Trump and Blanche Panic as They’re Caught Lying to Judge About Victim Notes & 200k Epstein Docs

0:00Michael Popok:Todd Blanche and his Department of Justice are in trouble again with Judge Emmett Sullivan in the Katie Phang case to try like a can opener to unlock all of the remaining Epstein files. And in this particular set of motions to get the four FBI handwritten interview notes about that victim who claimed she was abused by Donald Trump when she was 13 years old to get those handwritten notes produced to the American public. At least send them over to Judge Sullivan for what's called an in-camera review to find out if they should have been produced pursuant to the Epstein File Transparency Act. And when the judge gave the government and Todd Blanche one last chance just in the last few days to respond and say, did you publish the redaction log listing the 200 ,000 pages of documents that you blacked out and didn't produce and the reason why you did that?

0:58Michael Popok:They said, oh, judge, oh, judge, we did. We did. We published the redaction log. We just did it. They didn't publish a redaction log. They published a letter in the federal registry that says we don't have to, we're not doing the redaction log. Just high level, 30 ,000 feet up in the air, look down of why they didn't produce 200 ,000 pages of documents. No, it's a log that is required by the Epstein File Transparency Act. I've been doing this for 35 years. I know what a redaction log looks like. I know what a privilege log looks like. And every lawyer knows what it looks like too. It's a spreadsheet.

1:34Michael Popok:It lays out chapter and verse. This is the document. This is the date. This is the sender. This is the person who received it. This is the subject matter. And this is the reason it was redacted, only citing the reasons that are allowed under the Epstein File Transparency Act. That's a redaction log, not a letter. So they're going after two things with a brand new reply that I've got in my hands by Katie Fang's lawyers at Public Integrity Project and Brendan Ballew in particular, a reply to the proposed order, which says, what are you hiding, Todd Blanche? What are you hiding, Mr. Andrew Block, the lawyer for Todd Blanche?

2:10Michael Popok:Why are you not producing the documents? Judge forced them to produce the documents for in-camera review of the FBI interview notes of the purported Trump victim and direct them to produce a complete redaction log. That's all they want. That's all the American people are entitled to. At least the survivors are entitled to that. I'm Michael Popak. You're here on our Wednesday Legal AF. Let's get to the brand new filing. Just came in in the last couple hours to Judge Sullivan. It's called the reply on a proposed order. While you're here, by the way, can you hit the free subscribe button, help us to grow our channel over this long Labor Day weekend?

2:50Michael Popok:That would be appreciated. Appreciate that. Here's the reply on a proposed order, which is now up on Legal AF Substack for your review as well. The defendant attorney general Todd Blanche objects yet again to complying with this court's order. On June 25th, the court issued a preliminary injunction directing the defendants, meaning the Trump administration, to produce the FBI interview notes underlying several 302s. 302s, that's the official form for the FBI to use for interviews that reference Trump or show cause why they couldn't and publish the redaction log required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

3:29Michael Popok:The defendant refused to comply, forcing this court to hold a hearing. Now they start quoting from the hearing transcript. Listen to this one. The court to Mr. Andrew Block for the government. The defendant was directed to show cause why it, the FBI note, should not be produced. What's the answer? Mr. Block, the answer, your honor, is that they are duplicative documents. The court, well, that's what the defendant says. The court doesn't know that. Mr. Block, again, your honor, it, the redaction log, is forthcoming. I don't have anything to say to the court beyond I know it's in the process. The court, I mean, Christmas is forthcoming.

4:06Michael Popok:Let's be realistic. And he lied again. Block lied again, or he's the pinata of the moment where they just send him in ill-prepared and unprepared. because they weren't preparing the privilege log, I mean the redaction log, or if they were preparing the redaction log, that's not what they filed and published on the federal registry. They published an old letter from months ago. So they weren't working and in progress and in process the way Mr. Block just told the court. Once again, another misrepresentation to the court by Mr. Block. The court directed the plaintiff to draft a proposed order. The defendant ignores the notice because they filed their own paper, a one and a half page response to the order in which they basically ignore the judge once again on the handwritten notes.

