, Trump said in a social media post that he might pull Blanche’s nomination and resubmit it after Cornyn and Tillis leave office next year.

On Sunday evening, Trump said that people who had faced charges from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and could have benefitted from the fund had “their lives destroyed.”

“This would be a reimbursement for the pain that they suffered,” Trump said. “A lot of people like it.”

Jalonick and Richer write for the Associated Press.

McALLEN, Texas — A Texas mother deported to Mexico despite having legal permission to stay in the U.S. has filed a lawsuit against the federal government after it notified her it would be terminating her permission because of “unauthorized travel” stemming from her deportation.

Jessica Treviño, 34, filed a lawsuit through her attorney this week asking a federal judge to intervene.

Treviño and her husband were arrested in December after federal agents followed them and two of their daughters into a Home Depot parking lot in South Texas. Both were deported and are living in Matamoros, Mexico, just south of Brownsville, Texas. Their three children, all U.S. citizens, are living with family on the U.S. side near the border.

After being brought to the country as a child at the age of 7, Treviño subsequently received legal permission at 20 to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. Introduced in 2012, DACA does not confer legal status but has allowed hundreds of thousands of people who had come to the U.S. as children to temporarily remain and obtain work permits.

As a DACA recipient, she must maintain a clean criminal record and is not allowed to travel outside the United States.

Her attorney, David Rozas, filed the lawsuit. He noted her status and work permit were most recently authorized until April 2027.

Notice to terminate DACA cites ‘unauthorized travel’

Last week, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services sent her a notice of intent to terminate her status for “unauthorized travel outside of the United States on or about March 25, 2026,” the same day she was deported from the country by the Department of Homeland Security.

In a statement, DHS said Treviño’s husband was in the country without permission and driving at the time of the arrest. After a collision between the couple’s vehicle and an unmarked Homeland Security Investigations vehicle, the couple was arrested. DHS claimed she “knowingly accepted voluntary departure and waived appeal. She left the U.S. on March 25, 2026, and will NOT return.”

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Treviño said she did not sign any forms at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility and did not want to be deported.

Lawsuit seeks restitution of status

Rozas filed a petition asking a federal judge in Brownsville to declare the woman’s expulsion was unlawful, order the government to facilitate Treviño’s return to the U.S. and allow her DACA status to remain valid.

“The government had no lawful basis to remove her, and we filed this petition to demand she be brought back home,” her attorney added.

An immigration judge under the Justice Department had issued a voluntary departure order for Treviño in February while she was in ICE custody, but a valid DACA status prevents the Department of Homeland Security from deporting her.

“I would be so blessed to be able to go back home, because that’s what I long for most right now. I’m really desperate. It’s been seven months since I’ve been home,” Treviño said Thursday. Her three children are set to start school next month and Treviño said she would like to be there.

The current Trump administration has deported 86 DACA recipients and arrested 241 others, according to a DHS letter sent in February to Democratic Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois.

Advocates for DACA recipients say Treviño’s deportation is part of a pattern.

“This is what a deliberate, systematic effort to destroy DACA looks like in practice: target recipients one by one, manufacture justifications after the fact and leave their children to grow up without them,” said Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, a policy organization defending immigration rights.

Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.

Do you think the Rams have a tracker at their headquarters for how many days it’s been since Puka Nacua’s last embarrassing incident?

They might. Because we all remember how frequently the self-inflicted damages were occurring during that bizarre and jarring stretch starting late last year.

We had the biting incident and alleged antisemitic comments on New Year’s Eve. Before that, we had the Rams’ star receiver making antisemitic gestures on a livestream with a couple of controversial streamers.

We also had him publicly calling out NFL officials on a stream and in a social media post sent from the locker room, and getting fined $25,000 by the league for that. We had his weird post on X — a laughing emoji and “sam darnold” — after the Seattle Seahawks’ quarterback led his team to the Super Bowl LX championship on Feb. 9, when Nacua also was recorded stumbling and dancing in a San Francisco street after the game.

We had this all within just a couple of months. So we had to replace the image we previously had of Nacua as a jolly, smiling football star with a new one: a picture of teeth marks on a woman’s skin.

Ick.

Rams receiver Puka Nacua signs autographs during training camp at Loyola Marymount University on Sunday.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Nacua said Wednesday that he’s trying to be better, to do better.

“Definitely trying to take accountability for the things that I know that I can continue to change,” the 25-year-old said at Rams’ training camp at Loyola Marymount.

We should all hope so.

There’s enough at stake, don’t you think?

