My friends, Attorney General Todd Blanche sat down with Kristen Welker on Meet the Press this weekend. This sounded more like an interrogation or a cross-examination than it sounded like an actual interview. The implication was that Trump is asking people to do illegal things, and that the Attorney General is going to be pressured into doing just that. So she asked if the Justice Department will act independently of the White House.

Blanche responded by saying: "There's a big difference between saying we will always do our job and investigate any case, and act independently of the White House. I'm not going to pledge that."

Welker’s reaction was immediate — like refusing that pledge was some kind of criminal confession.

I've got a question for you, Kristen Welker. What branch of government do you think the Attorney General is under?

Listen, I understand the instinct here. Nobody wants a Justice Department that just does whatever a president tells it to do, especially if that's illegal. That's a reasonable concern to have.

But the Attorney General isn't some independent fourth branch of government, floating above the President who appointed him. He's part of the executive branch. That's not a loophole somebody snuck in. The Founders built it that way on purpose.

However, there are real checks and balances on the Attorney General. The Senate confirms him. Courts review what his prosecutors actually do. Congress can call him up to testify any time it wants.

Welker made a point of noting Blanche used to be President Trump's personal defense attorney, like that settled the question. But it doesn't. Presidents have picked Attorneys General they trust for as long as we've had Attorneys General. That's actually pretty important.

Blanche gave the pledge that actually matters instead. "I will act with integrity. Our prosecutors will act with integrity. We will prosecute without fear or any sort of favor."

That's the job. Enforce the law without prejudice. Don't break it.

And here's where the double standard shows up, every single time. When Republicans hold power, we're told the Justice Department must never touch a political opponent, or it's a witch hunt. Meanwhile, Democrats and even the Biden administration's DOJ went after Trump repeatedly. And when they did, those same voices called it accountability.

It cuts both ways, my friends. If someone on the other side of the aisle has actually broken the law, being on the other side of the aisle isn't a defense. That's not lawfare. That's just the law, applied fairly, to everybody.

The Founders didn't design a fourth branch that answers to no one. They designed a government of laws, not men — one where the Attorney General enforces the law under the direction of the President, in accordance with the Constitution, and held accountable by Congress. Not to whichever way the media narrative is blowing that week — which is always hard to the left.

Conservative, not bitter.
Todd

In this issue of The Inner Circle, we discuss who the Attorney General actually answers to, what the Founders built on purpose, and why the Electoral College still matters — among other things.

But I’ve only got so much I can get into here and on the Toddcast.

The Inner Circle Plus is where I can go deeper.

And you can get access for just eight dollars a month, or $79 a year.

You get the Toddcast commercial-free, a members-only Deep Dive every month, a live Fireside Chat where I take your questions, and the first word on whatever's coming next for the show.

Join by Constitution Day — September 17, thirty days from today — and your rate drops 25%. Not for the first year. For as long as you stay.

Cancel any time. But I don't think you'll want to.

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear went on Face the Nation this weekend and said it plainly: "It is time" to abolish the Electoral College. He wants direct national election of the President and Vice President instead.

He's not alone, and I'll give the argument this much — it sounds reasonable to many on its face. One person, one vote. Why should where you live change what your vote is worth?

So let's take the question seriously, my friends. Why do we have this thing at all?

The Founders had three real options in Philadelphia, and none of them were perfect.

The problem with letting Congress pick is that the executive would be subservient to the legislature. That causes all sorts of friction inside the constitutional separation of powers.

And a straight national vote had a problem of its own. In 1787 there was no national press. A farmer in Georgia had no realistic way to learn anything about a candidate from Massachusetts.

A national popular vote in that world goes to whoever is already famous in the biggest states — and the smaller states knew it. Such a move could have made them reluctant to ratify the Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton laid out the reasoning in Federalist No. 68. The design of the Electoral College, he wrote, gives "a moral certainty" that the presidency never falls to a man who isn't qualified for it. Popularity in a single state isn't enough — it takes "the esteem and confidence of the whole union."

Hamilton was also concerned about corruption and foreign influence, which he called the most deadly adversaries republican government has.

Beyond that, it's far easier to corrupt one single national election tally than fifty separate state counts running at the same time, in fifty separate places. Spreading the count across the states was a safeguard, not an accident.

On top of that, I'd add this. We are a group of united states, and it mattered a great deal to the Founders that that not get lost. Requiring a candidate to win electors from multiple states is what keeps the states in the picture.

I like to think about it like a seven-game series in the NBA playoffs. To win the series, you have to win four separate games.

You don't add up the points and hand it to whoever scored the most. It's theoretically possible to lose a series and still have outscored the other team across seven games. The point is winning individual games.

Same idea here. The Electoral College makes it necessary for the winning candidate to win the votes of electors from multiple states and parts of the country.

Now here's why it still earns its keep, all these years later.

It forces a candidate to assemble a coalition across regions instead of running up a pile of votes in a handful of large metropolitan areas.

It contains disputes. A recount stays inside the state where the problem actually happened, instead of dragging every ballot in the country into it.

And it gives a small state a reason to appear on the map at all.

That last one is exactly where Beshear has it backwards. He says Kentucky never sees a presidential candidate, and he's largely right. But that isn't the Electoral College's doing — it's because Kentucky isn't politically competitive on the national level, and both parties already know how it typically votes.

The easier solution for Democrats to compete in Kentucky is nominate candidates who aren’t leftist lunatics and move in the direction of how people in Kentucky actually want the federal government run.

But take the Electoral College away and a campaign still doesn't need Kentucky at all. It needs Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Houston — the metropolitan areas around this country. Abolishing the electoral college makes everywhere outside those places get more invisible, not less.

The fix for a state nobody visits during a campaign isn't erasing states from the math. It's making more of them worth visiting. And again, the most effective way to do that is to run candidates who aren't outside the mainstream of political opinion in those states.

The Founders built a republic of states — not one national mass with one national tally. The Electoral College is a piece of the machinery that still remembers that.

And I'm glad that it does.

This is the moment from today's show where I said out loud what the other side actually thinks of you. Not that you're mistaken. Not that you're misinformed. That you're evil, and you need to be stopped.

We put several clips up on Facebook every day — follow along there, and share this one if it lands with you.

Then go read the comments underneath it. They make my case better than I did.

You've worked hard to fund your portfolio — your investment strategy should work just as hard to maximize your after-tax returns. On August 20, join Range's CFPs and CPAs live for the practical moves that put more of your returns back in your pocket. 

What we'll cover:

 • Investment moves to maximize your after-tax returns

 • How tax-loss harvesting can lower the taxes you owe

 • When direct indexing works (and when it doesn't) 

• How to build a diversified portfolio that reduces tax drag. 

Range is all-in-one AI wealth management — tax, investments, retirement, and estate in one place. Bring your questions for the live Q&A. Free to attend, and seats are limited.

Reserve your spot today

_{This webinar is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy, hold, or sell any security. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Range defines "high earners" as households with income over $300k.}

I'm taking a family trip next week, so I'll be away from the microphone for a few days. You're in good hands while I'm gone — Krish Dhanam and Gary Varvel will be guest hosting.

And you should still receive issues of The Inner Circle in my absence, too.

Listen to today's full episode
Follow us: Facebook · Instagram · YouTube
Own a business? Advertise with us
Support businesses who love America like you do
Go deeper with Inner Circle+