Loading summary
Transcript30 lines
- [00:00]
Ryan Reynolds
Hi, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Are you looking for a beach read this summer? May I suggest your big wireless bill? It's got suspense, mystery, a slightly flat emotional arc, and a shocking twist where you realize you've been overpaying the entire time. Fortunately, though, Mint Story is better. Every plan $15 a month, even unlimited. That's it. Happy ending, zero tears. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [00:23]
Mint Mobile/Shopify/1-800-contacts Advertiser
of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 or 12 month plan required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees. Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. Me slow when network is busy. See Terms when it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want.
- [00:37]
Wayfair Advertiser
Like all the way.
- [00:41]
Mint Mobile/Shopify/1-800-contacts Advertiser
Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha chings from every channel right in one spot and turn real time reporting into big time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today. Close your eyes, exhale, feel your body relax and let go of whatever you're carrying today. Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class. I got them delivered free from 1-800-contacts. Oh my gosh, they're so fast.
- [01:15]
Michael Popak
And breathe.
- [01:16]
Grow Therapy Advertiser
Oh sorry.
- [01:17]
Mint Mobile/Shopify/1-800-contacts Advertiser
I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order.
- [01:22]
Grow Therapy Advertiser
Oh sorry.
- [01:23]
Mint Mobile/Shopify/1-800-contacts Advertiser
Namaste.
- [01:24]
Wayfair Advertiser
Visit 1-800-contacts.com today to save on your first order.
- [01:28]
Michael Popak
1-800-contacts.
- [01:30]
Wayfair Advertiser
Most of us are one good deal away from finally replacing that worn out rug, fixing up the backyard, or getting the bedroom we actually want. Good news. That deal's almost here. Wayfair's Black Friday in July sale get up to 80% off area rugs and up to 60% off outdoor and bedroom furniture. Shop Wayfair's huge selection of styles and find the piece to fit your style, budget and space. Plus free shipping. Black Friday in July ends July 27. Shop today at Wayfair.com Wayfair Every style,
- [01:59]
Grow Therapy Advertiser
every home Summer's supposed to be the easy season. So why are so many people quietly googling a therapist between summer Fridays? Because more daylight doesn't fix the hard stuff. Sometimes it just turns the volume up. Grow Does Therapy Differently Therapy is not only for when you're in crisis. Grow. Therapy is here for all the moments when you decide you want more. More support, more clarity, more tools. Mental health isn't a destination you reach. It's something you build and Grow makes that easier. Grow connects you with thousands of high quality licensed therapists across the US offering both virtual and in person sessions, nights and weekends. You can search by what matters like insurance, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as days. There are no subscriptions, no long term commitments, you just pay per session. Grow helps you find therapy on your time. The therapist you want takes your insurance on Grow. Grow accepts over 125 insurance plans. Sessions average $21 with insurance and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com booknow today to get started. That's growththerapy.com booknow growthherapy.com booknow availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.
- [03:26]
Michael Popak
Having now read the four page yep, four page response that the Department of Justice and Todd Blanche gave to Judge Emmett Sullivan in Katie Fang's case against the DOJ for violation of the Epstein File Transparency Act. Having now read it, I don't think Judge Sullivan is going to be very happy. In fact, I think he's going to be quite upse know what happens when federal judges in black robes get really upset with a party and it's not going to be good. Look for the Department of Justice or Todd Blanche, especially as we are in the midst of the block the Blanche movement to stop him from being Attorney General. Who did he pick to file the paper? Who did he pick as his lawyer? The number two in the Department of Justice? Stan Woodward. And where did Stan Woodward come from? Stan Woodward came out of the the woodwork to as a Jan6 criminal defense lawyer and the lawyer for the co defendant for Donald Trump in the Mar A Lago case who was prosecuted by Jack Smith, a guy named Walt Nouda, who was Donald Trump's