'He is very frustrated': Blanche defends Trump's Supreme Court criticism

I wanted to follow up with your remarks regarding that decision by the Supreme Court regarding mail-in voting. As you said, the President was not pleased by this ruling by the Supreme Court, and he put out a lengthy social media post. He said in part, the Supreme Court has really let our country down. Certain justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America. You used to be the President's personal lawyer. You used to be in private practice. Would you ever encourage one of your clients to disparage a court in the manner that the President has disparaged the Supreme Court? You can't talk about my background and then ask me what I would have done. He's the President of the United States. The real question is whether the President of the United States is allowed to be critical of another branch of government. The answer to that is absolutely. Of course he is. By the way, what he wrote about that is the same thing that he said publicly repeatedly. It's the same thing that DOJ's briefs have said about the issue. We do think that this decision is not the right decision. That is okay. That's the way democracy works. What I would have advised the client, what I would have done when I was a prosecutor or when I was President Trump's lawyer, isn't in any way or shape relevant to what the President of the United States should be doing in communicating to the American people. Are you guys sweating yet? Nice. I love that. Are you? No, I'm comfortable. It's actually really nice. I have water if anybody needs it. That's all right. I want to put a finer point on that last question and then I have another question related to it. On the comments from the President specifically that the Supreme Court justices in this decision aren't the people he interviewed, does that undermine even the perception of the court's independence in your view? Not at all. No. I mean, he wants another one. That's okay. He can have another one. No, I don't think it undermines. I think, look, what happened after the Dobbs decision? Members of Congress, the administration came out basically threatening judges for months on end. There's a full security force around every justice because of the rhetoric after the Supreme Court issued that decision. The fact the President issues a truth saying that the justices that interviewed in front of him six, seven years ago, eight years ago, are not the justices he's seeing now, that that undermines the ... No, I don't think in any way, shape, or form it does that. I think that that's just something that the media wants to put on it. The President should be communicating to the American people about cases that are extraordinarily important to him, which this one is. And related to this whole discussion, after all this back and forth, are you concerned at all that voters may be confused about what their options actually are now to vote by mail and what, if anything, will the DOJ do to kind of educate people on the fallout of this case now? I'm not sure that the American people follow this as closely as the folks in this beautiful rose garden do, so no, I haven't seen any suggestion or any information or heard from secretaries of state that that's an issue. That's the response ... I mean, listen, ballots are confusing in every election. The way they're distributed, the way they're talked about, that's something that the state and locals handle very well every single election cycle for one reason or another, so no, that doesn't concern me.