Trump Squeals and Refuses to Admit They Failed to Produce Trump Docs in New Epstein Filing

0:00Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile with your summer price forecast. Now, unfortunately, we're seeing rising costs across the country with possibility that big wireless hates you 100%. Now, over here at Mint Mobile, we're seeing sunny skies and dropping prices. Every plan to just$15 a month. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three months,$90 for six months, or$180 for 12-month plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. New customer offer for initial plan term only. Greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy.

0:29Michael Popok:Well, the Department of Justice and Todd Blanche got one document in on time and didn't miss a deadline. And that was to answer the suit brought by Katie Fang on behalf of herself as a reporter and all the Epstein survivors about the Epstein documents, millions of pages that are missing. And to have a court appointed monitor or special master, a former federal judge, look at what the Department of Justice has done and hasn't done. Well, we got their answer. That's the pleading that the defendants have to file in a lawsuit to answer paragraph by paragraph the allegations of the complaint, the initiating document that starts a lawsuit.

1:09Michael Popok:And you shouldn't be shocked that they have denied everything that has alleged that they've done wrong about producing the Epstein files, the lack of transparency, the lack of proper production and review, the delays in the production and the review, the failures of the redaction process to protect the names of the victims and the survivors, over-redacting to protect Donald Trump and the predators. All of it is denied. They do spend a considerable amount of time saying that Donald Trump's administration is the greatest administration in the world and the most transparent in the world. Besides the disgusting politicking in a case about sex abuse and child sex abuse, let's go in here, Legal AF, let's go in detail about what just got filed in Katie Fang's case.

2:04Michael Popok:I'm going to have Brendan Ballew, the lawyer that represents Katie Fang, on to discuss this further. Now, I started this hot take with, hey, they didn't miss a deadline because they have missed a series of deadlines over and over again in this case. In fact, the reason they had to answer the lawsuit and didn't have the opportunity to move to dismiss it, which they would naturally do, is because they missed the series of deadlines. And the judge said, Yeah, you got to answer by the 24th of September. And they have. I'll go over it with you in detail. Now, they did miss another deadline. I mean, I checked the docket a couple of times, and it may be something that's still stuck with the clerk, but they were also supposed to, by court order, tell the judge that they have started the review and future production of the foreign language documents, potentially millions of pages of them, that were not produced because they were in a foreign language.

2:57Michael Popok:Remember, close confidants of Jeffrey Epstein, including in France, who were found dead in jails along with Jeffrey Epstein. It's likely that Mr. Brunel, who was one of Epstein's cohorts in the modeling industry and participated in the sex trafficking, at least as alleged, and died in prison under mysterious circumstances, it's likely stuff was in foreign language, don't you think? so they were supposed to also by today tell the judge they've started that process. The judge gave them a short extension of time from last week in his order to run to the federal appellate court, D.C. Circuit appellate court, to get some sort of stay.

3:42Michael Popok:They never did. They never got to stay, but they didn't make their deadline either. I'll talk about that at the end of this particular hot take. I'm Michael Popak. It's Friday. You're on Legal AF. Join us. Become a subscriber. whenever we talk about independent media, cases like CNN, MSNOW, and Politico against the Trump administration or about Katie Fang, hopefully you understand the importance, I'm sure you do, of independent journalism now more than ever when media is under attack by the FCC, by Donald Trump, by the Department of Justice. We need your help. Hit that subscribe button. Okay. It started with a complaint.

4:17Michael Popok:It's hard to believe how long ago that was that they filed that complaint. May the 27th of 2026. By all rights, the answer should have come in 30 days later unless an extension was granted by the judge. And it never was. That's why they're now in September getting around filing an answer. And they can't help themselves. Remember, this is about child sex trafficking. This is about survivors and victims, thousands of them, that remain out there without justice, with an FBI and a Department of Justice that has crapped all over them. In fact, I interviewed Danny Benske, one of the leading leaders of the survivor movement, who testified against Todd Blanche during his confirmation hearing about, well, you met with Todd Blanche.

5:00Michael Popok:Do you feel better now? She said, no, I feel worse. In fact, here's the clip. and we were in the room together and we chatted for a moment. And, you know, at first it was very cordial. She did give me her phone number and she said, you know, reach out. Like, we definitely want to help you. And I was sort of like, okay. And then she said, you know, like you should be so lucky that like other, I would say like, it never happens that victims and survivors get to meet with their acting AG. Like you should be so lucky that you met with Todd Blanche. And I was laughing to myself because I was thinking like, well, no other acting AG actively exposed survivors like in every tranche nude photos of us, our information, every bit of like abuse that happened to us.

