← Legal AF by MeidasTouch
Loading summary
Transcript36 lines
- [00:00]
Katie Fang
With over two decades of scientific innovation across oncology, Pfizer continues to drive the next wave of cancer breakthroughs. Approximately 40% of all our R and D is invested in oncology, with 90 plus clinical trials across more than 4,000 sites. Pfizer is focused on eight new medicines by 2030, all with a single helping your patients with cancer. Learn more@cancer.pfizer.com this episode is brought to you by Google Health. Stop chasing someone else's definition of health. What matters is what's healthy for you. Google Health offers a new kind of coach built with Gemini for effortless tracking, sleep insights and holistic coaching tailored to you. Visit googlestore.com to learn more and start a new relationship with your health. Requires Google Account, Google Health App Internet and Google Health Premium subscription Features subject to change Availability and results vary. Not intended for medical purposes. Works independently of Gemini apps. Check responses for accuracy.
- [01:02]
Michael
This episode is brought to you by Fox 1. Watch all 104 matches of the FIFA World cup live in 4K for just $19.99 a month with 3 days free. Build your own multi view, choose up to three streams and follow players spotlights. Stay on top of every moment with live stats, highlights and instant replays. The FIFA World cup streaming live on Fox One offers a subject to change. See fox.com for complete terms and conditions. Choice hotels get you more of what you value comfort in. It's calling your name. Save on the stay. Oh, and free waffles are yours to claim. Book direct@soyhotels.com Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying. No judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [02:08]
Katie Fang
of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mintmobile.com welcome to a special
- [02:17]
Michael
edition of Legal AF. You know the top line already. Katie Fang has prevailed in her case against the Trump administration and Todd Blanche to obtain the rest of the Epstein files. But there's a story behind that that's important because this, I believe, opens the door, breaks the glass ceiling for all independent journalists. This is not going to be the last case. This is going to be the first case. This is the blueprint. This is the Trailblazer case for independent journalists because we know mainstream media won't do it. To step into the fray, step into the breach and file lawsuits against the Trump administration to get the information that we so desperately deserve, to get the transparency that the Trump administration has been promising us but has been peeing down our leg and telling us that it's raining. Those days are over. This will be taught in history books and in law school books about how an independent journalist got off the sidelines of commentary and went after the administration to obtain the documents that she needs to do her job and to support the survivors and the victims of the Epstein file. Now, I can keep going on or I could bring in Katie Fang, the plaintiff in the case and a friend. Hi, Katie.
- [03:38]
Katie Fang
Wow, that's an. That's an intro.
- [03:41]
Michael
I told you you might. I might make you blush. That's how I feel. I believe that this is not the last first of think it's your last case. And I don't think this. I think this is now a blueprint that all independent journalists that are in a like position because you made such great arguments. We'll talk about the nuances and the way you got. You got around the Epstein files. Well, does the Transparency act have a private right of action or not? Who cares? There was final agency action when Todd blanched, told the American people, we're done. That's all the docs we did some redacting things we're not going to do. We're done. That is what we call in the business, final agency action. The Administrative Procedures act says that people can sue if they don't like the results and they want oversight over that final agency action. We'll get into all of that. That was such a brilliant strategy to get to the bottom of it. But why don't we start with things that people wouldn't pick up from reading the filings or even this amazing order which we posted on Legal. A substack by Judge Emmett Sullivan. Talk about why you. You didn't bring the case for sensationalism. You didn't bring the case so people know you already. They love you already. Why did you bring the case and what are you trying to do both for journalism and for the survivors of the Epstein scandal.