butler and body man, that Stan Woodward. So I'm not surprised. I was never overly impressed with the lawyering of Stan Woodward. But now given the opportunity to get the last word in to avoid sanctions by by a federal judge, this ain't gonna do it. We're gonna post it in Legal a F sub stack for you as well. I'm Michael Popak. You're here on Midas Touch and Legal af. Let's get to this breaking news story. How did we get here? Katie Fang, friend of ours and on the Midas Touch Network filed a lawsuit as a working journalist claiming she had standing for informational harm. Standing in for the rest of us to argue that the Epstein File Transparency act and the Administrative Procedures act have been violated by Todd Blanche for his failure to turn over documents properly. You remember Todd Blanche. That's the guy that went begrudgingly to meet with victims and survivors of Epstein in order to try to get a vote from Senator Thom Tillis. And it backfired spectacularly on him so that Todd Blanche has to answer the questions. So there were five major categories of documents that needed to be addressed in their filings. One, where is the email related to the sex torture video that was not properly produced in the production? Where are the handwritten notes concerning the FBI 302 witness statements concerning a woman who is a 13 year old girl when she claims that Donald Trump sexually abused her? Where are the notes? Where's the redaction log that was required by the statute to be produced? You know, the 200,000 pages of missing documents, you know, blacked out documents. Where is the log cataloging why they were blacked out and the, and the basis for doing that? None of where are the foreign language documents. None of this was produced at any time ever in the case. In fact, I had Katie Fang's lead lawyer, Brendan Ballou, Public Integrity Project, on with me recently to talk about him seeking $1,000 a day fine against Todd Blanche for those violations. Let's play a clip of Brendan and me. Is that in the judge's order?
- [06:53]
Brendan Ballou
It's incredible. I mean, and let me just back up 10 steps here. You know, all of this is due to Katie Fang, you know, having courage to bring this suit. And I think she was really smart and really focusing on some of these specific categories where, you know, it's just so obvious that the government's breaking the law here. And I mean, I'll focus on the first one you mentioned, which, you know, maybe doesn't sound super important, but it really is. And I think it goes to the Department of Justice's lawlessness right now, which is these foreign language documents. Again, like you said, this is a international investigation spanning multiple countries in decades. You know, the Department of Justice just said categorically we don't review documents that aren't in English, which is pretty shocking.
- [07:33]
Michael Popak
Which, by the way, just, just right there, I am sure that is not true in any other criminal investigation that they're involved with. Could you imagine in another international criminal case that they were investigating, they hid a box of documents that were in foreign language. We'll do. Can't figure it out.
- [07:48]
Brendan Ballou
I mean, it's like think about, you know, if you've worked in criminal law, like if you've got Brady obligations to disclose exculpatory information. That constitutional obligation doesn't go away just because it's in a different language. Like you risk, you know, you risk losing your license with some of these sorts of things. Anyways, Judge ordered them to produce these foreign language documents and the Department of Justice's response was just incredible. They said, look, Judge, we told Congress that we weren't going to follow this part of the law. And Congress didn't do anything, seemed to
- [08:20]
Michael Popak
be okay with it.
- [08:22]
Brendan Ballou
And it's like, that's not how any law works. You know, just by saying that you're going to break the law doesn't make it legal. If I, if I went to, you know, if I told city council, you know, hey, I'm going to rob this bodega next week, that doesn't make it legal when I do it. And it's the same reasoning here. So I was frankly kind of shocked that they, that they even bothered to make that kind of argument. And I just, I, I very, I would be very surprised if it holds water with Judge Sullivan now.
- [08:50]
Michael Popak
Todd Blanche got all wrapped around his axle during his confirmation hearing as well. Let's just play one clip of him trying to answer why he's not meeting with Epstein survivors. And about the production. Play the clip.
