Todd Blanche SCHOOLS Elitist Media Sunday Hosts Over Alaska Suit

Jorge Bonilla
October 25th, 2026 9:42 PM

Text to Speech

00:00 00:00
Font Size

The Elitist Media Sunday Shows sought to put their thumbs on the pre-midterm scale by portraying the Department of Justice’s election litigation in Alaska as an instance of election interference, and got absolutely schooled by Attorney General Todd Blanche. 

Watch as he cooks CNN’s Dana Bash on State of the Union for citing the convenient half of the Constitutional clause governing the election of Members of Congress:

 

 

DANA BASH: Mr. Attorney General, I don't need to tell you that the Constitution says -- Article I in the Constitution, Article I, section 4, states that the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state.

You mentioned the fact that people are upset in Alaska. It went all the way up to the Alaska State Supreme Court, and they ruled four months ago on this matter. They said that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. could remain on the ballot.

TODD BLANCHE: Well, conveniently, you put up the Constitution on your screen, but you highlighted on the first clause. Why don't you show the next clause to your viewers, which says that Congress is allowed to pass laws to make sure that that happens?

BASH: Yes. Yes.

BLANCHE: Put that back up there.

BASH: Yes, right.

BLANCHE: And that's exactly what we're doing. So the Alaska Supreme -- the Alaska Supreme Court did not address the federal law that's implied.

BASH: We have it up.

BLANCHE: Go ahead. And that is what we are doing now. So -- OK, so but, look, so you highlighted the first clause. The second clause says, but the Congress may at any time by law, and we have a law. And that's the law that we're relying on when we -- when we filed suit earlier this week.

BASH: The so-called Motor Voter law.

BLANCHE: So, this isn't about taking away the rights of a -- well, that's not what the -- that's -- what does so-called mean? That's not what the law is called.

BASH: Well, the law...

BLANCHE: It's the Voter Registration Act.

BASH: OK.

BLANCHE: And so -- go ahead.

BASH: Go ahead. No, you go.

BLANCHE: No, but the -- what we're doing, what we're doing, the Alaska Supreme Court has said that, under Alaskan law, this second Sullivan can run. That's because, unlike many states, Alaska doesn't have a statute or a law that says that the same name can't run.

But make no mistake about it, the head of Alaskan elections has made very clear that this candidate's only purpose is to confuse voters. And so what do you think the Department of Justice should do when there is a head of election, there's a federal system in place, there's laws in place that allow us to step in if constitutional rights and statutory rights are potentially being violated in the election process?

We don't do it very often, but can you name a single time in our history where this has happened at a Senate race? No, it's happened in local races before, but never before have opponents gone to such lengths to try to thwart and cheat in an election as they're doing in this case. And that is not my words.That's not President Trump's words. Those are the words of the head of the election -- Alaskan election system.

BASH: You are right that the Constitution says Congress can change the laws, and that is a law that the courts will decide on, whether or not your challenge is going to live. 

Blanche cooked her twice in that exchange: first on the Constitution, then on the name of the statute the suit is based upon. You can tell that Bash was miffed at that last correction, given the “you go, no YOU go” exchange there. 

The entirety of the interview transpired in this manner, and was centered on Alaska. At one point, Bash called to the ghosts of January 6th- the surest way to confirm the media lost the plot.

Blanche then appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation for a sit-down with Margaret Brennan where she resumed her habit of sneering at Republican guests- a phenomenon we call Faces of Margaret:

 

 

Brennan also got cooked for trying to frame the litigation in an adverse light, by citing DoJ Civil Rights head Harmeet Dhillon:

 

 

MARGARET BRENNAN: So we're nine days out. Your colleague Harmeet Dhillon, whose office would oversee election integrity cases, told my colleagues over at 60 Minutes that, quote, "absent some shocking contingency that's unexpected, there should be no interruption in the usual course of counting and certifying the results in the states." Do you share that view?

