Todd Blanche, a key legal figure representing Donald Trump, recently had a moment on NBC News that, while seemingly minor, created a fascinating ripple effect. He was discussing the Department of Justice’s past attempt to indict former FBI Director James Comey. Blanche explained that the earlier effort to prosecute Comey was thrown out not because of the substance of the charges, but due to a “technicality.” He framed it as the court simply finding a procedural flaw, not a declaration that Comey was innocent of the accusations. This seemingly innocuous comment, which one observer even called “cutesy,” ended up sparking a lot of thought and discussion, especially among those who closely follow the legal proceedings involving former President Trump. It highlighted how legal arguments about technicalities versus substantive guilt can be very nuanced and, at times, can boomerang back to haunt a narrative.
The particular comment from Blanche quickly grabbed the attention of Will Saletan, a writer known for his work with The Bulwark, a publication that leans right but is critical of Trump. Saletan, during a recent episode of the “Bulwark Takes” podcast, immediately recognized the striking parallel between Blanche’s explanation of the Comey situation and the circumstances surrounding Donald Trump’s own classified documents case. He pointed out that if Blanche’s logic held true for Comey, it should apply equally to Trump. Saletan’s observation was simple yet profound: “Isn’t that what happened to Donald Trump? On the evidence, he was never exonerated. It was that Judge [Aileen] Cannon chucked the case based on the appointment of the prosecutor.” This comparison was the crux of Saletan’s argument, suggesting that Blanche had, perhaps unintentionally, provided a blueprint for understanding the complexities of Trump’s own legal battles, where procedural hurdles often overshadow the core allegations.
The core of Saletan’s argument rests on a direct analogy to how Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump in 2024. Judge Cannon’s decision was not about evaluating the evidence or determining Trump’s guilt or innocence regarding the handling of classified materials. Instead, her ruling was based on a procedural challenge: she argued that former special counsel Jack Smith had been illegally appointed. This distinction is absolutely crucial. If the case was dismissed due to a flaw in the prosecutor’s appointment, rather than a finding that no crime was committed or that the evidence was insufficient, then Trump, like Comey in Blanche’s telling, was never truly “exonerated” on the merits of the accusations. The substance of the charges, in this view, remains unaddressed by a court, simply because the case was halted before it could reach that stage.
This brings us to the fascinating, almost ironic, implication of Todd Blanche’s statements. Saletan noted that Blanche’s argument about Comey, when applied consistently, actually suggests that Judge Cannon’s ruling did not exonerate Trump. This stands in stark contrast to the former president’s consistent and very public claims that he has been entirely cleared of any wrongdoing in the classified documents case. Trump has repeatedly used the dismissal of the case as evidence of his innocence, presenting it as a vindication. However, if Blanche’s own legal reasoning is applied, the dismissal was merely a “technicality”—a procedural snag—and not a substantive judgment on the allegations against Trump. It creates a subtle but significant contradiction within the Trump legal camp’s messaging.
The human element here is quite compelling. Imagine Blanche, in his role as Acting Attorney General, trying to explain a complex legal situation involving a former official like Comey. He likely believes he is making a clear, legally sound point about procedural dismissals. He might not have anticipated that his carefully chosen words would be immediately dissected and re-applied to his own client’s high-profile case. It’s a classic example of how a legal argument, framed for one purpose, can have unforeseen consequences when viewed through a different lens. For Saletan, and others observing, it’s a moment of unintentional transparency, where the intricacies of legal defense strategies inadvertently reveal deeper truths about the nature of justice and perceived innocence.
Ultimately, Saletan’s final observation cuts straight to the heart of the matter: “So, Todd Blanche is essentially admitting that Trump himself was never exonerated on the evidence.” This isn’t about whether Trump is guilty or innocent; it’s about the legal status of his case. If a case is thrown out on a technicality, it means the court never passed judgment on the actual merits of the accusations. Therefore, from a purely legal standpoint, the question of whether Trump handled classified documents inappropriately was never answered by the court. This creates a significant fissure in the public narrative surrounding the former president’s legal challenges, suggesting that while he may have avoided conviction on technical grounds, the underlying accusations remain, in a legal sense, unexplored and unadjudicated. It’s a powerful reminder that “dismissed” does not always equate to “innocent,” particularly when the dismissal is procedural rather than substantive.