AG Todd Blanche Panics as Judge Lays Contempt Trap in Epstein Files Case

0:00Michael Popok:Welcome to a special edition of Legal AF. There are so many developments in the world of the Epstein survivors and the documents that Donald Trump and Todd Blanchett continue to hide that you need a viewing guide to do it. And I'm glad that you've been using Legal AF and the Katie Phang News Channel in order to do it. So we're going to have a special briefing today with Katie Phang. Our audience loves everything about what Katie Fang is doing, not just as an intrepid reporter and legal commentator, political commentator, but as a plaintiff in a case in which all she's trying to do is get justice and dignity for the Epstein survivors and by extension, free media, freedom of the press in order to report on what's happening.

0:42Michael Popok:And all we're watching the other side do, like Todd Blanche, is continue to try to play hide and seek with a federal judge about broad swaths of documents. We're now fighting over, Katie's fighting over two major things. She's got a big win on one, the FBI interview notes, handwritten interview notes about 40 pages or so involving a woman who claims that she was victimized at the age of 13 by Donald Trump. And then these foreign language documents. But as I want to remind people, as I bring Katie on, the case is much deeper than that. The case has to do underlying substantively about millions and millions of pages that have not been properly reviewed or produced and having a monitor appointed by a federal judge, Judge Sullivan, who will look backwards and forwards about the production.

1:28Michael Popok:That is the underlying merits of the case. We're now fighting over the tip of the iceberg, which are these categories of documents. And as I bring her on, an unbroken chain of victories for Katie Fang in a case that people said she shouldn't bring, she won't win, she'll never get this far. Everybody was wrong. Not me, but everybody else was wrong. Let's bring on Katie Fang. Hi, Katie. Hi, thanks for believing in me, Michael Popok. Well, I wasn't the only one. And you, of course, believe in yourself, which is the most important thing. And that was a brilliant masterstroke to bring that lawsuit.

2:05Michael Popok:And as I've said, I'll say it out loud, they will be teaching Fang versus Blanche in law schools going forward. It does. It opens up the pathway for others to follow in your footsteps, to bring cases claiming informational, reputational, informational harm, sorry, as standing, as the grounds for standing against the federal government, including one completely out of control. and is, you know, we do this interview today with the backdrop of Donald Trump not only trying to block mainstream media, including one that you worked for from the White House, but now he's like, wherever I go, I'm at the UN.

2:45Michael Popok:You can't ask me questions there either. Huge hearing in that case. This is a testament to independent journalism and everything that you're about. Let's catch our audience up. There's been some recent developments. Talk about the couple of things that have just happened. in your case, and then we can kind of dovetail that with the Epstein File Transparency Act II and what we think is going to happen there. Yeah, listen, I appreciate the framing that you did. You know, I try to remind people because, of course, it makes sense. We get mired down in the daily beatdown of the news, right? That the skirmish, as I am calling it, the battle over some very specific things like the handwritten interview notes and like the foreign language documents, they are just a battle that's a part of the larger war.

3:34I have now described it as a war that I am waging against the Trump Department of Justice, and more specifically, the Attorney General Todd Blanche, because they just refused to follow the law. And that is one of the orders I wanted to start with, which is it was the smaller of two orders that was entered by Judge Sullivan last week. It's only eight pages, but they're very, very big because that order told Todd Blanche that he had to respond to my lawsuit by September 24th, by Thursday, September 24th. And as we know, Michael, when you sue somebody, they have to answer the allegations that are raised in the complaint.

4:12And then once they do so, the pleadings, as we call them, are deemed to be closed. And that's really a way that you end up getting across, ultimately, the finish line faster. Blanche blew through that deadline in June, made up some bullshit excuses as to why he had not complied. Judge Sullivan wasn't buying any of it and told him you have to respond. That pertains to the war. And then the larger order from last week that was about 20 pages long deals with a series of skirmishes or battles that I have been waging with Todd Blanche over the production of specific things. And they also have an upcoming deadline of September 24th.