- [05:03]
Katie Fang
You know, Mike, I've talked a lot about how I didn't grow up to be a journalist. Right. I mean, I frankly, I didn't even grow up to be a lawyer. This was this, you know, and, but being a journalist, it's taught me that a lot of what we learned as lawyers is very relevant. Right? As a journalist, you want to be able to deliver the facts and the evidence to readers, subscribers, viewers, whomever. And in the absence of being able to do that, what are you supposed to do? Just stand there on the sidelines and pretend like you're contented with what has being offered to you? I think all of you know, and you especially Mike, you've known me for decades. I'm never contented with just crumbs. And I'm especially not going to take a corrupt Department of Justice that is being led originally by Pami Jo with the bad hair, who's now been jettisoned, and now Todd Blanche, both personal lawyers for Donald Trump. I'm not gonna let Donald Trump use the Department of Justice to only spoon feed to me, to you and others here in independent media information that legally is insufficient. Because then you and I just end up being mouthpieces for a federal government agency that is blatantly breaking the law on the Daily since December 19th of 2025. And so not only did I realize that these redactions made it nearly impossible for me to be able to do my job, but there was a kind of temporal sense of urgency for some of it, especially as we get closer to the November midterms. It becomes a politically radioactive issue, which we know it has been. But then I'm also suffering, you know, economic harm because subscribers, viewers lead to income for me. And again, never been about the money. It's always been about kind of being able to be the person that breaks down that door so that everybody else and the hordes of truth seekers and justice seekers can now go through that open gate. And I gotta tell you, I geeked out yesterday when this happens, because not only is this order spectacular, but it calls Todd Blanche out on the mat for his just arrogance and his disregard for the rule of law. And Judge Sullivan clearly knew where he wanted to go with this, this memorandum opinion. But yesterday's events in the afternoon, I just want to mention for a minute, are incredibly relevant. We did a notice of supplemental filing on Wednesday afternoon showing Judge Sullivan that the DOJ was talking out of both sides of its mouth. It had spent so much time telling me, as Katie Feng, the plaintiff in this lawsuit, that foia, the Freedom of Information act, was the remedy for me and not the Administrative Procedure act, and that's why my lawsuit was defective. But then we got our hands on a response to a FOIA request that was made, and the response was from the doj. And guess what they said to the sky, who wanted Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein documentation from doj. Oh, sir, FOIA doesn't work for you? The Epstein Files Transparency act works for you. I mean, it's like truly the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. But beyond that, Mike, it also showed they're trying to play games. And they're playing games with child rape, child predation, sexual abuse, and child trafficking and sex trafficking. Because it wasn't just the children. There was also adults that were involved in this. And so we filed this notice of supplemental filing on Wednesday and Thursday morning at like 10am Judge Sullivan orders the Department of Justice to respond by 1pm Eastern yesterday. And I loved this. In his order, Judge Sullivan says, do not repeat the same things that you have been repeating so far, because he was first.
- [08:38]
Michael
They missed the deadline. Right?
- [08:39]
Katie Fang
They never filed anything at all. It's not that they missed the deadline, Mike. They never filed anything at all. And so fast forward. Yeah, they blew past it. And what I mean. And as practitioners, Mike, you and I would never ignore a federal order. Even if I had nothing to say to the judge, I would file something that says, judge, we rely upon our previously stated arguments and our response and opposition, but I would never ignore. Judge, they ignored it. They wiped their ass with it. And so the judge actually made sure there was a footnote in his memorandum opinion stating, as of the filing of this memorandum opinion, the DOJ has failed to respond in any way whatsoever to my order.
- [09:19]
Michael
And when I, when I get to certain passages that, that prove your point, you know, he chastises Todd Blanche for only focusing myopically on a failed argument that you did not have standing and we'll talk about, and you didn't have the type of informational, reputational, economic harm. And the judge says you do. And, and, and it was great. It lays out your entire successful career as an intrepid reporter and journalist and legal commentator, including, including citations to how many views you've gotten on your channel, which I love. It was like a commercial for the Katie Fang News Channel by Judge Emmett Sullivan in the middle. But it also chastises, as we would expect, Todd Blanche for his violations of the Epstein act and his failure to respond substantively to your arguments. And therefore, the judge says, since you didn't respond substantively, you have. You have waived your opportunity. We have to assume that what her argument is, is correct. You and I would never have a brief that made a series of points we would never have ignored. That's debate 101 from high school. You have to address each of the points or you lose.
