Trump’s Fears Come True as DOJ Moves Closer to Contempt in Epstein Files Lawsuit

0:00Michael Popok:Todd Blanche and his entire Department of Justice is going down the drains, circling the drains in Katie Fang's case about their violations of the Epstein File Transparency Act. If it wasn't for Katie Fang, we wouldn't know who emailed Jeffrey Epstein about the sex torture video we do now. If it wasn't for Katie Fang, we wouldn't have the Department of Justice just publish the required notice related to redactions and otherwise in the Federal Register, which they just did today in order to tell the judge they just did it. And if it wasn't for Katie Fang, we wouldn't have a ridiculous two-page filing by the Department of Justice.

0:42Michael Popok:They're staring down the barrel, the business end of a federal judge who wants to hold them in contempt of court for failing to produce documents he's ordered to be produced consistent with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. That includes handwritten FBI notes about, not just anybody, about Donald Trump and somebody who claims she was victimized and sexually abused by Donald Trump when she was 13 years old. And so when you're told by a federal judge, you need to answer for the filings that Katie Fang's side has made to this court, in which they have outlined the hundreds of FBI handwritten notes that have been produced in cases and matters not involving Donald Trump.

1:23Michael Popok:You need to explain to me why they are still being withheld in this case. I don't think a page and a half of gibberish unsupported by any affidavit or sworn statement is going to do it. I'm Michael Popok. Welcome to Saturday Morning on Legal AF. Let's get to it. So the defendants had to respond to the court's order. The court said, I got two pieces of paper in my hand presented to me by the Fang side of this case. One is a proposed order concerning the redaction log that needed to be prepared involving all of the, where is the redaction log? When is it going to be produced? What's been redacted?

2:07Michael Popok:And the like. And they finally got around, and I want a response to that. Where is it? Why hasn't it been produced? And if it's not going to be produced, give me an affidavit from Todd Blanch or somebody just like him about why it hasn't been produced. And secondly, they said, look at all of these FBI 302 handwritten notes of interviews and other matters not involving Donald Trump as the judge, Judge Sullivan, conducts his in-camera review. By the way, help us out here on Saturday, right? Help us continue to grow our pro-democracy channel. Hit that free subscribe button right there above. All right.

2:43Michael Popok:So I'm like, all right, can't wait to see what they're going to file. it's going to be really, you know, they got them now, 28 pages, Katie Fang's lawyers in their notice to the court. This is going to be a good one. In fact, I interviewed Brendan Ballew about that filing just the other day. Here's a clip. I was asked a direct question by Judge Sullivan about that set of 302s. 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 Act. 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.

3:28Michael Popok: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 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. So, 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.

4:01You 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, huge thanks to my colleague, Emily Gilman, for, you know, putting together the whole strategy on that. Also 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.

4:43So, 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 um 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 they haven't filed a response about the answer no they i think they i i don't want to speculate too much but i i imagine they probably forgot or or something like that needless to say they did not um 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.

5:28The 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.

5:36Michael Popok:OK, so we got that going on. So I'm waiting for the response. All right, here's the response. The plaintiff's proposed order, if entered by the court, this is on the redaction log, would require the department to submit to the court handwritten notes underlying these four documents. It would also require a declaration from Todd Blanche regarding the federal register notice required by the Epstein File Transparency Act. With respect to the notice, we just published it. Stop right there. You just published it? You just did what you were supposed to do six months ago? You just did it because Katie Fang brought her lawsuit?

6:14Michael Popok:Thanks for that admission. with respect to the requested handwritten notes. Now comes a whole bunch of non sequiturs that have nothing to do with the court order about the production of the handwritten notes about, we're talking about 10, 12 pages of notes, handwritten notes about that interview of that one person who says she was 13 and sexually abused by Donald Trump. Just turn over the notes. Don't give us a story. Don't give us a song and dance. Don't give us gibberish. That's exactly what we get. Let me read it to you verbatim. And you tell, stop me when you've heard this before or when it answers the question, or more importantly, the command of the federal judge.

6:51Michael Popok:With respect to the requested handwritten notes, within 72 days of President Trump signing the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law, the Department of Justice published millions of pages of documents. Okay. Interesting. It has nothing to do with what's being asked here. That task involved 500 attorneys and people working millions of pages of documents on a compressed timeline, days, nights, weekends, and holidays, including Christmas Day and New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. Is this like a pity party for the Department of Justice? We're talking about the dignity and justice for survivors. As the Department's January 30 letter explains, considering various factors, including the volume of documents reviewed, the presence of duplicative and partially duplicative documents, and the number of attorneys, inconsistencies will likely exist.

7:38Michael Popok:Okay, that's something that went out in January. You're just reciting that here. So the fact that plaintiff has identified some handwritten notes underlying the interview reports in the library does not undermine the government's stated rationale for withholding the notes. Okay, there's a hundred examples of handwritten notes being produced by the government. And that's because in a Q &A that the judge conducted with Mr. Block for the Department of Justice, he said, as it relates to the 302s, have you ever produced handwritten? And he said, no, there's no explanation here. No sworn statement. I misspoke.

8:13Michael Popok:I misstated. I didn't mean it. No, it's like I got caught and now we're going to try to gaslight and minimize on the issue. Okay. Nor does it amount to a waiver or a concession. Okay. So what is your explanation for not producing? It bears noting that with respect to victim names, and then they go on on a tangent about victim names. He skips over the whole issue of why they're not producing the documents. That said, the department respectfully maintains its objections. The court should hesitate before ordering in-camera review of any document or redaction a litigant claims as a violation of the Epstein File Transparency Act.

8:53Michael Popok:Well, for right now, it's just those four documents. Such a precedent will open the door to a process that would ultimately lead to a line-by-line review of redactions to millions of pages of documents. Do you understand, Mr. Block, in the Department of Justice? I know you're signing an under Stan Woodward. They never have Todd Blanche's name on anything, even though he's the attorney general. Do you understand that the judge is considering contempt? Is considering finding that three million or more documents need to be produced and that there be a special master reporting only to the judge overseeing this process, I don't think you understand the meaning of the judge's orders.

9:30Michael Popok:This is the same judge who had the same lawyer in his courtroom, and he said, why aren't you producing? Well, if you could just enter an order, judge, that we could follow. He says, I've entered orders. Do you want me to say, but I really mean it this time in the order? For those reasons, the defendant asked that the court not require a declaration regarding the Federal Register notice and not order production of the FBI interview notes. There's no reason at all being provided for not ordering that production. And it's already been ordered, Mr. Block. To the extent the court is inclined to enter such an order, the department asked that the order be stayed so they can take some sort of appeal.

10:10Michael Popok:They've already filed a notice of appeal, but they haven't taken the appeal. The whole thing is completely upside down. Because when you're as about as straight as a corkscrew, morally or otherwise, you can't get anything right. What's going to happen next? I think Judge Sullivan's had it. He's had the hearing. He's had the documents. He's gotten their page and a half of explanation gibberish. And now I think he lowers the boom. Bring the contempt already. Bring the contempt. Order the production of the FBI notes by a date certain or people be found in contempt of court. Start threatening jail.

10:43Michael Popok:That's where we're at. And look at all that Katie's accomplished in a short amount of time in terms of production. We're going to stay on top of this matter because it matters not just to the survivors, but certainly to the survivors, but to our American justice system. I'm Michael Popak. Hit the free subscribe button. Help us to continue to grow our pro-democracy channel. 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.

11:21Michael Popok: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.