Attorney General Todd Blanche repeatedly bristled at ABC’s Martha Raddatz as she pressed him about President Donald Trump’s press ban.
Blanche’s interview on This Week Sunday got off to an awkward start for the attorney general when Raddatz asked him to explain Trump’s justification for banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico last week.
Blanche, 52, launched into a lengthy tirade about “one-sided media coverage,” even though the White House’s official justification for the ban is national security—a discrepancy Raddatz quickly pointed out.
“You are saying it is because of the way they report—has nothing to do with national security,” she said.
“I’m not saying it—no, I’m not—I wasn’t talking about Air Force One,” a seemingly flustered Blanche replied, before doubling down by asserting that “complete misinformation” being reported about the White House amounts to a “national security problem.”
“That affects our relationship with our foreign partners. That affects our relationship with our foreign enemies,” Trump’s former personal lawyer-turned-attorney general claimed.
But Raddatz pointed out that District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, rejected the Justice Department’s national-security arguments when he ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to temporarily restore the credentials of the three banned outlets.
She further noted that Trump “said nothing about national security” when he announced the ban, and observed, “Clearly you are very interested in the fact of what the press says and how they say it.”
“Well, I—I’m not going to get into what the judge says, that litigation’s ongoing,” Blanche replied. “But our position has been clear from the beginning. What they say is exactly the issue when it comes to national security.”
“Give us an example,” Raddatz cut in, and the two began talking over each other.
“Wait, wait, wait. Give you an example when CNN—I’m sorry, wait,” Blanche said, speaking faster and raising his voice. “Give you an example when CNN doesn’t report accurately? You cannot be asking me that!”
“There’s not even a real dispute that the information coming out of CNN and some of these other networks is wholly and completely almost—almost 100 percent negative towards the president,” he continued, conflating inaccurate reporting with negative reporting about Trump.
“The judge decided this was not based on national security—” Raddatz tried to move on, but an agitated Blanche interrupted her.
“The judge issued a temporary order. It’s not final, the litigation’s ongoing, and I’m not going to talk about the specifics of what the judge said. That wouldn’t be right,” Blanche cut in before claiming once again that “at some point, the complete misinformation and the inaccuracy and the one-sided news out of certain organizations does become a national security issue.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
He got even more worked up when Raddatz asked, “So are you saying you’re going to screen people before they get on a flight? Come into the White House?” in reference to his earlier statements that Trump has “every right to decide who gets to fly on his plane.”
“I did not say that!” Blanche exclaimed. “No, no, I did not say that! You don’t get to put words in my mouth! You don’t get to put words in my mouth! That’s not the way it works.”
“Fine, you—you have a right to defend yourself there,” Raddatz said.
The two had one final clash when Blanche claimed that it’s the president’s “duty” to make sure that Americans are hearing accurate and impartial news.
“But you heard what the president said,” Raddatz said. “‘They want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration.’ That’s the president… not talking about impartiality.”
Sighing in frustration, Blanche responded, “You just picked out seven words the president said. The president talks about his concerns with a lot of these mainstream media outlets. There’s hours and hours and hours of quotes and statements about that. So for you to pick out seven words and say, oh, that’s what the president means, that’s, that’s, that’s extraordinarily disingenuous, OK?”
“I think we can give other examples,” Raddatz said.