- [10:28]
Katie Fang
Yeah. So Judge Sullivan said repeatedly in his order, the Attorney General has conceded that he has violated the Epstein Files Transparency act, which bigger picture. I've been talking about this with some folks since yesterday. You know, his confirmation, his Senate confirmation hearings coming up in front of Senate Judiciary July 15th and 16th. And this is a very big deal. I expect this to be a very big part of his confirmation process because how can you have an Attorney General in the permanent capacity of AG who violates the law and has conceded in a federal case concerning the greatest stain on American history with the greatest, you know, most horrific pedophile in American history, Jeffrey Epstein, that he's conceded that he's
- [11:15]
Michael
violated the law, the your case and the result and that finding by the judge, if that's not the first module of questions that are asked in cross examination by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Blumenthal, Cory Booker. Booker, I'd be shocked there the. About a week or so ago, 101, you and I covered it. 101 state judges yoked together. I know now Judge Ludick was also
- [11:43]
Katie Fang
involved in that state and federal judges. Yes.
- [11:45]
Michael
Filed a bar complaint. I'm a member of that particular department of the first department in New York that Todd Blanche is a member of and laid out in a 62 page single spaced bar complaint. I mean that bar complaint, that should just be the mop. But now they got to add the Katie Fang filing. Let me, let me just read a couple of things. And I had Judge Ludig on 2 days ago and I asked him point blank, I said, let me ask you something, Judge. Is Todd Blanch fit to be the Attorney General of the United States? He's. I've never, I've interviewed him a dozen times.
- [12:20]
Katie Fang
I've lovely.
- [12:23]
Michael
This angry. And he was like his, you know, he had is just like looking at me like this, Michael, this is the most corrupt Department of Justice and attorney general in 250, 50 years. And then went on, it went on from there. Let me read from some aspects of the. Of the order By Judge, the 48 page decision by Judge Sullivan. And you and I when you had you on originally when the case was filed, I was like, you got a great judge. This is a great judge, great judge for the case who takes things seriously. Here's what he wrote. Among other things, it says on page 13 about you. Ms. Fang seeks the information that she claims has been illegally withheld. Quote, because as a journalist covering the Epstein story, she owes her Audience, the public and the victims of Epstein, Maxwell and others, the most accurate and comprehensive reporting possible and talks about the illegal conduct of that earlier. He's one of the. He finally got. Got around to calling, which I'm glad. Ghislaine Maxwell, a child sex trafficker, as
- [13:27]
Katie Fang
opposed to the person she should never be exempted from the proper titling. She has been convicted. Yes, he deserves it.
- [13:35]
Michael
And just as a little bit of background, your case stepped into a void that was created by a number of federal judges because of procedural reasons and other reasons that refused to provide the oversight over the production of the Epstein files that was required. Two judges in New York, right. Judge Engelmeier and Judge Berman. Even a judge that we know down in Florida was like, you know what? I got limitations here on what I can do. I'm really the criminal court judge on Maxwell and Epstein. And they, and they, they passed. And then Congress ran in there, Democrats ran in there. And you know, the special master. We need a special master. I'd like. I can't. Your case. They now you've got your order to show cause they either produce the documents that have been redacted, they reduce those documents about the complaint from the woman who said she was 13 and sexually abused by Donald Trump, they release the foreign language documents or, or they show why they cannot, and they start translating those foreign documents. Right?
