Hopefully, Will Rogers was watching from heaven when Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche was recently interviewed by Major Garrett on CBS Morning News. Blanche appeared on the program to discuss the grand jury indictment of former FBI Director James Comey.
Garrett once again demonstrated he is a superb journalist. Blanche, however, showed something else altogether.
Rogers also said, “There are three kinds of men: The ones who learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, and the rest who have to touch an electric fence.” If the sage Oklahoman could have advised Blanche before the Garrett interview, it might have gone like this: You’re about to touch that fence. It won’t look good.
It wasn’t.
When the government indicts a former FBI director, the burden of proof should not merely be high; it should be extraordinary. The subject is the indictment of Comey over a social media post featuring “86/47,” which prosecutors interpret as a threat against President Donald Trump.
Did Blanche make that case?
The case is both politically explosive and surprisingly thin. It also offers a revealing test of journalism.
Because in moments like this, journalism’s job is not to repeat accusations. It is to test them. Garrett began where every serious journalist should:
“Do you have proof?”
Simple. Direct. Essential.
Blanche’s answer should concern every American.
“The proof that we have is the fact that the grand jury returned an indictment.”
No.
That is not proof.
That is the process.
A grand jury indictment is not a verdict. It is not proof of guilt. It reflects a one-sided presentation by prosecutors to establish probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It marks the beginning of a case, not the conclusion.
Journalists know this, and prosecutors certainly do.
Which is why that answer should have set off alarms.
An indictment exists because prosecutors claim they have evidence. It is not the evidence itself. To suggest otherwise is circular logic dressed up as certainty.
Garrett wisely kept pressing.
He drew an obvious comparison: In 2022, political figures used similar “86/46” language about President Biden. No charges followed, and no indictment.
Why this case?
Blanche’s answer: Every case is different.
That may be true, but it is not an explanation.
Selective prosecution is not a partisan complaint. It is a rule-of-law question. If similar conduct is ignored for some and prosecuted for others, the justice system begins to look less like law and more like politics—with subpoenas.
Garrett also confronted Blanche with his past statements criticizing the prosecution of Donald Trump as politically motivated. The question was unavoidable:
Are you doing the same thing now?
Blanche’s answer was emphatic:
“You cannot threaten the president of the United States.”
True.
But also evasive.
No one disputes the seriousness of such a threat. The real question is whether James Comey made one.
Did he knowingly issue a criminal threat?
Or did prosecutors decide that ambiguous speech was sufficient, because the speaker was James Comey?
That distinction is the case.
Instead of evidence, viewers were given outrage.
Instead of facts, moral certainty.
Instead of proof, repetition.
This is where journalism matters most.
The public does not need reporters to serve as a second press office for prosecutors. It needs skepticism, verification, and independence—from both political tribes and institutional power.
The old principles still matter: Verification, evidence, accountability.
Did Comey make a threat? He posted a photo of seashells arranged as “86 47,” which he later removed. Interpreting that image as a criminal threat is a stretch beyond reason.
Is the source independent? No. Blanche is the prosecutor.
Are there multiple sources? Not yet. Where are the constitutional scholars, former federal prosecutors, and First Amendment experts?
Has the claim been verified? Not publicly.
Is the source authoritative? Yes, but authority alone is not evidence.
Is the source identified and named? Certainly. But named sources can still be wrong, and powerful sources can still be self-serving.
The strongest question in the entire interview may be the one never fully answered:
Would this case have been brought if James Comey were not James Comey?
That is not merely a legal question; it is an institutional one.
Justice requires more than prosecution. It requires public confidence that the prosecution is fair.
If Americans come to believe that indictments depend less on conduct than on political utility, trust does not merely erode; it collapses.
And journalism collapses with it if reporters stop asking the hardest question in the room:
Show us the proof.
Not the indictment.
The proof.
Once prosecution becomes performance and accountability becomes selective, both justice and journalism lose the very thing they exist to protect: Public trust.
In the days after the interview, Blanche said there was a “body of evidence” developed during an 11-month investigation. Yet the indictment itself references only the “86/47” post. Whatever that body of evidence may be, Blanche failed to make a convincing case in his exchanges with Garrett.
In fact, his defense was so unconvincing that it became material for comedian Josh Johnson, who summed it up this way:
“I don’t even think you believe you.”
Had Will Rogers joined him on stage, he might have added:
I told the fool not to touch the electric fence. Now he can’t let go.