Attorney General Todd Blanche's interview on "Meet the Press" on Sunday didn't go as well as he may have intended, according to one analyst.

Kristen Welker of NBC News asked Blanche whether he views the Department of Justice as a separate entity from the executive branch and whether he would refuse an illegal order from President Donald Trump. Will Saletan of The Bulwark noted in a new video on Sunday that Blanche's answers to the seemingly straightforward questions were alarming.

For instance, when asked about the DOJ's independence, Blanche replied that "No, I'm not going to pledge thatI'm not going to pledge that, and no attorney general should ever pledge that."

"Whoa, whoa, whoa," Saletan said. "This was a really simple question. The question was: Will federal law enforcement be independent of the White House and its political motives? And the fact that Blanche won't say yes to that question just tells you already that he is afraid of Trump and he is weak and he will let Trump control the Department of Justice."

Blanche's answer about whether he would refuse an illegal order from Trump seemed more concerning.

"The president will never ask me to do something unethical or illegal," Blanche told Welker.

Saletan noted that claim seemed at odds with the recent DOJ history.

"Wait a minute," Saletan said before putting up a picture of Trump's post from Truth Social where he directed former Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute several of his political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

"So, when Blanche sits there and says Trump would never ask him to do anything unethical or illegal, he is absolutely lying," Saletan said.

An expert flagged a staggering irony that Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice appear to be using in their scheme to "cover up anybody" mentioned in the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Katie Phang, a journalist who sued the DOJ over its redactions in the Epstein files, discussed the latest developments in her lawsuit on a new episode of the politics podcast, "The Breakdown," with host Allison Gill. She said the judge was unhappy with the DOJ's move to send an uninformed attorney to the latest hearing, and she also highlighted an ironic aspect of the DOJ's position in a recent order.

Recently, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction against the DOJ over its Epstein files redactions, which Phang explained is a legal way to get something back to the norm. However, this presents a serious legal problem for the court because, Phang argued, the DOJ's norm in this case has been to mishandle the files.

Phang said Sullivan seemed to pick up on it in his response.

"The irony is that the judge in this case, the purpose of his injunction being entered was to comply with the law," Phang said. "So, he was saying, 'I want to stop your non-compliance by ordering you to do this.'"

Phang also noted that Sullivan has "accelerated from zero to 100" concerning non-compliance from Blanche and the DOJ. One outstanding issue that impacts the case is whether the DOJ can continue to claim the Privacy Act prevents it from revealing the identity of anyone who self-identifies as a victim, a claim that Phang said it is using to shield some of Epstein's associates.

"You really have to ask yourself, 'Why draw such broad parameters?'" Phang asked. "It's almost like they've created more work for themselves, but in reality, it just gave them a shield to be able to hide behind to not again investigate leads and/or prosecute on the face of these documents, and stuff that's even unredacted. There's enough there for at least some FBI investigation into various people."

All of this has become much more problematic after Blanche was confirmed as the attorney general, Gill noted.

"If you've got an attorney general who's allowing people to self-identify as victims and you're not considering anything other than their self-identification and redacting them just because they say so, and you're also redacting emails for the Privacy Act, between those two things, you can cover up anybody's name in the world," Gill said.

One Republican senator couldn't seem to catch a break while he made the rounds on the Sunday shows.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) sparred with Martha Raddatz of ABC News during a tense interview on Sunday's broadcast of "This Week" over his past support for Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Raddatz confronted Cassidy with evidence that Kennedy had bamboozled him during Kennedy's confirmation process, a point that Cassidy conceded readily. Even so, Raddatz's line of questioning seemed to give Cassidy more of a headache than he bargained for when he agreed to appear on the program.

"People love to go there," Cassidy said when Raddatz asked him point-blank whether Kennedy had lied to him about changing the vaccine schedule. "I think it speaks for itself."

Cassidy then laughed.

"You know, my staff told me I was going to get this question, and I said 'Yeah, for the ten 10,000th time,'" he added. "So, it's pretty evident."

That same morning, Cassidy appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" with Jake Tapper, where he faced a similar line of questioning about Kennedy, as well as tough questions about his "yes" vote to confirm Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Cassidy's admission wasn't enough to save him from facing the wrath of the internet after the interview concluded.

"Of course RFK Jr lied. He repeatedly lied in his confirmation hearing, and Cassidy voted for him," Jack Pitney, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, posted on X.

"Lol," Dr. Pradheed Shankar, a radiologist, posted on X.

"But Blanche would never!" the MeidasTouch Network posted on X, referring to Blanche's recent confirmation, where he promised multiple senators that the so-called "anti-weaponization" fund is "dead."