- [14:36]
Katie Fang
Yeah. So yes, they never even bothered to touch the foreign language documents, which is stunning because, I mean, I'm going to be spending actually some time in Europe over the summer and part of that is to be able to investigate more on the Epstein sex trafficking ring internationally. How do you not translate that? Blanche says, eh, we don't have capacity. It's the largest, most powerful law firm in the world and you don't have capacity to bring in somebody do a translation of these important documents, number one. But number two, one of the biggest things that you just mentioned is a special master, Michael, which I love a special master because we've seen them effectively do work in big federal prosecutions and other cases, even civil cases. Right. They help the judge manage something that is voluminous and very overwhelming when it comes to content. But the special master asked by me was obviously inspired by Ro Khanna and Tom Massey, who were told, as you said, by the federal judge in New York, I wish I could, but I can't because you people don't have standing to come to me and try to have this done. And he did it politely, but he said, look what you're asking for. I'M sure somebody will be able to do so. The fact that Judge Sullivan said, not only do I have standing to come forward and pursue this, Mike, but the Special Master thing becomes very important because this is just a preliminary injunction. But inside his order, Judge Sullivan said that I am likely to succeed on the merits of my lawsuit, which speaks to the bigger success of my lawsuit. Because the ultimate goal, Michael, is the entirety of the Epstein files, which produced, including the shit that Blanche continues to sit on, making sure that they're properly redacted. Who's supposed to find out if it's properly redacted? The Special Master. And so it all kind of fits together in the bigger pieces of the bigger picture puzzle. And of course, they'll appeal and they'll take it to the D.C. circuit, which has people auditioning every day for the Supreme Court. But we have done good. You, me, Midas, everybody who's tuning in. This is a collective win for all of us because Judge Sullivan made it clear in his order, Blanche must produce this quote to the public. He didn't say produce to Katie Fang, the plaintiff. He said produce to the public because he understood. Sullivan understood that I'm not doing this for me. I'm doing it for all of us. And most importantly, for the survivor community, which has been reaching out and just. Just stunning in their support and just stunning in their appreciation for just somebody saying, enough. We gotta fight. And this is how we move this ball forward.
- [17:05]
Michael
Yeah. When I interviewed somebody that you sent my way, Danny Bensky, who you did that great Donald J. Trump and Epstein Memorial library visit with. Very moving, poignant. I know you know, the stat. But for our audience, you know, of the 1400, 1600, whatever the total number, 1400 or so Epstein survivors and victims. I asked her, because we always talk about them, I said, how many have actually voluntarily come forward? It's a very tough thing to do after being trafficked, being preyed upon and sexually abused to come forward. I don't expect it. It takes tremendous courage, and it's an individual decision. Despite Melania Trump saying they should all testify in Congress, like on the Congressional Record.
- [17:48]
Katie Fang
It's the only time the truth comes out is on the Congressional Record.
- [17:51]
Michael
Yeah. Rape victims need to go to Congress in order to get justice. Okay. So I asked Danny, just as a point of reference, what. How many. How many of the 1400 have actually come out? She said 25. Think about. She said the total story has not been told because it can't be told, because there's only 25 of us that have come out and told our story. Right? And so not everybody. So, you know, she can only tell her story. She, you know, her personal story.
- [18:16]
Katie Fang
And they have to come forward because, as Danny has explained, Jenna Lisa Jones, Charlene Rochard and others, they were intentionally siloed by Epstein and Maxwell. And so their awareness of each other as survivors and victims has only come out from those that have been willing to step forward. But then we also, at the other end of the spectrum, have to talk about the people that didn't want to come out, but were outed, either intentionally or through gross negligence by the Department of Justice when they improperly released these files. We have now heard from a few victims and survivors that said, I never wanted to come forward. I always wanted to be either a Jane Doe or never known because look at the surrounding fur and media around all of this. Right? And so a lot of them said, including one at the shadow hearing in West Palm that I attended at House Oversight. Dems did. Rosa is the name that she used. She never wanted to be outed. She never wanted to be identified. And she's like, I am now here because I want people to understand that there has to be something done if you are going to make me a public figure now, you have to actually have the people pay the price for what they have perpetrated. And this is part of the goal of this lawsuit.
- [19:26]
Michael
And back to how I started, you being the trailblazer, and I really. It's not just because we're friends. It's. It's really because I would say it even if I didn't know you, because we all waited, and now I understand why, for one of the 25 to come forward and want to be the plaintiff in a case in a case like this. Because, you know, whether. Whether we were going to have the argument about the Epstein Transparency act, private right of action, or the apa, we thought, well, maybe the standard bearer for this case would be a survivor. But look what you. Why would you want to subject yourself to that? To that? I mean, it's one thing you and I got rhinoceros hide, right? Right. We're out there.