4:57Michael Popok:And the reason why the handwritten notes are so important, by the way, is that the typewritten FBI 302s, four of them, four interviews of this one witness showing you her credibility, run about 25 pages. The handwritten notes are probably somewhere, you know, could be double that with information that was left off or in typing the 302, the person made a kind of an editorial decision and didn't put all the information in. We're entitled to the handwritten notes. Katie Fang's lawyers have already proved that more than 100 handwritten notes about 302, FBI 302s have already been produced by the FBI and the Department of Justice pursuant to the Epstein File Transparency Act.

5:38Michael Popok:They just don't involve Donald Trump. You get a lot of color, a lot of information from the handwritten. And what they say in their later filing is the handwritten notes are maybe 25 pages, maybe 30 pages. They keep arguing, oh, a victim information might be revealed in there. This is what they say about that on page three. The attorney general commands perhaps the largest law firm in America and can find a way to reliably review approximately 25 pages to ensure victim information is not revealed. This is not a Herculean task. And as to the redaction log, the redaction log is not compliant with the Epstein File Transparency Act.

6:25Michael Popok:Here's what the Epstein File Transparency Act says. It requires the defendant to explain each individual redaction, and this is section 2C2 of the act, directing that all redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the federal register and submitted to Congress. That means an explanation per redaction, not a cover letter. Not a cover letter saying, well, this is our process. I don't care about your process. I care about a log with all the redactions and the justifications next to them. And what's the purpose of that? so that you can take it to a body, like a judge, like somebody in Congress, and likely a judge, and say this is an improper redaction to get it unredacted and produced.

7:18Michael Popok:That's the purpose. Isn't just an idle exercise. Let's make a redaction log. Isn't that fun, kids? Like on Arts and Crafts Day? No, it's so that you can point to a document on the redaction log and say this was improperly redacted and should see the light of day and should be produced. See, we're inching ever closer. This is a giant clock of contempt and orders by this judge. We're at two strokes before midnight. And midnight is lights out for Blanche and the Department of Justice. That's when the judge appoints a special master because he's tired of getting jerked around by the Department of Justice that can't be trusted.

7:57Michael Popok:He puts a special master, probably a former federal judge. I can think of about 10 off the top of my head, former federal judge Gleason, former federal judge Barbara Jones. There's a bunch that do this as a living. And they sit as officers of the court and they do things that we can rely on and that are trustworthy because the Department of Justice has forfeited it. I interviewed Brendan Ballew, the lawyer who signed this document for Public Integrity Project, Katie Fagg's lawyer, just about a week or so ago about this very hearing that he talks about. And here's the clip. 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.

8:39So, 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 302. 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, a huge thanks to my colleague, Emily Gilman, for putting together the whole strategy on that. Also, just say, I mean, this has been, you know, that that hearing has sort of been a rolling series of, you know, again, I want to be somewhat diplomatic here, but but bluntly just errors on the part of the government.

9:26in 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, you know, either refused or frankly, I think more likely forgot to do it. We'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?

9:58No. I think they – I don't want to speculate too much, but I imagine they probably forgot or something like that. Needless to say, they did not.

10:06Michael Popok:It's one of the most remarkable things he's ever seen. Brendan's seen a lot of things. And then they argue against any kind of stay to allow Trump to try to take some sort of appeal, reminding the court that they once argued that this wasn't appealable. If it's not appealable, then how are you going to appeal and why would the judge stay any of his orders? We're not even done yet. This is the tip of the iceberg, this preliminary injunction. The main case is about 3 million more documents probably that have not been produced. This is about assigning a special master to take the Department of Justice out of the process and put somebody trustworthy into the process for the benefit of the Epstein survivors and the public.

10:45Michael Popok:That's where this is heading rapidly. So rapidly you need to be here on Legal AF YouTube channel and on the Legal AF Substack. Take a minute, become a subscriber to both, become a member to both. It's free. Help us grow this Labor Day weekend. Until my next report, this is Michael Popak. 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.

11:19What else? All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well. We got some new reporting. 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.