Loading summary
Transcript137 lines
- [00:00]
Steve Bannon
This is an iHeart podcast.
- [00:02]
Interviewer/Host
Guaranteed Human.
- [00:07]
Jan Jekielek
This is the primal scream of a dying regime. Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people. I got a free shot on all these networks lying about the people. The people have had a belly full of it.
- [00:23]
Todd Blanche
I know you don't like hearing that.
- [00:25]
Jan Jekielek
I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it.
- [00:28]
Todd Blanche
It's going to happen. And where do people like that go to share the big L. MAGA Media.
- [00:34]
Steve Bannon
I wish in my soul, I wish.
- [00:36]
Todd Blanche
That any of these people had a conscience.
- [00:39]
Jan Jekielek
Ask yourself, what is my task and.
- [00:41]
Yan
What is my purpose?
- [00:43]
Jan Jekielek
If that answer is to save my.
- [00:45]
Yan
Country, this country will be saved.
- [00:49]
Steve Bannon
War Room here's your host, Stephen k. Bann.
- [00:56]
Jan Jekielek
Friday the 30th of January, year of our Lord 2026. Now, Janak ordered a kill over at. He's got the American thought leaders, a magnificent show. You're over at Epoch Times, ntd, the television station, all of our friends over there and colleagues part of the anti CCP movement somehow on this one because.
- [01:20]
Todd Blanche
We got press cards about the stop.
- [01:22]
Jan Jekielek
I'm going to get as far through this as we can and then you're going to hang around so when it finishes, you're going to come back ordered to kill this situation with the Chinese Communist Party. And by the way, let me ask you first, where I got you does all this running around because I've had a thousand people all over me. Why don't you talk about it? I said, well, look, first of all, I want to figure it out. She's being overthrown by the military. There's gun battles in Beijing, in the Forbidden City. She's just consolidating power. You're one of the smartest observers and you, like me, are dedicated to, to having Lao Bajing's back to take these animals because they're true savages, to take them down and throw them in the dust heap of history. What is your take on what's happened in Beijing over the last couple days between the military and President Xi?
- [02:09]
Yan
Well, Steve, it's actually a really unprecedented moment. I mean, I was just talking with one of my top top analysts, Hung he, about these realities. I mean, he says it's sort of a once in a generation or once in a, a decade shift that's just happened. I mean what really what happened is that Xi Jinping managed to purge the top of the top of the military commission, Zhang Yu Sha. Okay, so this is actually a professional leader of the military this is the guy who actually knew how to run the military. This is a situation where five of the seven of the top military leaders that we're talking, the top, top, have actually been purged by Xi Jinping. Okay. Going back about a year now, right, there was all this kerfuffle and so forth happening there. This was the military basically trying to take. They took a bunch of control from Xi. This right now is Xi punching back. Okay, but here's the scary part. Xi basically has broken, as Hung Hud described, the kind of the unwritten rules of the party. There's certain things. There's certain ways, though, even in a mafia or something, that things need to work. Xi Jinping has just kind of torn that apart in his quest to achieve that total power that he's looking for. And in the process, the bureaucracy itself, the kind of. The whole system under him is now wondering what to do. What alliance can I have? What way can I save myself from being purged? It's not clear that there's a way out. So, I mean, it's a really profound moment and it's not really something that we've seen in a very long time, perhaps as far back as, as, you know, Mao Zedong being purged to a degree.
- [03:53]
Jan Jekielek
Because Xi, up to now, he's made himself president for life. All the rules of it, all the rules they had, the systems they had after Deng Xiaoping. Has this started? Okay, let's. Yan, hang on for one second. We're going to go to Main justice for a moment.