4:49Michael Popok:What I like about that strategy, so many things I like about that strategy, And I've had your lawyer, your lead counsel, Brendan Palu on a few times to talk about it, even though you're co-litigating this case, so to speak, as I would if I were the client in a case. I'm not meddling. I know Brendan didn't say I was meddling. I did not meddle. I'm a fellow trial lawyer. I didn't say meddling. I said you're co-litigating as I would. And what I liked about it is by starting with this tip of the iceberg, with these very identifiable, discrete issues that are so easy to prove that they have violated, you've not only, what you've done is, because you've got Judge Sullivan ruling in your favor, and not all of it, but a lot of it, he's already, you're already getting the hearts and minds of your judge.

5:35Michael Popok:He's already making factual observations and findings about how the Epstein files have been handled. Every time they try to answer a question with some sort of bullshit, to use your legal term, about a category, the judge is thinking, oh, this indicates why I would hope, why I need to appoint a monitor. See, this is the trap that you have laid, and they have willingly stepped into the bear trap, because every time they answer ridiculously, like Mr. Block has done, what I call the pinata of the moment at the Department of Justice. Pinata du jour. Who comes in purposely ill-prepared, not prepared, under-prepared, because he doesn't want to answer questions.

6:21Michael Popok:All that is doing is ringing the bell in the judge's mind about your ultimate relief that you're seeking and your ultimate remedy that you're seeking, right? Which is the full production of the unredacted Epstein files with the only legally permissible rejections and withholds that the law allows them to do. It's all been strategic. I mean, to your point, we are priming the court every step of the way to show that my war for the entirety of the files is a well-founded one. Because every time they file a response, as you've noted, they keep on making this like keystone cops move of total incompetence where they try to backpedal, they try to make an excuse, they're inconsistent, but all they're doing is showing their asses, right?

7:08They're just showing that they didn't really abide by the law. And that is the crux of my lawsuit. I've said this time and time again, I'm not asking for more, but I'm never going to take less than what the law tells them that they have to do. Yeah.

7:20Michael Popok:And they lie in court. I mean, when Block, a couple of hearings ago, told the judge that they're working on the redaction log, judge, it's coming. And he said, Christmas is coming too, Mr. Block. But that's not an answer to my question. And then when they filed the same darn letter that they had given to Congress, that indicated that either Block was misled, he lied to the federal judge, or worse. And yet, you know, Sullivan's been letting him off the hook on statements like that. Of course, in your papers, you're not. Here's something that I like, many things I liked about what you just filed right before the judge made his ruling late last night in your favor.

7:57Michael Popok:In your opposition to the defendant's motion for partial stay, you remind the court that the defendant has already conceded, Blanche has already conceded by his silence, that the foreign language documents are not exempt from the Epstein Files Transparency Act disclosure mandate. In other words, all they ever told the Congress was it's too hard for first level review because, you know, they're in a foreign language. OK, that's interesting. But that doesn't mean they're not responsive or that they're not required by law, an act of Congress to be produced. Those are two different concepts. And that sort of gets lost in the fog of reporting about your particular case.

8:37Michael Popok:They want the judge to accept that Congress didn't do anything about it when we didn't translate it. So you shouldn't either. But it's courts that interpret law, not Congress, not even Congress's own law. It's not up for them to say, well, all right, it looks all right. It's up to courts to interpret statutes. Yeah. And that's why I've tried to be a little bit reassuring to some of the people out there that get frustrated. If you don't think I'm not frustrated with the speed, I mean, even you'd have to admit, Mike, this case has moved very quickly. For one, that was filed at the very end of April.

9:11We're towards the end of September, and there's been a lot of activity on this file. Yeah, I get it. It doesn't make sense sometimes when you look at Judge Sullivan and how he rules, And yet, you know, there's I think there's a couple of factors at play. One, this is the attorney general of the United States. And I think before you find him in contempt of court, you have to give him enough rope to hang himself. Number one. I think number two, the other important point is every concession that is made by them along the way just buttresses the ultimate, you know, result that we want, which is we want all of the files, including the ones that he's, you know, squatting on at the Department of Justice right now.