For Nacua, there’s the proverbial bag to secure. For the Rams, there’s the Super Bowl at SoFi Stadium, which everyone believes should be theirs for the taking. And there’s what winning will mean for the franchise’s stature in L.A., a city that’s impressed by little that’s short of championships.

Don’t mess this up, Puka.

No one wants the distraction of bizarre and disturbing behavior, of internet idiocy or civil lawsuits. (Nacua’s attorney, Levi McCathern, said the alleged bite was the result of “horseplay” and the Los Angeles city attorney’s office indicated last week that the matter was on track to be resolved through a program that allows eligible defendants to avoid criminal prosecution and jail time.)

No one wants to wonder what could have been if it turns out quarterback Matthew Stafford can’t count on Nacua getting open and punishing defenders downfield.

And no one should want to see the Rams’ sure-handed wide receiver let generational wealth slip through his fingers.

Nacua is one of those athletes who you trust on the field to make the play, but all his off-field shenanigans gave the Rams reason to doubt him, to make him skip his turn at the big payday.

He was up for a contract extension that could have paid him as much as $160 million over four years, instead he’ll be earning $5.8 million this season. He’ll have to prove himself to the Rams as a reliable investment.

But that’s OK, Nacua said. He’s happy to be back at work.

Rams receiver Puka Nacua tries to slip past defensive back Trent McDuffie during training camp at Loyola Marymount University on Sunday.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

“There have been things outside of my control that I think have impacted the way I’ve been able to kind of focus and enjoy this game of football,” he said. “But coming out here and seeing that jersey No. 12 hung up in my locker is something that I don’t take for granted … the level of connection that I feel like I have with all the guys out there, [it] has never crossed my mind that I don’t want to be out here.”

One of the Rams’ primary weapons on offense, a barefooted Nacua went on the charm offensive after practice Wednesday, opening his media scrum by joking with reporters, asking how his hair looked and whether he had any boogers visible in his nose.

He looked fit, like he’s been taking care of himself. He said he was mostly laying off McDonald’s, seeing a therapist and appreciating football as a safe space. The dad of a baby boy, he spoke about that too.

He said he’s closed his “circle of trust” and expressed regret for actions that, he said, “haven’t been the truest reflection of the person I feel like I am, and how my mother raised me.”

“There’s definitely been conversations with her to apologize, but also for her to say that she supports me,” Nacua said of his mom, Penina, who brought up Puka and his five siblings as a single parent after her husband, Lionel, died in 2012.

“And also my brothers are, I think, my biggest critics as well,” Nacua said. “So there were some intense conversations, but loving conversations, in order to see improvement.”

Nacua is one of the Rams’ best players and absolutely their most popular. The loudest roar at Wednesday’s practice was when he showed up on the sideline with fellow receiver Davante Adams. When it was over, the sound of children shrieking “Puka!” reverberated off the bleachers.

The Rams are fans, too. Nacua isn’t tolerated for his talent; he’s adored for his spirit.

Coach Sean McVay loves the guy, a fifth-round draft pick out of BYU who broke a 63-year-old record for the most receiving yards by a rookie in NFL history: “You know how much I love him and the heart that he has,” McVay said Wednesday. “And I’ve been really proud of what he’s been doing and how he’s taking accountability for some of the things that we can learn from.”

Nacua said he was buoyed by messages from teammates during this turbulent offseason, in which he checked himself into a Malibu rehab facility to, as attorney McCathern said, “focus on his health, personal growth and overall development.”

We all know how valuable Nacua is on the field, but now we’re going to find out how much he values this opportunity, getting to take another rep to repair his reputation.

We’re going to find out if this man of many routes can run straight-and-narrow. Whether the slow-moving train wreck can get back on track. Whether he can keep stacking incident-free days.

Nacua says he can. “I feel,” he said, “very confident about that.”

Interim United States Attorney General Todd Blanche is facing a possible roadblock from within the Republican Party as he faces a confirmation hearing to formally lead the Department of Justice.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Republican Senator John Cornyn said he was still sceptical about confirming Blanche to the top federal law enforcement position in the country.

“I’m not prepared to vote yes,” said Cornyn.

The senator’s comments come a day before a key committee vote in the US Senate to move Blanche’s nomination forward.

Cornyn cited concerns about Blanche’s current stewardship of the Department of Justice, which he has led in an acting capacity since April.

Previously, Blanche served as deputy attorney general, and before joining President Donald Trump’s second term, he worked as the Republican leader’s criminal defence lawyer.

But Cornyn has questioned a rare settlement Blanche brokered in May, in response to a lawsuit Trump filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Under the deal, Trump and his family would be shielded from future IRS audits. The scheme also created a so-called “anti-weaponisation fund”, under which individuals deemed to have faced alleged political persecution could seek financial compensation.