- [04:09]
Todd Blanche
Investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. I'm here today to talk about the Department's compliance with its production obligations under the act. Around, I think right now and continuing throughout the day to day, as the indexing and uploading completes, we are producing responsive materials under the Act. We are also releasing today a letter we are transmitting to Congress in various internal protocols associated with our review. I want to take a moment to thank the professionals at the Department of Justice who met twice daily, sometimes more, for the last 75 days to get to where we are today. The leadership teams from the Office of the Attorney General, from the Deputy Attorney General's Office, the Associate Attorney General's Office, the Criminal Division, the National Security Division, the FBI, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of New York all gave up many hours every single day on top of their other, of course, full time obligations to fulfill President Trump's promise of transparency to the American people. I also want to thank the more than 500 lawyers and professionals across all those divisions that I just mentioned and others who worked long days, nights, weekends, Christmas, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, nights, weekends and holidays to complete this production. These highly trained reviewers spend their careers putting bad guys in jail and effectuating the mission of the Department. And to a person, they work tirelessly to protect victims and comply with the act since its passage. So thank you to all of them. Today we are producing more than 3 million pages, including more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images in total. That means that the Department produced approximately three and a half million pages in compliance with the Act. Just a quick note about the videos and images. The 2,000 videos and 180,000 images are not all videos and images taken by Mr. Epstein or someone around him. They include large quantities of commercial pornography and images that were seized from Epstein's devices, but which he did not take or that someone around him did not take. Some of the videos, though, and some of the images do appear to be taken by Mr. Epstein or by others around him. Now, I want to talk for a few minutes about the Department's document identification and review protocols. It consisted of multiple layers of review and quality control designed to ensure compliance under the act and protect victims. On top of the review protocols that the Department had in place, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York employed an additional review protocol to ensure compliance with a court order requiring United States Attorney Jay Clayton to certify that with respect to certain materials, a large quantity of the materials. A rigorous process was undertaken to protect victims against any clearly unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy. The Department's collection effort resulted in more than 6 million pages being identified as potentially responsive, including Department and FBI emails, interview summaries, images, videos, and various other materials collected and generated during the various investigations and prosecutions that the act covered. We erred on the side of over collection of materials from various sources to best ensure maximum transparency and compliance, which necessarily means that the number of responsive pages is significantly smaller than the total number of pages initially collected. That's why I mentioned a moment ago we're releasing more than 3 million pages today and not the 6 million pages that we collected. I want to address what we didn't produce. The categories of documents withheld include those permitted under the act to be withheld, files that contain personally identify information of victims or victims, personal and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Any depiction of CSAM or child pornography was obviously excluded. Anything that would jeopardize an active federal investigation and finally, anything that depicts or contain images of death, physical abuse or injury. Also not produced Although the Although the act allows for withholding for items necessary to keep secret in the interest of national security or foreign policy, no files are being withheld or redacted on that basis. Further, as we previously stated in our December 19th letter of last year, the Department withheld or redacted files contained, covered by various privileges, as we always do, including deliberative process privilege, work product privilege, and attorney client privilege. As you all know, under the act, the Department must subsequently submit to the House and Senate committees on the Judiciary a report listing all categories of records released and withheld, a summary of redactions made, including the legal basis for such redactions, and a list of all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the Act. We will do so in due course, as required under the Act. I want to talk for just a moment about the redactions that will be obvious to anyone who reviews the materials that we just produced today. In addition to the documentary redactions, which includes personal identifying information, victim information and other privileges, there is extensive redactions to images and videos to protect victims. We redacted every woman depicted in any image or video. With the exception of Ms. Maxwell, we did not redact images of any men unless it was impossible to redact the woman without also redacting the man. To this end, though, and to ensure transparency, if any member of Congress wishes to review any portions of the Responsive Production in any unredacted form, they're welcome to make arrangements with the Department to do so, and we're happy to do that. I want to talk for a minute about something that is important. Every single day of the year, the Department of Justice investigates and prosecutes those who abuse and traffic young women and children. Just last year, the FBI located over 2,700 victims of child exploitation. The Department of Justice found and terminated 3.8 million dark web pedophile accounts. In August, we charged 11 defendants for extensive sex trafficking in Los Angeles of illegal immigrants and underage women. Last month, we charged five men who were engaged in a sadistic sextortion network of deranged young men abusing women over the past several months. Last summer and into the fall, we executed Operation restore justice, rescuing 205 child victims and arresting 293 offenders. I point this out because I take at the suggestion, which is totally false, that the Attorney General or this Department does not take child exploitation or sex trafficking seriously, or that we somehow do not want to protect victims, we do. There are some select members of Congress and some in the public eye, including those most critical of our efforts at full transparency under the act, who remain silent as to all the work that we have done and continue to do every day in this space while quickly pointing a finger at the Attorney General or this Department. Because we were careful in our review of millions of pages of documents over the past two months. The Attorney General, the Director of the FBI, and our partners throughout this administration work hard every single day to protect the most vulnerable among us. With the production of this magnitude, mistakes are inevitable. We, of course, want to immediately correct any redaction errors that our team may have made. And so the Department has established an email inbox for victims to reach us directly to correct redactions and any concerns when appropriate. That's been in existence since December, and we've been doing that since then. Finally, a very small portion of the documents collected pursuant to the act include materials that a law firm produced to the SDNY in 2019 pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. This was during the criminal investigation of Ms. Maxwell. We determined it would be prudent to seek an order from the court in the Southern District of New York seeking production of these materials subject to the protective order in that civil lawsuit. To that end, the Department has filed that motion with the appropriate judge and the sdny. And if that motion is granted, we'll release those materials with appropriate redactions immediately. Today's release marks the end of a very comprehensive document identification and review process to ensure transparency to the American people and compliance with the Act, The Department has engaged in an unprecedented and extensive effort to do so. After submitting the final report to Congress as required under the act, and publishing the written justifications for redactions in the Federal Register, the Department's obligations under the act will be completed. I'm happy to take any questions anybody has about that.