- [20:08]
Katie Fang
We're out there fighting the fight. I mean, but you know, Michael, it's one thing for a victim. But then think about this, too. Let's talk legally. Let's say a victim survivor comes forward and says, you violated the law. Todd Blanche, because you put my information out there in violation of the law, the immediate remedy is limited to just that. And they would say, oh, sorry, oops, my bad. It's now been redacted, republished now on the DOJ website. The fix has been made. My lawsuit is for everything, right? It's not just for the Danny Bensky's who still has part of her identity still out there, ridiculously so after all this time. My lawsuit's not just for Danny. It's just for everyone to be able to look at and be able to obtain this information. And that's really has always been the goal. And so I sit here now and I still am the only lawsuit pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
- [21:04]
Michael
Let me read to our audience what we just talked about on page 35 of the of the order. This is about likely your likelihood to prevail on your claim, which is we're in a preliminary and just for people joining late, we're in a preliminary injunction, which means the judge is taking a peek under the hood, looking down at what he thinks at the end of a trial, who will be the winner or loser. There's other factors for preliminary injunction, but the one you got, you, you got to be in order to have an injunction issued in your favor, you got to show the judge that you're likely to win at the end of a case. And they're sort of looking down the road. Now here's what he said about that. Ms. Fang argues that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her APA claim. Relevant to the motion, Ms. Fang identifies five categories of violations of the Epstein Act. First, the Attorney General has violated the Epstein act by that's Blanche. Now by redacting the names of senders and recipients in at least eight email exchanges with Mr. Epstein regarding a torture video and sexual activity with young women, including minors. Second, the Attorney General has violated the Epstein act by redacting the names of co defendants in a draft indictment, the names of individuals identified as co conspirators, and the sender and recipients in a department briefing email. Third, the Attorney General has violated the Epstein act by withholding certain materials mentioning President Trump. Specifically, notes from FBI interviews with a victim who has alleged that in the 1980s, when she was 13 years old, Epstein introduced her to Trump, who in turn assaulted her. Fourth, this is all from Judge Sullivan. The Attorney General has violated the Epstein act by not reviewing or producing any foreign language materials. Fifth, the Attorney General has violated the Epstein act by failing to publish any redaction logs. The Attorney General does not respond substantively to any of these arguments. Rather, he states that based on his jurisdictional arguments, which, by the way, the judge says you don't even Give me, like, case law for it. Ms. Fang's APA claims fail as a matter of law. By not responding substantively. The Attorney general has conceded Ms. Fang's merits arguments in the pending motion, and then he cites a case about. Accordingly, Ms. Fang is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim. Injunction granted.
- [23:33]
Katie Fang
Yes. And the judge says, not only are your case citations not applicable to the facts at hand, but in some instances, Todd, Blanche, you didn't even bother to cite to any case law. You just kind of talked out of your said, she's just not going to win or this is not going to work. I mean, it is so JV level kind of representation going on here.
- [23:59]
Michael
Freshman basketball.
- [24:01]
Katie Fang
It is like some. But. But, you know, all kidding aside, though, this is the kind of rule of law, judicial work that we all need right now at a very time, a very fraught time, where this administration continues to flout the law openly. And obviously, as we've seen Blanche and others doing, this is the type of judicial response. It's not judicial activism, folks. This is Judge Sullivan saying, these are the. This is the law. This is what Ms. Fang has done, and this is why it works or it doesn't work. But what this was is, by all definitions, my. A slam dunk. Every single thing I asked for in my PI I actually was not sure. I was like, listen, I think I maybe get the foreign language documents, you know, translated. Maybe I get that redaction log, you know, that he's supposed to be doing, but I wasn't. The judge is like, you get it all. You get all of it, because you are likely to succeed on the merits of your claim, which also was incredibly encouraging. And. And that's the response that we obviously wanted from this court.