Blanche has backed away from the “anti-weaponisation fund” amid bipartisan backlash. Critics had described it as a slush fund that would benefit the president’s allies.

Earlier this month, a federal judge also ruled the settlement illegal, accusing Blanche of double-dealing by working on behalf of both the federal government and Trump as a private citizen.

During his confirmation hearing, Blanche again assured lawmakers that the fund was dead, but Cornyn said he was awaiting written guarantees on the matter.

“I haven’t seen a single piece ⁠of writing that is responsive to what I’ve requested,” Cornyn told reporters.

Committee vote looms

Cornyn spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hold a Thursday vote on Blanche’s nomination, the first step in a wider Senate debate on his confirmation.

All Republicans on the committee would need to vote in favour of Blanche for him to progress to the broader confirmation hearing.

While Republican lawmakers have generally been wary of opposing Trump, Cornyn has become an increasingly public critic of the president in recent months.

Trump endorsed Cornyn’s primary opponent, former Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in May. Paxton went on to win the Republican Party’s nomination in May, allowing him to progress to the midterm election in November.

That race will see Paxton take on Democratic upstart James Talarico in what is expected to be one of the closest Senate races of the season.

Cornyn will leave the Senate, where he has served for more than two decades, at the end of his term in January.

In an Oval Office news conference on Wednesday, President Trump was asked about Cornyn’s reticence about approving Blanche for the attorney general role.

“ Well, all I can say is Todd Blanche is outstanding,” Trump said, before questioning Cornyn’s motives.

“Maybe John Cornyn’s upset with me because I didn’t endorse him. I don’t know what it is, but I haven’t heard that there’s a problem.”

Critics have accused Blanche of placing his loyalty to Trump above all else, including by using the Department of Justice to prosecute the president’s political adversaries.

Under Blanche’s watch, for instance, the Justice Department chose to file a second indictment against James Comey, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, over a social media message made of seashells.

Blanche has denied any claims that his relationship with Trump presents a conflict of interest, saying he acts independently of the president.

However, he did little to shed the perception during a mid-July hearing before US lawmakers. Senator John Kennedy, a Republican, asked at the time if Blanche considered Trump a “friend”.

“I’m his lawyer,” Blanche replied, before quickly correcting himself to say “was his lawyer”.

The Department of Justice has had a long tradition of prosecutorial independence, whereby criminal charges are not meant to be influenced by politics.

SACRAMENTO — Backers of a November ballot measure that would require Californians to verify their identity when voting sued state officials on Monday, alleging bias in how the ballot’s summary is written.

A group led by California State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) allege in a 10-page lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court that Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta violated election laws that require the “impartial” labeling of a measure’s purpose.

DeMaio accused Bonta of trying “to rig the vote” against the measure with “a false title claiming it prohibits citizens from voting” in California elections.

He also said the measure, which will appear as Proposition 39 on the November ballot, is “a bipartisan solution to Voter ID and is supported by a supermajority of Democratic, independent, and Republican voters.”

“We take our duty to prepare a title and summary and ballot label seriously, and we are confident the court will agree we have faithfully executed that duty here,” said a spokesperson for Bonta.

Proposition 39 would require voters to present government-issued identification, such as a state driver’s license, every time they vote in person.

Voters who use mail-in ballots — by far the most popular method of voting in California — would be required to write a four-digit number, essentially a PIN, on their ballot envelopes. The PIN would come from ID such as a driver’s license or could be generated from the county.

The measure also requires that the secretary of state and county elections officials to maintain accurate voter registration lists, verify citizenship, and report annually the percentage of each county’s voter roll that have been citizenship-verified.

Under current law, Californians are required to provide identification when registering to vote and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and are U.S. citizens.

They are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail.

The lawsuit, filed by Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39 and Donald DiCostanzo, a registered voter who lives Orange County, argues that the attorney general office’s summary “is not a true and impartial statement of the measure’s purpose” and violates California Elections Code 9051, which requires neutrality.

The suit claims the language used for the summary during the signature-gathering process — a required step to get the measure on the ballot — was “neutral” and named both of the measure’s chief purposes.

The final language omits the measure’s mandate to maintain accurate voter rolls and and verify citizenship, and describes the measure in “prohibitive terms,” according to the suit.

The original language said the measure “establishes additional voters identification and citizenship verification requirements.”

“This measure would amend the California Constitution to further require that voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail; the State provide voter identification cards on request; and elections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.”

The summary language now states that the measure: “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”

“Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.”

Election law expert Fred Woocher said that the law allows the ballot measure summary to be different than the description of the measure in circulation.