9:47But their bad faith is not going unnoticed. There's enough of it there. It's a legion. I think what it is, though, it just goes to show that plausible niability is the name of a game at the Department of Justice right now. You can either go in ostrich head in the sand or you go in, you know, intentionally obfuscating and obstructing justice. Either way, it's not a win for you as a DOJ lawyer. And I think there's a reason why last week Judge Sullivan intentionally included a reminder that civil contempt is still on the table for the Department of Justice for noncompliance.

10:24Michael Popok:And also telling them, and I don't know if it happened, I think it came and went yesterday, also telling them, if there's any aspect of my order that you think is not clear and unambiguous, let me know by the 21st and I'll clear it up for you. I didn't see anything on the 21st that said they couldn't figure out the order. No, but what was an insult to Judge Sullivan, and that's the thing, I think that they think Judge Sullivan's not clocking these insults either. they actually blamed Judge Sullivan in their attempts to be able to defend their need for a stay, stating that the judge did not allow them to do certain things.

11:00But then they also said something to the effect of, well, Judge, if you can just make sure your orders are clear so that the appellate court understands what you've done, then we'll be in a better position to be able to move forward with the appeal. I mean, this is a senior judge who's been on the bench since I want to say 1991 or so. I mean, this is definitely not somebody where this is new. This is a civil lawsuit that has been brought that has had a motion for preliminary injunction along the way. This is not anything novel. The only thing unusual is the argument that I raised when it came to standing.

11:30But even that in and of itself relied upon precedent that came before me about the idea that you can be harmed by the way of not having access to information that is statutorily required to be made public. And the thing about Blanche is, and more accurately his lawyers, is that they just don't get it, right? Because they keep on trying to raise the same arguments that they've raised before Judge Sullivan and they've lost. And my legal team very aptly noted in their filings, they're trying to get multiple bites at the apple. They'll file a notice of appeal. And for purposes of the record on appeal, you can only consider that and that arguments and those that have been made up until that date.

12:09And then they keep on saying, well, we'll keep on making and supplementing our arguments and we'll keep on filing this notice of appeal. And in the meantime, we need to stay when fundamentally it's because they've missed the boat. But their problem is a lot of the law is telling them you can't keep on coming to the trough thinking that you're gonna be able to fix this. And we keep on telling the judge and the judge is like, yeah, but you know what's funny is the judge just entered this order denying the stay that they were seeking. And you know, they, as in the DOJ slash Blanche, they were so smug because we raised a critical issue of just professionalism, which is you have to do a meet and confer before you file this type of motion, meaning you have to contact opposing counsel and see if you can good faith resolve the issues or at least narrow them in good faith.

12:55We pointed that out to the court. They, as in the DOJ, was like, yeah, who gives a shit? She was never going to agree to the relief. And so, by the way, judge, the law is that you don't even have to consider this violation of the local rule. And what does Judge Sullivan start with at the beginning of its order? You didn't meet and confer, your motion's denied. So, you know, it's like the judge sees what they're doing. It's not like it hasn't escaped his notice.

13:20Michael Popok:And when I did coverage of what just happened on here on Legal AF, I said, listen, I've been doing this 35 years. I've had a couple of times where I made a good faith decision that it was a little unclear in the rules whether this particular motion I was filing was covered by the meet and confer requirements. I'm sure it's happened to you. So you're like, you know what, I'm going to try it without it and see what happens. And I've had it denied without prejudice that says, Mr. Popak, you should have went over and you should have had a very quick meet and confer to see if you could get some resolution on this and then come back to me.

13:49Michael Popok:So it happens. But for them to just go, well, screw it. We're just going to throw away the local rules because we don't feel like doing it. You know, it's funny, you're Andrew Block, who's your opposing lawyer. There's a shifting number of opposing lawyers, but Andrew Block seems to have stuck to your case in the Department of Justice. He's the same guy over in the Northern District of Virginia. Doing the slush fund stuff. Doing slush fund. And he's the guy that showed up and Judge Brinkham very famously looked down her nose when she was there for the first Jan 6 fund hearing and looked down her glasses and said, you're a very brave man, Mr.