- [25:04]
Michael
And here's one of my favorite. One of my favorite paragraphs in the entire order by Judge Sullivan on page 42. The attorney general argues that Ms. Fang has acknowledged that she has continued to publish on her YouTube channel, the Katie Fang News Channel. For those that don't know, links are below. And has not been prevented from covering the Epstein matter generally. He also argues that the fact that plaintiff released an episode just two months ago, recorded over 315,000 views to date, and another three months ago that recorded 841,000 views to date, has shown that the absence of these records has not silenced her pause. However, that Ms. Fang has continued to work does not mean that the economic harm. That the economic harm is not irreparable for the reasons explained above, because she would do additional reporting based on the information she seeks. He's so smart.
- [26:01]
Katie Fang
Yeah. I mean, and again, you know, when it comes to standing, informational harm is kind of, you know, a very pioneering area of arguing, like, because this law is supposed to give information, and if you don't get it, you're harmed. I mean, look, you know, some people were like, yeah, I don't know if this is going to work, but the economic harm component of this is very real and concrete, and the law is legion on this. And there's a direct correlation between the views and my ability to, you know, to make money. But again, not about the money. Never about the money, only about being able to say with confidence that the law has been satisfied. And that's the other thing. Judge Sullivan made it clear. I'm not asking for new. I'm not asking for out of. I'm not asking the DOJ to do something more than what the law requires it to do, because that is something that would happen if you went to, like, foia, they'd say, no, I don't have an obligation to create something that doesn't already exist. A, I, E. G. Ergo, the redaction log. But the Epstein Files Transparency act says you have to give the redaction log. Which is why I'm so grateful that Judge Sullivan really ran with our reply. We did an incredibly strong reply to their opposition brief, and Judge Sullivan really tracked a lot of the stuff they argued. Because it's the law, folks. I'm not making stuff out of, you know, whole cloth here. Like, this is what the law says.
- [27:22]
Michael
And the reason we're talking about money is not because Katie sought money. She's not seeking money. This is equitable. An equitable relief for document release. Okay? Now, whether you get attorneys fees down the road, that's a different story. But in terms of. The only reason we're talking about economic damage is because in order for Katie to have standing and Article 3 injury to bring the case as a plaintiff, she has to show this combination of sort of informational harm, economic harm. That's the only reason. I mean, I don't want to be crass and be talking about economics about. About survivors of child sex abuse, but we have to, because of the mechanics of how. Katie doesn't even get into the courtroom, into the. It's right. She's locked. The door is locked to her. Unless you can make out that claim, which she did. And I love here as we end our time together, because I know Katie. Thank you for being so generous with your time that the judge has. He's not sitting around either. And he picked. And they don't get the July 4th weekend to go celebrate Donald Trump's whatever. July 2nd. They need to respond. Start translating. You could see the Department of Justice groaning.
- [28:38]
Katie Fang
Remember all the drama from the Department of Justice just even getting what they got out, as badly that rollout as it was, as botched as it was at the hands of Todd Blanche. Yeah. July 2nd, it's a week from today is when it's supposed to be produced on or before. And so I suspect somebody is having a really bad day at the Department of Justice because if this was not on Todd Blanche's radar before, it is most certainly on his freaking radar now.
- [29:04]
Michael
Fireworks have started early, everybody, in the nation's capital, courtesy of Katie Fang, the Katie Fang News Channel. I just am so over the moon for what you were, what you did, the bravery around it and the trailblazing nature of it, it will open the door, I assure you. They'll be teaching this in law schools about informational harm in journalism and, and, and, and they'll be teaching, you know, my daughter. Your daughter. Yes, they will. About how Donald Trump was forced to be transparent about the child sex trafficking ring that he's connected to because Katie Fang brought a case. Thanks for being here with our audience, Katie.
- [29:43]
Katie Fang
Thank you for having me and thanks for the support. Always, guys.
- [29:46]
Michael
Absolutely. And you're on the Legal AF YouTube channel. Take a minute, hit the free subscribe button and help 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 called Wait for it Morning af. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AOFF 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 aforementioned F on substack. Come over now to free subscribe.