5:43Right. Like we're so far out of the realm of what is normal that like, but I should be so lucky. Right. We should all be so lucky. So and I don't think she actually meant it that way, but it definitely it sat with me for days after that. And I was like, man, like, as she held her like Blanche law cup. And I was like, oh, it just feels like we're just brainwashed.

6:02Michael Popok:All right, let's go to the answer. Against the allegation in the complaint that in November 2025, in the face of extraordinary and sustained public pressure, Congress passed and the president signed into law the Epstein File Transparency Act. Seems like something you should just admit. Oh, no. Defendant admits that as the leader of the most transparent presidential administration in the history of this great nation, can you get off? I'm expecting like a confetti cannon and red, white and blue bunting to be brought out like it's Fourth of July. Just answer the damn question. If I'm Katie Fang's lawyers, I move to strike as inappropriate, impertinent, all of this grandstanding.

6:45Michael Popok:How disgusting and depraved when we're losing sight of what we're talking about. Not Donald Trump's narcissism, but victims and survivors of sex abuse. But I go on, but I digress. Even when Katie Fang just states the obvious, Jeffrey Epstein's a convicted sex trafficker, Ghislaine Maxwell and the rest, where you should just say, admitted. Nope, they can't admit that either. Just to show you where they're coming off from. They say, in paragraph 14 of the complaint, Katie Fang says, Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted sex offender. I mean, who debates that? Who in 2019 was charged by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York with sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking.

7:27Michael Popok:Investigative reporting by a range of news outlets revealed that dozens of powerful men and women socialized with Epstein, raising the possibility that other people had committed crimes too. You should be admitting all, if not most of that. But no, I go to paragraph 14 in the answer, and we're going to post all this on Legal AF Substack for paid members. He says,

8:02How do you deny the dozens of powerful men and women socialized with Epstein?

8:09Michael Popok:Haven't you read the Epstein files that you produced? Even on the simple issue of how Jeffrey Epstein died, they have to take a position that I think is undermined by the evidence. Paragraph 15, Katie Fang's pleading says Epstein was found dead in his jail cell while awaiting trial. They don't even take a position about suicide. There's an entire world out there that believes that Jeffrey Epstein, along with others that have died mysteriously, that are connected to Jeffrey Epstein, died not by suicide, but by some other means. And what is, so in response to that, they should have just said admitted.

8:47Michael Popok:He was dead in his jail cell. It says also, she says also, his death ended the chance of a trial that could have shed light on his actions and co-conspirators, but his death did not end the public's desire for answers. and in the years that followed, both citizens and politicians demanded the release of the Epstein files and investigative documents about Epstein and his co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell. Just say yes. Just admit it. No, they can't admit it. Instead, they have to wiggle around and take a position about how Epstein died. Defendant admits that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide. Kitty Fang didn't say he died by suicide in your complaint.

9:24Michael Popok:While in custody and that his criminal trial did not occur. The remainder is a characterization to which we either don't have to respond or if we have to respond, we deny. You're going to deny that the public's desire for answers, including citizens and politicians demanding the release of the Epstein files, rose to a fever pitch? How do you deny that? This is, again, the misjudgment by the Trump administration, Donald Trump at the top, Todd Blanche hoping this case will go away and they can rid themselves of the stench of corruption around their handling of the Epstein matter and the scandal.

10:02Michael Popok:And they won't and they can't. Let's go to another. They even take a shot at Katie, right? Katie just says as she needs to in paragraph nine and 10 or eight, nine and 10, defendants failure to follow the law has harmed plaintiff Katie Fang, a journalist, a lawyer, a legal analyst who has extensively reported on Jeffrey Epstein and his work. And her inability to report with substance on all the documents because she doesn't have access makes it harder to fulfill her mission as a journalist and legal analyst. She says later in paragraph nine that she brings the case to compelled defendant to produce all the documents and justice demands nothing less.

