Blanche Faces Pressure as DOJ Misses Deadline in Katie Phang’s Epstein Files Case and Faces Default Judgment

0:00Michael Popok:Welcome to a special edition of Legal AF. There are a number of cases that our audience is following because Legal AF is following it. And two in particular are being handled by the same public interest law firm. One, the Katie Fang case against Todd Blanche related to the Epstein files on behalf of herself as a journalism, on behalf of all Americans and all people interested in helping the survivors and the survivors of the own dignity. That's a case in front of Judge Sullivan. And there's major developments that have happened in the last few days there and more to come as a deadline is fast approaching for the government to respond.

0:40Michael Popok:But the same public interest group, Public Integrity Project, is also behind the lawsuit about Donald Trump selling off America's insider information and trying to monetize it through Truth Social at$100 ,000 a clip. Okay, you want to know what the FBI is about to do or the Department of Transportation or anything in the Trump administration, you want to trade on that knowledge, you want to invest on it before everybody else can invest on it, you can give Donald Trump's company$100 ,000 a month and you too will be given this insider information so that you can front run the market. Does it sound illegal?

1:19Michael Popok:Is that your noses all scrunch up? Well, it is illegal. And we're going to talk about that lawsuit and we're going to bring it together under the banner of Brendan Ballew. Brendan, how are you? Hey, I'm good. How are you doing? Thanks for having me. I wasn't shocked when I saw the Truth API lawsuit that you folks were behind it. Why don't we kick off with that one? And then we'll talk about the FBI handwritten 302 notes involving Donald Trump that the Department of Justice is still playing hide the ball about. And what do you think is going to happen with that with Judge Sullivan? But the Truth API thing was so audacious in its approach that a lot of us were like, Like even me, and it's hard to get my jaw to drop, but even I was like, are you effing kidding me?

2:03Michael Popok:They're selling insider public information to anybody who will buy it so that Truth Social can shore up its business model? What is going on? And then we'll talk about your lawsuit. Yeah. So the basic scheme here is Donald Trump uses Truth Social, his social media platform that his company, that he is the largest shareholder created to post all sorts of official government announcements. So True Social is where Donald Trump starts wars. It's where he announces ceasefires. It's where he hires people. It's where he fires people. Basically, if you want to know what the government's doing, you have to be on True Social.

2:40Trump and his company are proposing and actually are now already doing, selling early access to his posts on True Social, as well as the posts of the official White House account, the vice president's account, the FBI director's account, several cabinet members' accounts. early access for anybody that's willing to pay$100 ,000 per month. And True Social's parent company, Trump Media, has in fact described this information, and I'm quoting here as, quote unquote, market moving information. So the - We have another word for that. Yes. Insider trading, arguably. Yes. Yeah. You know, the concern here, obviously, is that people are going to use this information exactly as Trump Media wants them to use it, which is to have an early financial advantage, trade on it.

3:26In fact, this is just the beginning. You know, Trump media has said that they want to expand this, including into potential gambling operations. So soon enough, you might be able to subscribe to get a gambling advantage based on what the president is posting.

3:42Michael Popok:It's incredible. Right. I mean, if I, right, what's to stop me from taking that info and making a bet on Kelshi? Yeah, I mean, there's nothing stopping you. In fact, that's the whole purpose of the scheme here, the explicit purpose. So, you know, it seems profoundly corrupt. It's a little cute to describe it this way, but we've always said that sort of Trump is like the Picasso of corruption and that he comes up with these schemes that I just don't think would occur to you or me or an ordinary person. Like, I just wouldn't think to sell official government information like that, but he's doing it.

4:15Michael Popok:Right. Right. And they try to characterize it as we're just monetizing data. It happens all the time in business, except your inventory is our information in the public. It's the people's information that because you use Truth Social as your official organ for everything, as you so eloquently put, you're selling our information early to give people an advantage, which obviously you're already taking. They're just trying to normalize what Trump has already been doing, I'm sure, which is front running in his own way by investing with himself and his family in industries and then makes major announcements about the Iran war, about you should invest in Boeing and Howard Lutnick.

4:59Michael Popok:You should invest in Intel and like all this other, which effectively, if the Securities and Exchange Commission was doing their job, is inappropriate, illegal and unethical. I saw a clip, I'm sure you did too I saw a clip on CNBC's Squawk Box Of a guy that looked like another Sort of remake of James Bond Like villain type But apparently is Kevin McGurn Who's some sort of acting interim CEO Of Truth Social And he's bragging about Bringing on even more people Who are willing to buy this information Let's play that clip The technology is a tried and true technology that's been in the social media system for quite some time, more than a decade.