UCLA law professor Rick Hasen declined to weigh in on the arguments in the lawsuit, but said that “it’s common practice for the AG to write things in ways that that align with the political interests of the Attorney General.”

Hasen previously called the ballot measure a “disaster,” writing in a blog post that its requirements are vague and it would be costly and difficult for agencies to verify citizenship.

Proponents of an initiative to repeal gas tax increases in California sued then-Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, now a candidate for governor, in 2017 over a state-drafted title and summary which they argued was misleading and negative.

A judge sided with proponents, but an appellate court later rule in Becerra’s favor.

Mayor Karen Bass’ press relations office communicates through WhatsApp messages that auto-delete every 24 hours, potentially shielding the messages from public records requests, according to three sources familiar with the office.

The press office is under scrutiny over its use of an unpaid consultant as a spokesperson for the first half of the year. Just weeks after the consultant, Yusef Robb, ceased working as a spokesperson for the city, he took a job doing crisis communications for Lineage, whose cold food storage facility in Boyle Heights caught fire last month, spreading smoke and foul odors. Robb continued to work for Bass as an informal advisor until The Times and other outlets reported his dual roles.

Even though he was no longer a spokesperson, Robb remained in several WhatsApp group channels with mayoral press staffers, all set to auto-delete, until at least a week after he started working for Lineage, said two sources, who requested anonymity for fear of professional repercussions. L.A. Material first reported Robb’s presence in the channels.

The Times has filed a public records request for all messages that Robb received or sent to the mayor or her press office between June 1 and July 10, including WhatsApp messages. The city administrative code requires records to be retained for at least two years.

The Bass administration declined to comment on the press office’s use of disappearing messages on WhatsApp.

Bass herself has also communicated through disappearing messages.

In response to a public records request from The Times for Bass’ texts in the aftermath of the January 2025 Palisades fire, her office initially declined to turn over any messages. City lawyer David Michaelson told The Times that “texts are ephemeral types of electronic communication” that aren’t subject to the city record retention requirement.

He also said Bass’ phone was “set not to save text messages.”

The city ultimately recovered more than 100 messages to and from Bass during that period and released them to The Times.

The Times still sued the city, alleging that it unlawfully withheld and deleted the mayor’s text messages and other public records from the catastrophic wildfire.

“Their contention is they don’t have to retain them, and our contention is they do,” said Kelly Aviles, outside counsel for The Times in the lawsuit, in an interview Thursday.

In a court filing, attorneys representing the city argued that keeping work-related messages for up to two years was “absurdly impractical.”

“The Times’ proposed rule requires a degree of intrusion into City employees’ personal sphere that is, at the very least, offensive if not violative of California and federal constitutional rights,” wrote Reuben Camper Cahn, an attorney for the city.

In the past, some city employees communicated with each other each other through Google Chat messages that auto-deleted after a day.

In January 2025, the city stopped that practice and required that Google Chats be saved “indefinitely.”

Retention of messages has also been an issue in the federal government, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio setting some of his Signal chats to auto-delete.

Over the past decade, the LAPD has received thousands of complaints accusing officers of targeting people solely because of their race, ethnicity or other form of outward appearance.

Only one has been fired for it.

The now-former officer, Edgar Garcia Cancino, was part of a San Fernando Valley anti-gang unit whose members were alleged to have improperly pulled over and searched hundreds of motorists. Cancino has appealed his termination, arguing that other officers in his unit carried out more of the problematic stops. He claimed the department sought to make an example of him because he refused to implicate his superiors in wrongdoing.

Accusations of racial profiling have long plagued the department, alienating generations of Black and brown Angelenos. Known within the LAPD as “biased policing,” such complaints have persisted despite repeated attempts to enact reform. But the question of how commonly profiling occurs in the LAPD remains a topic of pointed debate.

Years of studies by researchers and reporting by The Times and other news outlets have found Blacks and Latinos in L.A. are subjected to stops, frisks, searches and arrests at significantly higher rates than whites, regardless of whether they live in high-crime neighborhoods. Past LAPD chiefs have acknowledged isolated cases of profiling may occur. At the same time, they have denied that there is a widespread, systemic problem.

An internal LAPD investigation of Cancino’s Mission Division gang squad uncovered an “overwhelming pattern of intentional policy violations,” according to a summary of the case file reviewed by The Times.

Police investigators said in the case file that they identified hundreds of stops that were not properly documented, along with failures by the officers to active their body and dashboard cameras.

The allegations against Cancino largely hinged on two stops, according to his attorney. In May 2023, Cancino and his partner pulled over a man for allegedly speeding and having tinted windows, said his attorney, Nicole Castronovo. The vehicle’s registration turned out to be expired, Castronovo said, but the driver was allowed to leave without a citation after the officers searched his vehicle and found nothing incriminating.