- [14:42]
Reporter
Todd, I'd like to ask you about this, and I have a Minnesota question for you on the Epstein released today. It was recently made public that Ghislaine Maxwell claims more than two dozen men signed secret agreements with the federal government not to be prosecuted. What is your reaction to that, and what does that mean for her case?
- [15:04]
Todd Blanche
I read an article that described. I wasn't aware that it was actual men that she's claiming. I thought it was accomplices, which I'm not sure if. If that's a reference to some of the financial institutions or other individuals. That so, Yes. I don't have a reaction to her filing. I can tell you that we reviewed, as I just described, every single piece of paper that we have associated with these investigations, Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell and, and to the extent that such arrangements exist, I'm not aware of them.
- [15:43]
Reporter
And on to Minnesota, if I may ask you real quick. That's in the topic in the headlines right now. There's new video of a man believed to be Alex Preddy, who's spitting, who's kicking out a taillight of a law enforcement vehicle. Does that change the perception of a potential DOJ investigation? Is there going to be a civil rights investigation, investigation into his death? Where does that land now that that video's out? Then I have a quick follow up on that.
- [16:09]
Todd Blanche
I don't. So look, I don't think a single video should change any perception the Department of Justice may or may not have about that tragic occurrence last Saturday. We've said repeatedly over the past week that of course, this is something that we're investigating. And we are. That's what we would always do in circumstances like this. And so there's an investigation that's ongoing, which I'm not going to about. But just look, the problem is an initial reaction to a particular video, one or another you're talking about, one that happened apparently some days ahead of last Saturday. It's an investigation. So an investigation necessarily means just that. It means talking to witnesses. It means looking at documentary evidence, sending subpoenas if you have to. And the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division has the best experts in the world at this. They've been doing it for decades. And so I expect that that investigation will proceed with that, with those parameters in mind.
- [17:15]
Reporter
Are you looking at a nexus of left wing roots? This DOJ said that that's something that you guys were concerned about. Are you following money? Are you looking at a potential that all of this may be related somewhere?
- [17:28]
Todd Blanche
I mean. Yes.
- [17:31]
Interviewer/Host
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Attorney General, you said in your remarks that you've withheld some documents because of ongoing investigations. I've done this long enough to know you can't comment on ongoing investigations. But can you say a little bit more? Because as you know, the department has been criticized for not bringing charges against more people. Are there still open investigations related to Jeffrey Epstein?
- [17:54]
Todd Blanche
So what I was laying out in my comments is that the statutory, what the statute talks about, about what we can withhold and the reasons we can withhold it. I wasn't pointing to any particular. I wasn't trying to be coy or otherwise suggest there's some investigation. As you all know, Jay Clayton in New York is in charge of any potential investigations, and I'm not going to comment beyond that on that.
- [18:23]
Yan
Clayton.
- [18:23]
Todd Blanche
Excuse me.
- [18:24]
Interviewer/Host
You were referring to Clayton's investigation?