TODD BLANCHE: Well, yes, of course. Absent- absent some facts that require us to do otherwise, there's President Trump, the Department of Justice- we don't want to have to get a law involved in elections, of course not. But that doesn't mean that at times any Justice Department doesn't do that and shouldn't do that if the facts and the law require it.

BRENNAN: Well, it seems you already are taking action up in Alaska. Just for our audience to understand, there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot there. There's the incumbent senator, a Republican, Dan S. Sullivan, and then there's a challenger there, Dan J. Sullivan. The Justice Department is suing Alaska preemptively to block the certification of the results if Senator Sullivan loses. Now, President Trump was asked about this lawsuit. He said quote, "I'm the one that said do it." Who did he tell to do this? Did he tell you to do this?

BLANCHE: Well, first of all, let me correct you, okay. You describe facts that were just simply either at best misleading, but really a lie to your viewers. It is not two Dan Sullivans, one an incumbent and one running. That's not true. The head of the Alaska Election Commission, not- not President Trump, not me, has said that the second Dan Sullivan is running solely to confuse voters, solely to pull votes away from the incumbent senator. Okay, so that is something that we're dealing with. It's not just two Dan Sullivans running on the ballot in Alaska. That is not true. And second, President Trump has been talking about what a travesty this is for many, many, many months, and the Department of Justice has been looking at it for many, many, many months, as we should under federal law. And you saw what we did earlier this week- late last week. And it was not- it's not to let the federal government take over the Alaska system of selecting their next senator or certifying who's going to be senator. It's asking the court to step in where the Alaska Supreme Court didn't, which is to look at federal law, and if necessary, to allow a process for Alaska to decide who should be who should be certified as a winner.

Here again Blanche had to open with both guns blazing, shutting down the premise underlying the media’s coverage of the Alaska litigation. Brennan, like Bash before her, leans heavily on the election interference angle. The media bros will undoubtedly continue to refer to CBS News, increasingly without evidence, as “MAGA-Coded.”

The interview grew increasingly contentious with Brennan talking over Blanche, who took exception to Brennan’s hectoring:

 

 

BRENNAN: So the DOJ lawsuit says the defendants, who are the state election board and the ballot counting review board, quote, "not certify any election result that may be impacted by voter confusion." The confusion is defined as Senator Sullivan not winning, and had all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast as said for Senator Sullivan, then he would have won. How do you--

BLANCHE: –That's not what it says, okay.

BRENNAN: I'm quoting from it.

BLANCHE: What it says is the way- the way that you can determine--

BRENNAN: You are telling them not to certify it.

BLANCHE: No, no, but the way you- you started that--

BRENNAN: What right does the federal government have--

BLANCHE: No, no we're not saying- no we're saying--

BRENNAN: --telling a state not to certify or how to certify?

BLANCHE: We are not- we are- you know, if you talk the whole time, you're not going to get answers out of me. But if you let me answer your question, I can address your question. Okay, so the- exactly what we want is that there are ways- because of the way that Alaska ballots are set up, where voters can vote for more than one candidate– there is a way, potentially- we don't know what's going to happen yet- where it will be obvious from the results and from the ballots that voters were confused, and that could be obvious from the way that they rank the Dan Sullivans or not including a Dan Sullivan on the ballot. I don't know yet because there hasn't been an election. But all we are doing is trying to put guardrails in place so that if that- this- that happens, there's a system allowed where the ballots are kept in a way so that we can determine whether there was confusion. It's not saying don't certify. It's saying if a court ultimately determines that it was decided because of confusion and not the will of the voters, then we do not think the states should certify, and that's consistent with federal law and consistent with even Alaskan law, if that happens.

With Blanche winning on the merits of his arguments, Brennan is left with little recourse other than hector, interrupt, and do whatever is possible to try and recreate the specter of election interference. Needless to say, Democrats supporting all manner of election nonsense receive the benefit of a friendly interview. The double standard is blatant and obvious.

This is the current media environment with the midterm a little over a week away, an election interference unto itself.

Donor Privacy Policy