14:26Michael Popok:Block, to come in here with these arguments. So it used to be, I don't know if you will remember because you cover the way I do, but he's the new Drew Ensign. Remember Drew Ensign was the lawyer that came in on all of the Alien Enemies Act removers? Yes, with Judge Boesberg. With Judge Boesberg. And they sent him in because he was willing to go in unprepared, underprepared, not knowing anything. Or acting like he didn't know. Right. Oh, I don't know. I don't know where the planes are right now, Your Honor. And he was at the time and could be subject to contempt in the future if that ever gets off the ground.

15:02Michael Popok:And this is just another version of this pinata that they purposely trot out. He does, like when you and I handle clients, right, you make sure before you go into a court, especially a federal court with a file under your arm representing a client, you better know everything that's happened in the case. You better have made those phone calls before you got in there. You better have reviewed the law and the facts on whatever the topic is for that particular day and a topic that may come into the judge's head. And you better be prepared to answer that question or you're going to get excoriated by that judge.

15:34Yeah. And when we were in court for that two hour status hearing about maybe three weeks ago or more or more, you know, Block was shaking like a leaf at the podium and turning red. And and it was remarkable because Judge Sullivan didn't raise his voice, didn't threaten him. In fact, was incredibly kind and patient, more so than I ever would have been as a federal judge who had a lawyer appearing for a show cause hearing. But, you know, the problem we have, though, is these lawyers like Andrew Block, I guess they're not realizing that contempt just doesn't lie on Todd Blanche. The contempt also lies with the DOJ lawyers themselves.

16:10And so I think that it depends on whether or not you think that you're always going to be at a Department of Justice. No, you're not, because it's not always going to be a Trump Department of Justice. Same thing for Todd Blanche. But I do think what's important here, though, is they are failing to appreciate the magnitude on a procedural and substantive level of what is happening here. Because I believe that it's one thing to be reactive and play whack-a-mole with this litigation that I've brought. It's a whole other thing to not appreciate the bigger sentiment and message that's being sent with a very shitty optic for them, which is they continue to hide.

16:49I have said this on my channel time and time again. It is a remarkable amount of time, energy, and money and resources that is being spent to just hide something. And if there was nothing there, why are you spending the time, money, energy, resources to do it? It makes no sense to me because if at the end of the day, it ends up being a quote, nothing burger as they claim it is, then why are you not releasing it? And then for them to also want to hide behind, well, guess what, judge? there is the Epstein Files Transparency Act 2, which is coming around the corner. And so that will fix all the problems that Katie Fang has.

17:24Well, no, it doesn't. And that's an entirely separate issue. But they seem to think that I sued pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act. I kind of didn't. I sued pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. And so regardless of what the second iteration is of Epstein Files Act, I'm traveling under a different theory and they just don't seem to get it, that's fine.

17:44Michael Popok:Well, they're going to get it in about a week when they have to produce the administrative record about how they decided what would and would not be produced to the public, which is part of the final agency action for your APA claim. And that's an update that people haven't been focusing on either. Yes. You and I are very focused on it. Let's fast forward for both of our overlapping audiences here as to any day now, any hour now, because they got to do it before the 24th. And this is going to be up on the 23rd. So Donald Trump and Blanche is going to have to file a motion with the appellate court just above Judge Sullivan for a stay.

18:23Michael Popok:Judge Sullivan gave them a, he didn't put a date on it, but he did because he gave them a temporary stay of his order, denying their motion for stay to give them one day, one and a half days to go up and get it. Otherwise, they're in default under and in contempt under his orders for things to happen on the 24th. So they got to try to slide it in in the meantime. And it's a partial state, too. Let me remind people it's it's only for the foreign language stuff. They're they're bitching about having to initiate review and production. They haven't they haven't appealed the written notes, handwritten notes.

