Cassidy's Speech Defending His Vote for Todd Blanche Was Logically Incoherent
Source: Ian Prasad Philbrick. "Todd Blanche Senate vote: Bill Cassidy supports Trump's AG nominee, with an awful speech.." August 7, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that Senator Cassidy's speech explaining why he voted to confirm Trump's attorney general pick was full of contradictions and didn't actually make sense. Cassidy said things like 'this isn't about Trump' and 'confirming him gives him leverage to push back on Trump'—but the author shows these claims contradict the evidence and even contradict each other, suggesting Cassidy didn't have a real justification for his vote.
Conclusion
Bill Cassidy's Senate floor speech justifying his vote to confirm Todd Blanche as Attorney General was a weak, self-contradictory case that fails to justify his support.
Premises
- Cassidy claimed the vote was 'not a referendum' on Trump, but Blanche's nomination is directly tied to Trump firing the previous AG for not prosecuting political opponents fast enough, making it inseparable from Trump's efforts to control the DOJ.
- Cassidy argued Senate confirmation would give Blanche more 'leverage' to push back against Trump, but by the same logic confirmation would also give Blanche more leverage to execute Trump's political vendettas.
- Cassidy admitted he was 'not entirely satisfied' with Blanche's commitments on the anti-weaponization fund and expects future concerns, undermining his own rationale for confirming him.
- Cassidy has previously been burned by this exact strategy when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. broke promises made in exchange for Cassidy's confirmation vote, suggesting he has no real leverage once confirmation is granted.
- Cassidy praised Blanche for focusing on legitimate crime while omitting that Blanche has actively participated in pretextual prosecutions against Trump's political enemies (e.g., James Comey).
- Cassidy claimed the choice was between Blanche and a potentially worse acting AG, but ignored that Trump could simply fire Blanche and install an even more compliant replacement if Blanche pushes back, just as he did with Bondi.
- Cassidy conceded that Trump's pursuit of political prosecutions would continue 'no matter who' is attorney general, which undermines any justification for confirming Blanche specifically and reveals a fatalistic resignation rather than a principled stance.
Assumptions
- A senator's floor speech should be internally consistent and logically justify the vote it accompanies.
- Confirming a nominee implies some endorsement of or trust in that nominee's independence from presidential control.
- Past behavior (Blanche's role in DOJ actions, Kennedy's broken promises) is a reliable predictor of future behavior.
- Senators have leverage to extract binding concessions from nominees before confirmation votes.
- The rule of law and DOJ independence are values that should override political considerations like party loyalty or reelection concerns.