- [09:04]
Todd Blanche
When President Trump signed the Epstein Transparency act, the Department of justice undertook a herculean task to review millions and millions of potentially responsive files. We were required under the statute to do this expeditiously and very quickly. The Department of Justice did so. We reviewed over 6 million pages. Many of these pages were not responsive. And what I mean by that is we intentionally over collected potentially responsive documents. So for example, there was a case going on in Florida at the same time as the Jeffrey Epstein case involving another defendant named Epstein, having nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. When we collected materials, we collected everything involving Epstein, including the Epstein that had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. So the review of materials included non responsive materials. The reviewers were qualified, experienced attorneys within the department and the FBI. They took pains to apply appropriate redactions. There were mistakes that were made. And so approximately 1% of the redactions had to be fixed. After we released the Epstein files, Chairman, we had dozens of lawyers on call 24 7. Whenever we learned that any victim's name had been improperly not redacted, we immediately took the document down and fixed it as soon as we could. That doesn't excuse the mistakes of which I take responsibility, but it does mean that we tried to fix them. We complied with the act. It Required us complying with judge's rules in New York, which required us to redact certain victims names, even if the victim was also somebody who participated in criminal conduct. The judge did not allow judges in New York did not allow us to unredact those names. The other thing that we did, Chairman, is we made unredacted versions of the entire database available to everybody in this body. And we did that because of transparency. Remember, for four years, there wasn't a peep about Jeffrey Epstein. The Biden administration did nothing to be transparent about the Epstein case. We have been extraordinarily transparent in not only producing the records, but letting unredacted versions be available to anybody in this body. And if after reviewing unredacted materials, a member had concerns about why something was redacted, they brought them to the department's attention and we addressed that. So I. I want to make sure the American people know that this administration, when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, has been more transparent than any past administration than Biden was or anybody else. And what we did is we complied with the law.
- [11:59]
Michael Popak
That led to a begrudging meeting the second day of the confirmation hearing between Todd Blanche and the survivors. But that went horribly. Here's what one of the survivors had to say about the meeting. Play the clip.
- [12:12]
Epstein Survivor
What is your sense of whether he had any shame for saying the day before the meeting that he would not meet with all of you? But when Mr. Tillis vote became contingent on having the meeting, he was there. Did he say. Well, I just said that because I didn't want to get tripped up, but I'm actually happy. Like, did he answer for saying he didn't want to meet with you guys 24 hours earlier? No.
- [12:40]
Advocate
That's actually a really good word that you brought up, Nicole. Remorse. There was no remorse for any of the damage that was done. There was no remorse when we brought up. We've been trying to talk to you for eight months, nine months to tell you there are important files that should be looked at. There are plenty of investigative leads. There was no remorse in. Even when Annie said, hey, I know that my sister's report is missing part of the pages. Will you do an investigation? He said, no, there was not going to be any further investigations and we had to go through proper channels. Now we had to go back to the FBI or we could talk to this other specialist, but basically he wanted us to start all over again.
- [13:26]
Epstein Survivor
What does it make you feel about victims of child sex trafficking at the hands of powerful men? Today,
- [13:37]
Advocate
As an advocate, this is one of the things that is extremely frustrating because getting any kind of accountability for any kind of sexual harm is already excruciatingly difficult. And you would think with 6 million files, by the way, he kept correcting us and saying 3 million files. They said there are only 3 million files, not 6 million files. With that volume of evidence, we feel there's. If you can't find an investigative lead in that, then there's a problem with competence or there's decisions being made. And so it's very discouraging because right now this man wants to be the Attorney General of the United States and he doesn't know what to do with 6 million files. And how can anyone in this country ever feel safe that their case is going to be prosecuted properly, investigated properly, when all of this is happening with the world watching? Nicole, I mean, what happens when no one's looking?
- [14:40]
Michael Popak