When interviewed about the incident later, according to Castronovo, the motorist told police investigators that Cancino had stopped him because ”I looked like a G,” or gangster.

A few months later, the attorney said, Cancino was involved in another questionable stop, this time of a pedestrian who also later lodged a complaint alleging he was profiled.

Castronovo denied that Cancino had unfairly targeted anyone while on the job, saying he is a proud Latino who joined the force out of a desire to give back to the city where he grew up. She argued that the department’s investigators cherry-picked cases involving Cancino while ignoring similar behavior by other Mission cops.

“They have set up a system where it’s virtually impossible to sustain a biased policing complaint against an officer,” she said. “And then they turn around and weaponized” it against Cancino.

The probe’s findings were presented to LAPD leadership, who recommended that Cancino be fired and sent to a disciplinary hearing.

Castronovo argued in an appeal that her client and another fired Mission officer, Kim Lobos, had been denied a fair disciplinary hearing because both were initially represented by a lawyer appointed by the police union who had a conflict of interest. According to Castronovo, the union attorney also represented other Mission officers who agreed to testify against Cancino and Lobos. A Los Angeles County judge ultimately rejected their appeal.

Only one other LAPD officer prior to Cancino was fired for alleged racial profiling, a case that occurred in 2011.

According to the California Department of Justice, 4,878 allegations of bias were brought against LAPD officers from 2016 to 2025. Of those, only three were sustained.

The department’s rates mirror those of most other law enforcement agencies across the state. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, which received roughly 10% fewer complaints over than span, has sustained six racial bias allegations against deputies.

Defenders of the Police Department note that any member of the public is allowed to submit a complaint regardless of whether there is supporting evidence, which leads to a high number of allegations that cannot be proven. Others note that the presence of body-worn cameras has helped disprove frivolous claims filed by criminal suspects or others who have an ax to grind with the department.

A report released last year by the advocacy group Catalyst California found that in 2025, Black motorists accounted for nearly a third of all stops for minor traffic violations, even though they make up roughly 8% of the city’s population. The same report found that Latinos, who are about 47% of L.A.’s population, were pulled over in 58% of all traffic stops.

Latino people are up to four times more likely to be subjected to “consent” searches, and Black people up to three times as likely, according to the Catalyst study. Fewer than 1 in 10 of those stops resulted in seizures of guns or drugs, the report said.

LAPD officials have pushed back on the findings, saying there is no established methodology for analyzing racial profiling data. Many factors affect the racial and ethnic patterns of traffic stops — from the predominant race of the neighborhood in which the stop was made or whether the stop resulted in an arrest and conviction — all of which must be considered when interpreting raw data, officials say.

In May, the Los Angeles City Council voted in favor of limiting the use of “pretextual” stops, in which police use a broken taillight or another minor equipment violation as justification to pull someone over in order to investigate whether a more serious crime has occurred. Activists and some council members said they wanted to ban a controversial tactic that enabled racial discrimination. The measure urges the Police Commission, which is responsible for LAPD policy changes, to take up the issue this year.

The LAPD’s unwillingness to acknowledge officer biases and hand down punishment when warranted serves only to drive a wedge between the community and the department, said Peter Bibring, a civil rights and police practices attorney.

“The department, year after year after year, is saying, ‘Nope this never happens, this never happens,’” Bibring said. “Then the community doesn’t feel like the department is recognizing these legitimate problems and responding to their concerns.”

During a deposition for a racial profiling lawsuit filed over a 2019 traffic stop, an LAPD official was asked what evidence it would take to get someone fired.

The attorney for the plaintiff, a Black man who sued claiming he was pulled over by three gang officers who handcuffed him and allegedly searched his vehicle without probable cause, asked: “If you found out that a given officer had pulled over 2,000 people in the last year, and all 2,000 of them were Black, would you have enough information, sitting here today, to determine whether or not that data alone indicated that the officer was engaged in biased policing?”

The LAPD official’s response, according to the deposition transcript: “No.”

Jim Willis, a former LAPD detective who later worked for the L.A. Police Commission’s inspector general’s office, pointed to past audits that found serious shortcomings in the department’s investigations of racial bias complaints. Furthermore, he said, many people who are affected never file claims because they don’t understand laws around consent searches — or they are just relieved when officers let them go.

Even when someone bothers to file a complaint, Willis said, it’s difficult to gather enough evidence from a brief interaction to prove an officer made a traffic stop solely because of race. If there was a minor traffic infraction or other probable cause to make a stop, proving their motive requires them to confess to acting with intent to discriminate, Willis said.