5:41So all of your big platforms run APIs into high-frequency trading platforms, news and information services, prediction markets, you name it. So when I came into the role, I've been in the media business for almost 30 years, this was an obvious place to go. We have incredible data, we have incredible information, and it was in high demand. This was demand that came to us from the market. So we wanted to make sure that we satisfied that demand in the most brightly lit way. For us, when you have scrapers coming after your data on an ongoing basis against your terms of service, and you give them a product that they can pay for and do it in a legal way, all of these customers came and signed up.

6:25Michael Popok:Okay, so what do you do with this information when they hand you a gift, Brendan? What do you do with it? Well, they got to make it easy for us. I mean, this is a, you know, it's certainly illegal, perhaps criminal scheme that they are conducting absolutely out in the open. I think they think that the brazenness of it somehow insulates themselves from legal liability. I don't think that's the case. You know, this is not just sort of corrupt in the potentially criminal sense. It's also just unconstitutional. So I think one thing that's important for your viewers to understand is this sort of scheme violates the First Amendment in particular, which is the First Amendment protects not just your right to speak, to organize and so forth, but your right to government information or equal access to that information.

7:08So once the government decides to share something, they have to do it on an equal basis. They can't discriminate based on a person, you know, what their beliefs are, who they affiliate with, whether or not they contribute to the president's private company and so forth. And so, you know, the suit here, which we've been bringing along with Crew, Altruler-Burzon, the Yale Media Access Clinic and so forth, really great coalition, are using all this information, all these things that they are publicly saying about the scheme that they're putting together to bring this case and hopefully put an early stop to it before it can really get legs.

7:42Who's your judge? We got Judge Oaken in the Southern District of New York. So I think he's been very forward thinking on First Amendment issues in particular. So I think he's really going to understand the argument that we're making.

7:54Michael Popok:That's very interesting. Yeah, I practice in the Southern District of New York too, and that's a good draw. So we'll wait on developments there in terms of injunctive relief or whatever else that you're seeking as the Trump side of the thing continues to hand you evidence and gifts to strengthen your hand. And when I saw that Natalie Harp was sued, I was like, is Brendan Ballew breaking a story? I mean, we're doing a lot of Natalie Harp right now. You know, she was successful in bringing Melania out of hiding. Melania cracked a joke. I think it was a joke. It's hard to tell with her. I heard you missed me, but I'm back.

8:33Michael Popok:Yeah, well, we heard you're back. But the reason you sued Natalie Harp and Dan Scavino is why. Yeah. So, you know, part of the story here is that it's not just Donald Trump. But, you know, posting the stuff, he has a whole infrastructure that he uses that is part of the federal government to make these posts, to make these official government announcements. And again, just to emphasize here, it's not just that he's posting on True Social first, it's that he's posting on True Social only. So he actually has an exclusivity agreement that generally requires him to post only on True Social as opposed to other social media platforms.

9:05To do that, public reporting shows that he relies on people like Natalie Hark, who's been referred to as the human printer, to help type out and, you know, actually figure out what his posts are going to be. Dan Scavino, who's been handling his social media for years. So, you know, if we're going to seek injunctive relief, it's not just going to be against the president, but against the whole infrastructure that he uses to put this information on true social exclusively.

9:30Michael Popok:Yeah, we've been telling our audience that when you hear that Donald Trump had a 1 a.m. meltdown and fired off 87 Truth Social posts, that wasn't him. He's been asleep for a long, long time by that moment. It's 35-year-old Natalie Harp, who we now know more about, more than we ever wanted to, about her and her relationship with Donald Trump. She's the one that's, she's ghostwriting for Donald. She's impersonating Donald Trump. I mean, you know, if Trump gets away with changing Joe Biden's photo in the Rose Garden hallway to an auto pen, maybe the next president puts a picture of Natalie Harp up instead of Donald Trump.

10:11Well, you know, whatever, you know, and our lawsuit is completely independent of any of the sort of more salacious accusations about Donald Trump's personal life and stuff like that. Now, the important thing from a legal perspective is that Natalie Harp and Dan Scamino are government employees. You know, these are people that are getting paid by the public to post this official information on a private platform. And that's showing that the private platform, true social art, is fundamentally entwined with the operations of the government. And that's what makes the First Amendment apply here and what makes an injunction possible.