You know, it's funny. I used to think a pillowcase was, you know, a pillowcase that I found Blissy and I realized what I've been sleeping on, literally. Blissey's pillowcases are made from 22 mamey 6, a grade 100% pure mulberry silk. And they're naturally cooling, breathable, hydrating, and much gentler on your skin and hair than satin or cotton. They help reduce frizz, breakage, sleep creases, and even help keep your skin looking healthier over time. Their dermatologist tested machine washable come in over 100 colors and designs. And it's no surprise they've sold more than 3 million pillowcases and have been featured by Vogue, Oprah Daily, and Good morning America. I've been sleeping on it for a few weeks and I can honestly say it just feels nicer than my old pillowcase. My hair has been a little smoother in the mornings and I like how cool it stays through the night. Because you're a listener. Blissey is offering 60 nights risk free, plus an additional 30% off when you shop@blissey.com legalafe that's blissy.com legalif and use code legal af to get an additional 30% off your skin and hair will thank you. So Judge Sullivan, back to our filing, gave the Todd Blanche one more shot to respond. And here we go. It's about, I don't know, three and a half pages. And listen, I wasn't that impressed with the lawyering and the mind of Stan Woodward to begin with, but I'm certainly not now. This is what they say. And I'll give you the translation, page 2. Whereas the defendant's response to the order to show cause, that's the Trump side, set forth rational arguments, the plaintiff's response, that's Katie's side, is filled with hyperbolic rhetoric seeking to oppose punitive sanctions on the department for availing itself of the process the court afforded it. No, the court told you, either produce the documents or show cause. Good faith basis, you know, supported by facts, usually by an affidavit, sworn testimony, why you couldn't produce it. To this day, Todd Blanche and anybody in his department of justice refuses to provide sworn testimony to a judge. If I were on the other side of that judge's order, I, I would have provided affidavits and declarations. But of course they didn't do it then and they're not even doing it now. We're just getting naked. Argument of counsel. This is what they say. The court has not ordered the immediate production of documents. Rather, the court has ordered the department to show cause. If it declines to do so, they make it sound like it's just an offer, like an aspirational goal of the judge instead of a order by fiat of a federal judge. On page two, they say, and far from declaring that the department will not abide by a court order, the department, meaning the Department of Justice, has accepted the court's offer. Oh, bully you. You've accepted the court's offer. That sounds fantastic. We'll beat you for tea at 4 o'. Clock. Are you kidding me? That wasn't an offer, that was a requirement. It's going to piss off the judge, that's all I'm telling you. Now they don't like the thousand dollars a day fine either. And they end it this way. On page three. Again, it's not really a five page, it's really a three page response signed by Stan Woodward. Ultimately, the department will continue to comply with all applicable disclosure laws. But the department also needs to be afforded the ability to seek appellate review of preliminary injunction orders it believes to be an error. Okay, as soon as you get sanctioned, you can go take your appeal. For these reasons, any order of the court should not include contempt or sanctions. Relief should include language recognizing the order as appealable, and should stay the effective date to allow the government to seek appellate review. Here we go. In fact, on I had Brendan Ballou, Katie Fang's lawyer, on, he's like, I don't even know why they haven't appealed yet. They haven't appealed because they know they have a losing argument. That's the answer. They know that if they file the appeal and they get a bad response, which is likely, they lose sort of the political cover and the talking point. So they're gonna stretch this out. Well, Judge, we'd like to appeal, but, you know, we're waiting on you and there's all these procedures and it's really hard. It's not really hard. You could appeal now. You could have appealed. When the judge initially entered his order in favor of Katie Fang, plain and simple. Just to remind you what Katie wrote in her, in her filing and in seeking what she's seeking, she basically says that what they're doing is the opposite of transparency. I mean, they like to talk about. We're the most transparent Department of Justice about Epstein seen ever. Of course, they don't abide by anything. They don't supply an affidavit. Here on page eight of Katie's filing, they said in his opposition to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, the attorney general never once argued that any of the specific documents that were requested by plaintiff would reveal victim information, for instance. Then hours after the court granted the motion, by the way, that's the point where they could have taken the appeal, the government issued a public statement attacking the court. Judge Sullivan's perverse interpretation appears to be focused on driving misleading headlines. This judge is suggesting DOJ violated the law, violate the law by unredacting victim names who as the department has always explained, sadly became co conspirators. It does a disservice to this court, Katie writes, and to the victims in this matter by making the argument in the press and not briefing until the attorney general and not in briefing until the attorney general had already lost. And again, you see in the new filing, they don't attack the judge. They wouldn't dare. No, they leave that to their cowardness outside the courtroom in extrajudicial statements. We're going to follow this closely. I'm going to grab Katie Fang and ask her to join our show. Maybe even tonight on the Intersection, which is on Tuesday nights, 8pm my show on the Midas Touch Network tonight, special guest Mark Elias talking about your vote and the 13 times he successfully defeated the Trump administration. 13, 0. To try to steal voter data, to weaponize the mechanisms around voter protection and try to suppress the vote. You're not going to want to miss my interview with Mark Elias tonight. Until my next report, take a moment, Come over to the Legal AF YouTube channel. Early voting has started. We're trying to get to 2 million subscribers by election day, by midterms. We will with your support until my next report. This is Michael.
- [21:48]
Legal AF Host
Can't get your fill of Legal af.
- [21:50]
Michael Popak
Me neither.
- [21:51]
Legal AF Host
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 AO 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.