That’s why most claims are dismissed by LAPD investigators, he said, “unless, you caught somebody on their body-worn video saying, ‘Hey tonight we’re going out and we’re (pulling over) brothers.’”

All-Pro wide receiver Puka Nacua has had a massive contract extension put on hold by the Rams. His reputation has been questioned, and he has gone through in-patient rehab at a facility that addresses mental health, wellness and behavioral issues.

And with training camp beginning Saturday, attention again has been diverted to the incident that remains unresolved — an allegation that Nacua left bite marks on a woman’s shoulder during an evening of revelry.

The latest twist is a color photo of well-defined teeth marks that the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against Nacua says he left on her shoulder. The lawsuit was filed in March, but the plaintiff’s attorney, Joseph M. Kar, sent copies of the photo to The Times and other outlets this week before discovery and other evidence sharing in the case has begun.

A black-and-white photo of the teeth marks was included in the civil complaint filed by Kar in March asking a Los Angeles Superior Court judge for monetary damages for gender violence, assault and battery and negligence.

Nacua’s attorney Levi McCathern acknowledges a bite occurred in a sprinter van while Nacua and the woman were part of a group celebrating on New Year’s Eve. But he describes it as the result of “horseplay” in the van and questions the timing of the plaintiff producing the color photo, speculating that her attorney wanted to give the lawsuit a headline on the eve of training camp.

He also said the authenticity of the bite marks on the photo — which form a circular shape with an absence of bruising — could be challenged in court by an expert in tooth reconstruction.

An image present in a court filing as evidence shows an impression on a woman’s back. The plaintiff’s lawyer sent the photo to The Times. Puka Nacua’s attorney Levi McCathern acknowledged the bite but described it as “horseplay.”

(Law Office of Joseph M. Kar, PC)

“The marks look more like her back pressed against his face than an actual bite,” said McCathren, pointing out that video from the van published by TMZ shows a woman identified as the plaintiff twerking above Nacua, who appears to be sleeping.

In March, McCathern questioned the lawsuit being filed on the heels of the Seattle Seahawks’ Jaxon Smith-Njigba signing a record four-year, $168.6-million extension that Nacua could mirror, suggesting that Nacua’s impending wealth motivated her to seek monetary damages.

“That further underscores the complete lack of credibility behind these accusations,” McCathern said.

Kar described the incident as a vicious attack, saying that Nacua “bit her on her scapula leaving an impression of all his teeth, as well as he would not release [her] for what seemed to be 10-20 seconds, while Plaintiff was folded over and started crying and suffering severe physical and emotional pain.”

“Frankly, the color vs. the black/white [photo] was a non-sequitur for me,” Kar said. “A man attacked and bit a woman severely, he acted provocatively before, and had cursed at dinner.”

Nacua faced possible misdemeanor battery charges, but the Los Angeles city attorney’s office indicated in an email that “the matter is currently on track to be resolved through pre-filing diversion,” a program that allows eligible defendants to avoid criminal prosecution and jail time. The court agrees to dismiss the charges entirely if the defendant completes the required terms — such as community service, counseling or restitution.

The Rams were sufficiently alarmed to put the brakes on a contract extension that could have paid Nacua, 25, up to $160 million over four years. Instead, he will remain under the terms of the final year of his rookie contract, making about $5.8 million in 2026. Nacua led all NFL receivers with 129 receptions in 2025.

The incident came shortly after another behavioral issue involving Nacua that alarmed the Rams. He criticized NFL officials during a livestream and made a gesture regarded as antisemitic. Nacua apologized, but after the Rams’ loss to the Seahawks a few days later, Nacua criticized officials in a social media post from the locker room. The NFL fined him $25,000.

In March, Nacua checked into a rehab facility in Malibu. A few days later, Rams coach Sean McVay said, “I trust this kid’s heart” but that Nacua had some growing up to do and needed to represent the Rams just as well off the field as on.

“The play on the field is amazing [but] there is a responsibility in terms of representing all things not exclusive to just that,” McVay said. “He knows that those are expectations, and we are hopeful this will be an opportunity for him to learn and grow, and we are hopeful that he’s a Ram for a really long time.”

Nacua participated in a Rams team activity workout in May after leaving rehab and reflected on the experience.

“Something that I feel like I’ve learned is, it’s OK to ask for support,” he said. “And then to recognize the platform that I have in being a professional football player, and trying to use that for the betterment of myself and for those around me.”

A group claiming to represent California fire survivors began sending mailers and paying for social media ads this spring, calling on lawmakers to take action to reduce the rising cost of wildfires.