10:45Michael Popok:Such a great argument. Speaking of great arguments and transitioning to Katie Fang's case. So I'm waiting around like you are, maybe. I'm waiting for the court listener to update me about what's happening in the case. And I go on to see, you know, you and I, and you briefed our audience about a draft proposed order that the judge had asked you to draft about, ultimately about the redaction log and all that. I saw that. And then I see this very interesting notice of filing, or notice to the court. I'm like, okay, what's that over? Well, apparently about the handwritten 302s, which are the FBI interview notes, which they are not disclosing without a fight, particularly four of them about a witness who claims that when she was 13, she was sexually abused by Donald Trump.

11:38Michael Popok:she was credible enough that she was interviewed four separate times by the FBI. Now, they have produced the typewritten 302s, but we all know, and you did a good job of demonstrating it in your filing, but there's a lot of leakage between what somebody jots down in their handwritten notes as they're scribbling to try to keep up with the interview and what, from an editorial standpoint, they decide or elect to put in the typewritten notes. A lot. Things that were just, you know, maybe they were like, no, I'm not going to put that in. And okay, so you need the handwritten notes. Now, Andrew Block, your side's opponent in court, was asked a direct question by Judge Sullivan about that set of 302s.

12:23Michael Popok:Have there ever been instances that you're aware of that when the handwritten 302s were produced in this matter about the Epstein File Transparency He said, about the 302s? I don't believe so. You guys must have been feverishly scribbling in the courtroom because you knew that wasn't true. And so what did you guys do? What was the purpose of the notice to inform the court that there have been at least 100 examples of the FBI interview, handwritten notes, not involving Donald Trump being produced as he looks at it in camera? Yeah, we were pretty surprised that the government made that argument saying that, you know, to their knowledge, there hadn't been handwritten productions in the past because that was just straight up false.

13:08So, you know, as you said, we've got over 100 examples of handwritten notes being reviewed, being produced as part of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. You know, some or all of these, you know, eventually get converted into typewritten 302s. So exactly the situation that the government was saying didn't happen. So it was just straight up false. I think it was helpful to inform the court that what the government was claiming was likely the case in the hearing just wasn't. And, you know, huge thanks to my colleague, Emily Gilman, for, you know, putting together the whole strategy on that. Yeah.

13:42Also just say, I mean, this has been, you know, that hearing has, you know, sort of been a rolling series of, you know, again, I want to be somewhat diplomatic here, but bluntly just errors on the part of the government in both their factual assertions and then the procedural mistakes that they've been making. So, you know, very careful viewers may remember the government was supposed to file what's called an answer in the case. That's the basic thing that you do in a lawsuit admitting or denying the allegations. It appears they either forgot or either refused or frankly, I think more likely forgot to do it.

14:17We've then been litigating about whether or not they have to file the answer. They then either refused or forgot to file a response in that litigation. Wait, they haven't filed a response about the answer? No. I don't want to speculate too much, but I imagine they probably forgot or something like that. Needless to say, they did not. So, you know, I think this is just like one more instance where the government is getting it wrong on the facts. The government is getting it wrong on the procedure. The government is getting it wrong on the law. And I think Judge Sullivan is tracking all of this and is aware that the government just is not in compliance here.

14:52Michael Popok:Now, now having told our audience about that, don't you wish you had filed the motion for default, like I said? Because they would have missed it. They would have missed it. Yeah, yeah. I don't know if just DOJ doesn't have a calendaring system right now. I don't know what's going on here. Well, they're busy taking a thousand people off the line and putting them into election monitoring roles, standing 100 yards from voters. I mean, I really don't, 100 feet from voters. So all of this information is sort of coming in. And you probably, I assume you like the fact that the judge, a very pithy order, minute order, just said, yeah, I got the proposed order from the Public Integrity Project about the redaction log and the notice to the court.

15:36Michael Popok:Why don't you comment on that by the 27th? So you can see, he's like ready to blow. People think, well, he's pretty plain vanilla. No, I think if the government makes its deadline this week, that'll be interesting. And then the judge is going to what do you hope the judge does? Well, he just grants the order, you know, and the order here is is directing the the government to explain exactly what they're going to do about the redaction log. And so that way we have some clarity about what they're planning to produce or what they're not planning to produce. Just to remind your audience here, what needs to happen under the law is the government needs to actually explain each one of the redactions that it's made, the same way that you do in FOIA cases, Freedom of Information Act cases.

16:26The government obviously failed to do that in the initial production. It seems like it is fighting tooth and nail not to do that now. Well, and so we need to really pin the government down on what exactly it proposes to produce here. And then Judge Sullivan is going to be able to decide whether or not that complies with the law. And the reason why I think that this is so helpful is that that short circuits a lot of argument that we could have where we just wait for them to produce something. And then it's completely noncompliant. And then we have to have all this follow on litigation. Here we can just figure out, OK, what are they going to do and can we address it now?