10:45Michael Popok:And ten, she's a lawyer and journalist based in Miami, Florida. She's covered the abuses of Epstein, Maxwell, and others in his orbit for years. I mean, that's pretty plain vanilla. Just admit it. Oh, no. Here's what they say about paragraph eight. The government lacks specific knowledge as to the reason behind Fang's inability to report with substance and fulfill her mission, but categorically denies that it has failed to comply with the act. Paragraph nine, about Katie bringing the case to produce all the documents. Defendant lacks knowledge to form a true belief about the truth of why plaintiff brings this case.

11:23Michael Popok:Isn't it pretty obvious why she brought the case? It's laid out in her complaint and in all our filings. The remainder they're going to deny. How about 10? She's a lawyer and a journalist based in Miami, Florida. I mean, we know that. 10. Defendant lacks knowledge or information to admit the truth of the allegations, therefore it's denied. That's not good faith pleading, by the way. And I would move to strike all or part of this answer as a result of just the things that I've gone over so far. Of course, you also have the inconsistencies. They do get around to denying that they've done anything wrong or they have failed to produce.

12:07Michael Popok:How about in paragraph 34? Katie says in her paragraph 34 that about the redaction logs withheld, retracted or redacted documents referring to President Trump. She says the department in paragraph 31 has failed to produce required documents referring to Trump and improperly redacted documents that refer to him. They say denied. We know for a fact they haven't produced the handwritten FBI notes about the victim who says she was victimized by Trump when she was 13. How do they get around that? The department has complied with the law, they say, and produced millions of pages. Plaintiff herself identified several documents in this litigation that contain highly spurious, uncorroborated prejudicial statements, thereby defeating her own allegations here.

12:53Michael Popok:Look, you want to deny that you haven't covered up for Donald Trump? So now if I'm Katie Fang, I do a request for admission on that particular point and start getting attorney's fees shifted over to her so that the government has to pay for their lies in their pleading or move to strike the pleading as not in good faith. That's 31. In 32, the department has failed to produce documents relating to Trump that other sources confirm exist. This paragraph is too vague and ambiguous. And then therefore it's denied.

13:33Michael Popok:You don't know how to read other sources? I don't get the vague and ambiguous part. I think the judge is going to force them to properly answer 32. 33. For instance, in one document, a woman accused Trump of forcing her to perform oral sex when she was a minor. The FBI found this accusation sufficiently credible that it interviewed the alleged victim four times. Right now, those documents are with the federal judge, Judge Sullivan, for review. They say in 33, this paragraph contains sensationalized and spurious allegations entirely unrelated to the litigation. What? It's currently with the judge in the litigation.

14:11Michael Popok:It appears only to be a vehicle for plaintiff and attorneys to attack their political opponents. The fact that a witness is interviewed has no bearing on the witness's credibility. To the extent that any allegations are contained in this paragraph, they are denied. You're denying something that's currently with the judge right now as an issue. Good luck. I think that gets stricken and I think sanctions are awarded. 34. Katie alleges, according to the logs, the Department of Justice previously produced 15 documents about this alleged victim to attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell in preparation for her own defense.

14:47but only seven of those documents were produced under the Epstein Act, suggesting that they've withheld 53 pages of interview documents and notes.

14:56Michael Popok:These remain unproduced. This paragraph is too vague and ambiguous to put the defendant on notice as to the allegations and is therefore denied and deficient. The plaintiff alleges according to logs without stating what logs. This paragraph appears to allege there is a delta between documents that exist and documents that are produced. Yeah, that's what the judge is currently considering. And it goes on from there. Here's what's going to happen, folks. The judge, they're going to move to strike that answer. I'd be shocked if Brendan Ballew doesn't come on my show and say exactly that. They're going to move to strike it.

15:35Michael Popok:The judge is going to put them on the horns of a dilemma. They're either going to be found in contempt if they do this again, or they're going to file a proper answer. This is not a proper answer under the federal rules of civil procedure and should be stricken as being filed in bad faith. This is another nothing more than a political screed and attack on Katie Fang and her lawyers masquerading as an answer, once again, abusing the court system. And Judge Sullivan will need to do something about it. And as I said at the top of the hot take, he's going to also have to do something about it. Maybe maybe I missed it.

16:06Michael Popok:Maybe the the docket, electronic docket didn't refresh. But I don't see the notice that was required by the order that came out a few days ago requiring them to tell the court that they are producing those foreign language documents and starting that production. I'll stay on top of it. Stay close by me here on Legal AF. Hit the free subscribe button. Help us to continue to grow our pro-democracy channel. And until my next report in about an hour, I'm 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.

16:44Michael Popok: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. 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. you