“Contact your legislator and tell them we need to fix our wildfire problem to make California more affordable,” said a mailer sent this month by the group called Wildfire Victims First.

“Stand with wildfire victims,” the group’s website states, urging people to join its cause.

The group was created with money from California’s three biggest for-profit electric utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric — which government investigators found ignited at least six of the state’s 20 most destructive wildfires.

The corporate campaign has angered wildfire survivors, including some of the thousands of families in Altadena who lost their homes in last year’s Eaton fire. The blaze, which killed 19 people, remains under investigation. Edison has said its century-old transmission line is the likely cause.

The utility-funded group is lobbying in Sacramento for proposals in a study that Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered to guide lawmakers in writing wildfire-related bills. The study largely ignored utilities’ responsibility for igniting fires.

Among its dozens of proposals is limiting amounts victims can get for pain and suffering, capping fees for attorneys representing survivors and requiring property insurers to bear more of the cost of utility-sparked fires.

”Each proposal would shift more of the cost of catastrophic fires away from the corporations responsible and onto survivors, policyholders, taxpayers, and the public,” wrote Joy Chen of Every Fire Survivor’s Network in a letter to Newsom this week.

Chen wrote that the industry-funded Wildfire Victims First campaign “created the appearance that wildfire survivors supported” the findings of the study. “We do not.”

The 15-page letter was signed by other organizations including Public Citizen, Consumer Watchdog and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

The coalition is urging Newsom and lawmakers to do more to hold utilities accountable for the fires they ignite, so they don’t happen again.

“The Eaton fire devastated Altadena, home to one of California’s most historic Black communities,” said Brandon Lamar, president of NAACP Pasadena, who signed the letter. “Now as survivors fight to rebuild, they should not be asked to bear the cost of protecting the corporations whose failures devastated their community.”

Edison told its shareholders in its annual report that it believes it acted as a “reasonable” utility operator before the fire. If state regulators agree it acted reasonably, Edison will be reimbursed for payments it makes to victims by a $21-billion wildfire fund, which Newsom created through legislation in 2019.

And if Eaton fire damages exceed the $21-billion fund, Edison’s customers will pay the rest through their electric rates under fine print embedded in last year’s Senate Bill 254 — amendments that Newsom and lawmakers added so late that the legislative session had to be extended.

State Sen. Sasha Renee Perez, a Democrat who represents Altadena, said she opposed any bill that would limit payments to victims for pain and suffering.

“I can’t think of a more offensive thing to propose when I have friends who lost family members in the fire,” she said.

Anthony Martinez, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the governor and lawmakers were talking about new legislation because the study “concluded that the current system is unsustainable and not working for fire survivors, utility customers or insurance policyholders.”

“It’s essential that we work to address the complex and interconnected challenges Californians face from the increasing risk of catastrophic wildfire,” Martinez said.

He didn’t disclose what specific measures the governor supports.

Nathan Click, who directs the corporate Wildfire Victims First campaign, said that the group launched after the study found that “payouts to financial middlemen — like trial attorneys, hedge funds and insurance companies — are often paid out before wildfire victims receive a single dollar.”

“Shockingly, trial attorneys can take up to 40% of wildfire victims’ settlement awards,” he said.

Click said the group was advocating for legislation that reduces wildfire risk, expands access to affordable property insurance and ensures quick compensation to victims.

The utility-paid campaign has been joined by electrical worker unions, a powerful force in Sacramento, as well as the California Building Industry Assn. and dozens of other groups.

The Eaton fire was the second most destructive wildfire in state history.

Pedro Pizarro, Edison International’s chief executive, said last year that a leading theory of the fire’s cause was that an idle transmission line in Eaton Canyon was briefly reenergized through a process called induction, sparking the fire. Induction happens when the magnetic field of a nearby live wire causes power to jump to inactive equipment.

Edison kept the idle transmission line in place despite not using it for 50 years. The state’s utilities had known about the risks of leaving unused equipment in place. In 2019, the Kincade fire in Sonoma County, which destroyed hundreds of homes, was ignited by an idle transmission line owned by PG&E.

Despite the billions of dollars in damages caused by the Eaton fire, Edison’s profits soared last year by more than 200% — from $1.3 billion in 2024 to $4.5 billion.

The company also paid its top executives more. Pizarro received $16.6 million in cash, stock and other compensation, up 20% from 2024.

“If the financial rewards for repeated catastrophic failure are record profits, record executive compensation, and record shareholder dividends,” Chen wrote in the letter to Newsom, “then catastrophic failure is exactly what this system will keep producing.”

WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday for Todd Blanche, President Trump’s pick for attorney general, will be a referendum on far more than his individual merits.

Blanche, the acting attorney general, served as Trump’s defense attorney before taking office and has been closely linked to many of the most consequential — and controversial — issues that have dominated the first two years of Trump’s second term.

Blanche is set to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will decide whether to approve his nomination and send it to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. The committee hearing will continue Thursday.

“I would expect committee Democrats to treat Mr. Blanche’s hearing as an opportunity to conduct oversight of the Department of Justice,” said Phil Brest, president of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal nonprofit and a former top Democratic staffer on the committee. “It’s a test of the Senate’s willingness to probe the department’s operations and to actually serve as a check on the department and the administration more broadly.”

Democrats on the committee are expected to push Blanche on a host of topics, including the $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization fund” that critics derided as a slush fund for the president’s allies, the Justice Department’s rollout of the so-called Epstein files, and the department’s prosecution of several perceived enemies of Trump, notably former FBI Director James Comey.

“While deploying the Justice Department as a shield for the president and his cronies, Blanche has also used our top law-enforcement agency as a sword against Trump’s political opponents,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the ranking Democrat on the committee last month. “The independence of DOJ has been decimated under Blanche’s authority.”

Blanche was confirmed by the Senate as deputy attorney general in March, 2025, and was elevated to his current role after Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi was fired in April.

More critical to the success of Blanche’s nomination will be whether he can win the support of two lame-duck Republican senators, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas, who expressed some reservations about Blanche soon after his nomination was announced.

Cornyn raised concern about Blanche’s independence from Trump, while Tillis said Blanche’s stance on protesters who violently stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, would be critical to his consideration.

Some of those Jan. 6 protesters were expected to be the beneficiaries of the $1.8-billion fund announced as part of a settlement to a lawsuit Trump and his sons and business brought against the IRS.

In a scathing ruling this week, the federal judge wrote that the lawsuit was improper and recommended sanctions against two Justice Department attorneys who worked on the case, though not Blanche himself.

Cornyn told Semafor on Tuesday that the ruling raised a number of issues, including “the potentially collusive nature of the lawsuit.”

He has said previously that he will hold off on making a decision about whether to approve Blanche until after the hearing.

Tillis, meanwhile, told CNN’s Manu Raju on Tuesday that the weaponization fund would need to be completely off the table for him to support Blanche’s nomination.

Trump touted Blanche’s record ahead of the hearing.

“Todd Blanche is doing a PHENOMENAL job as Acting Attorney General of the United States,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “He is a great lawyer, always very fair, and every Republican Senator should vote to CONFIRM Todd Blanche, ASAP!”

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s death means that Republicans currently only enjoy a one-seat majority, but a replacement for Graham on the committee could be in place before it votes on whether to move his nomination to the Senate floor, which will likely come two weeks after the hearing.

Blanche, 51, spent 12 years working for the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, working largely on drug and violent crime cases, and rose to the level of co-chief of the district’s White Plains division.

He left the office in 2014 for private practice and joined the prominent law firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft in 2017 as a partner. He left the firm in 2023 and went independent after other partners expressed concern when he took Trump on as a client.

Blanche went on to represent Trump in several criminal matters, including the New York case about hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, and cases brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith about Trump’s alleged efforts to block the transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election and his alleged retention of classified documents.

He listed all three as among the 10 most significant cases of his career in the questionnaire he completed ahead of the hearing, along with his work at the Justice Department on a lawsuit challenging the construction of a new White House ballroom.

A group of more than 1,200 former Justice Department attorneys wrote a letter opposing Blanche’s nomination, asserting that his leadership has resulted in mass departures of career staff. That has “meant that much of the department’s vital work isn’t being done, or isn’t being done as well – leaving communities less safe, Americans’ rights less protected, and our national security more vulnerable,” the lawyers wrote.

Former Justice Department pardon attorney Liz Oyer is scheduled to testify as a witness for Democrats on Thursday. She has said she was fired for refusing to recommend the restoration of actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights.

Oyer will be joined Thursday by Dani Bensky, one of many victims of the deceased sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein who has criticized Blanche’s handling of the release of the so-called Epstein files — millions of pages of records detailing the Justice Department’s investigations into Epstein’s crimes.

Numerous victims have said that their names and other sensitive information were not properly redacted in the files and criticized Blanche and the department for failing to investigate Epstein’s potential co-conspirators.

Blanche has also come under criticism from survivors of Epstein’s abuse for the interview he conducted in July, 2025, with Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in facilitating and participating in Epstein’s abuse.

Days after their interview, Maxwell was moved from her prison in Florida to a minimum-security prison in Texas.