17:01So I think that this is going to be something that speeds up the process a bit. Yeah.

17:04Michael Popok:And then ultimately for the merits of the case, which are beneath it all, the millions of Epstein files that have not been reviewed or produced, the oversight over the original process. You know, I know your argument is that the Department of Justice has forfeited their right to do this process themselves and that there should be a officer of the court in the form of a special master that needs to be appointed. And all, I got to believe that all of these missteps and erroneous assertions, you know, not telling the judge the truth, what he should have said is, I don't know, and I'll look into it, I'll get back to you, but he didn't.

17:42Michael Popok:All of this stuff kind of goes into the milieu, right, the stew of the judge's decision making about what to do ultimately in this case. Yeah, I think, you know, and, you know, ultimately, thus far, we've only been fighting over the preliminary injunction, just the really early stages here of just trying to get a small sliver of the documents that they're supposed to produce to actually produce it. As you said, we need to get to the merits of the case and ultimately get the kind of relief where you get some adult supervision of the Department of Justice. I think, you know, Judge Sullivan, I have seen people reach out to me and talk about why is this not moving faster?

18:15Why are we not getting, you know, sort of more forceful orders and things like that? I think you understand better than just about everybody. You know, a district court judge like Judge Sullivan really needs to do everything he can to try to get the government to comply with the law before taking more coercive measures here because he wants to insulate any sort of action he takes from getting overturned on appeal. So I think all of these sort of interim steps are ultimately helpful from getting a ultimate resolution here that's going to stand up to scrutiny by the D.C. Circuit and beyond.

18:47Michael Popok:Now, I've addressed our audience directly. When I've had live podcasting or sub stack live and people have said, you're not moving fast enough. And I've said, I've, I've used the, uh, the Kennedy center and the ballroom as examples to different judges about it. And, and, you know, one going already up on appeal and now up to the United States Supreme Court on the ballroom is that you've got to make sure that every I is dotted, every T is crossed. And that, like you said, you are, you are insulating or making it, um, you know, coating it with Teflon, um, as best you can. Now, if the Supreme Court, when it finally gets it, wants to throw away the record, the facts, and throw away the law, which is there seems to be one of their instincts, there's nothing you can do about it.

19:29Michael Popok:But you at least want to get your issue affirmed, your decision affirmed at the next level of appeal, for sure. Absolutely. And I don't think, you know, if we can make sure that this is airtight, I just don't think it's going to look particularly good for anybody to overturn a decision like this willy nilly if it's going to be perceived as frankly shielding abusers, which I don't think is going to be a good look for anybody. Absolutely. Well, I'm so glad that Public Integrity Project and your team and you, Brendan, are on this case. And when I saw the filing in the thing we covered, the case we covered at the top of the video about Truth API, I was not shocked.

20:06Michael Popok:You gave us your talk. Just end it this way. Talk about what Public Integrity Project, why it was created. What is its decision making for taking on, because you don't take on hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases. What is your decision making about like that is a Public Integrity Project case? Well, you're very sweet. And, you know, we are very small. We're just a handful of lawyers that we started at the beginning of the year. The goal here is to raise the legal and reputational consequences of corruption. And so we find cases that are going to hit both of those. I mean, ultimately, what we want to do is we want to make it so if somebody inside a government or outside of government is going to engage in a corrupt act, you know, getting bribed, seeking to getting bribed, extorting people, extracting money from the government.

20:57Our goal is to build an organization that's strong enough that they know they will get sued if they do that. And so those are the kinds of cases that we try to take on.

21:06Michael Popok:As people know, the American Civil Liberties Union is a collaborator with us, and they sent me a little bit of swag. Not that I'm campaigning for swag, but you could send it. And you know the ACLU's motto, we'll flip it around, see you in court. I love it. Yeah. Well, and that's just a motivation for us to get our act together and actually get some swag. You'll be the first to get it, okay? Okay. Brendan Ballou, Public Integrity Project. We'll put the link in the notes below for people who want to continue to help and support Public Integrity Project. And we thank you for the generosity of your time for coming on regularly to update on these important cases and the next great important case that I'm sure you'll be filing before the summer is over, if not before the midterms.

21:48Michael Popok:I'm Michael Popok. You're on Legal AF. And take a moment, hit the free subscribe button as we continue to grow our pro-democracy channel. Brendan, thank you very much. Thank you. Can't get your fill of Legal AF? Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF Substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the Substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, Morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well. We got some new reporting.

22:22Michael Popok:We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.