18:55They haven't appealed the provision of further unredacted documents that must be compared because Blanche represented that these were victims whose names were redacted. And yet Judge Sullivan said, wait, wait, wait, you still haven't provided that corroborating information. So you better do it by September 24th. So there's other aspects of that order that they haven't appealed.

19:13Michael Popok:The major aspects, the fact that we're one step closer to getting the handwritten, like 40 pages of handwritten notes about Donald Trump's accuser. And, you know, it's going to go. I mean, I don't want to jinx it. I think we're going to be seeing those documents very, very soon. Now it goes up to the appellate court. Now look, you and I have talked about this with our audiences to prepare them. There are a handful of Trumpers who sit on that court, including some that are trying out for the Supreme Court, like Naomi Rao. So you got Naomi Rao, you got Justin Walker, and you got Katzis. Katzis. Right.

19:46Michael Popok:So what's your prediction if it's two Trumpers, if it's one Trumper? What is the vote on the motion to— How incredibly demoralizing is it that the future of my lawsuit could rely upon a random lottery assignment to appellate court justices? But that's the truth. That's the truth. Look, isn't it interesting, though, that the Supreme Court of the United States could have, in theory, granted cert for the petition that was filed by Ghislaine Maxwell? Well, she filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, raising what I thought at the time were particularly interesting legal issues vis-a-vis enforcement of the non-prosecution agreement that was entered into with Jeffrey Epstein down in the Southern District of Florida and its enforceability in other jurisdictions.

20:37I thought that there was a potential issue in that, maybe. The Supreme Court in the United States would not touch that with a 10-foot pole, okay, because it's the Epstein files. it is interesting to see how the dc circuit even if it's a trump majority of two trump justices versus versus maybe one it's interesting to see what they do with this because fundamentally it's the epstein files right so are you going to not allow this lawsuit to advance if so then that's complicity in and of itself yeah whose side are you on whose side are you on and and again you don't have to, quote, pick the side of the victims.

21:17You just have to pick the side of the rule of law. The law is very clear what the attorney general's obligations are. And by the way, there's a reason why that's the reason why I sued the attorney general, not the DOJ. The Epstein Files Transparency Act puts the onus or the burden of production on the attorney general, him or herself. So are you on the side of the rule of law? I'm saying this to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Or are you on the side of Donald Trump? We've seen how that's played out, Right. So I'm not necessarily holding my breath, but I am very curious to see what the random draw will be on the D.C.

21:47circuit.

21:48Michael Popok:Yeah, as will as will we. And as you said, and for our audience and for their viewing guide, lots of activity in the next couple of days in the case up at the appellate court. But still, even with this one narrow issue up on appeal, thumb up or thumb down or maybe a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, lots of things that Judge Sullivan will be progressing in the case. You get an answer. Including my merits. Exactly. My merits case. A big war. That thing has not been appealed. That is still going forward. So that means they cannot file another motion to dismiss because that ship has sailed.

22:22Michael Popok:They have to file an answer, meaning in our world, an issue is joined, allowing you to move forward for summary, judge it, or set the case for trial. And then hopefully in three to four or five months, you and I are talking about the appointment of a former federal judge as the special master or monitor in the case looking backwards and forwards. And that will truly be a very, very difficult phone call or meeting between Todd Blanche and Donald Trump when he reports that that's happened. Maybe they'll go to the situation room again and have that conversation because they are fond of that place, you know, to talk about the Epstein files.

23:03Michael Popok:And Trump has got vast experience with having a monitor or a special master over his business affairs. He still has one for the next two months in New York. People forget this. The civil fraud case. Trump Organization and all of its little babies have a Barbara Jones, former federal judge, sitting on top of them, peering into all their finances for another three months. Everybody says, oh, Letitia James, Letitia James. You know what Letitia James did? There's been a monitor over Trump Organization for the last two and a half, for almost three years. And remember that thing wound its way up through the appellate process, right?