- [18:25]
Todd Blanche
I wasn't referring to anything. I was just saying that Congress, in their wisdom, allowed us to withhold documents if there were ongoing criminal investigations. That's one of the four reasons I wanted to make clear with respect to any national security information that we were not withholding. There's not some tranche of super secret documents about Jeffrey Epstein that we're withholding or actually not withholding anything based upon ndi. Deputy Attorney General French, thank you for your time. Two questions for you. Number one, pushing politics aside and everyone else aside, some of the victims of Epstein have expressed frustration with the entire process. I want to give you the opportunity to speak directly to them. Well, I don't, I don't know what you're, what you're speaking to. I mean, if there's frustration with, quote, the entire process. Same here. I mean, you have a situation where for many, many years, nobody even breathed a word about Jeffrey Epstein. And then all of a sudden, it was all anybody would talk about going into the last spring and summer, culminating in the passage of the Transparency Act. And President Trump has said for years what I think everybody will find to be exactly true, which is detailing his relationship and lack thereof with Mr. Epstein and what he thought about Mr. Epstein, and, and notwithstanding what the department has been saying for a very long time, we're still where we are today. Listen, victims of Mr. Epstein have gone through unspeakable pain. And there's nobody that should say anything differently. And to the extent that there's frustration, I understand where that comes from. Just from what we know about Mr. Epstein, I hope that the work that the men and women within this department have done over the past two months hopefully is able to bring closure. I think that what we told our reviewers is that that was the goal. You know, there's this mantra out there that, oh, you know, the Department of Justice is supposed to protect Donald J. Trump. And that's what we were telling. That's not true. That was never the case. We are always concerned about the victim. When we said that we were not legally allowed to release documents, that's a fact. That was true. It remains true today. And then with the Act's passage, we are able now and directed to release documents, which is what we are doing. But, so hopefully some of those frustrations are now eased. Listen, any victim that wants to speak with the department has a. Has done so. Hopefully, if not, they should. The prosecutors from this case in New York have given hundreds, if not thousands of hours to working with victims. And that's what we do every day. And that's what we did in this case as well. So very quickly, can you assure the American public that President Trump, like every other prominent person whose name came up in relation to the Epstein files, that all documents, photos, and anything relevant to him connected to the case are being released? I mean, yes, I can assure that. We complied with the statute, we complied with the act, and there is no. We did not protect President Trump. We didn't protect or not protect anybody. I mean, I think that we. That there's a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents.
- [21:58]
Jan Jekielek
Documents.
- [21:59]
Todd Blanche
And there's nothing I can do about that. But President Trump, of all the people in Washington, D.C. and around this country that have said for years the same consistent message about Jeffrey Epstein is President Trump. And so there's not been a change of course or anything. And certainly his direction to the American people and the Department of Justice. Sorry, his direction to the Department of Justice was to be as transparent, release the files, be as transparent as we can. And that's exactly what we did.
- [22:30]
Interviewer/Host
I want to clarify your remarks on the Alex Preddy killing. Are you saying that the Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation into his death?
- [22:38]
Todd Blanche
Yes. Yeah. I mean, look, and I know there's a lot of. There's been a lot of discussion among the media around that, but just think about what that means. All that that means is that dhs, as they've. As the Secretary has said, is conducting an investigation, as they should, and as they do every time there's a tragic event like this, and the FBI in their role, which is a separate role from dhs, is also looking into it and conducting an investigation. And that's not. That shouldn't be treated as making news. We've said that for a week, and it remains as true today as it was last Sunday when I said it. Two questions for you, one on topic and one separate.
- [23:20]
Interviewer/Host
Yeah, two questions for you, one on.
- [23:21]
Todd Blanche
Topic and one separate.
- [23:23]
Interviewer/Host
On topic. Do you have any information that you could just share? Because 3 million documents is a lot.
- [23:28]
Todd Blanche
For people who are watching this at home.
- [23:29]
Interviewer/Host
Are there any new names or new.
- [23:31]
Todd Blanche
People, public people in positions of power.
- [23:33]
Interviewer/Host
Who you're found in these filings?
- [23:36]
Todd Blanche
I Don't have anything to share about what's new or not new. And there's no. I don't have anything to share about that.
- [23:42]
Interviewer/Host
And to follow up on that, do you have a reaction to the arrest of Don Lemon overnight?
- [23:46]
Todd Blanche
Do you have a reaction to what?
- [23:48]
Interviewer/Host
To Don Lemon's arrest overnight.
- [23:50]
Todd Blanche
Do I have a reaction to it? I don't know what that means. What are you looking for me to do, jump up and down? No, I don't have a reaction to it. I don't know that his, that the charges are unsealed yet. So, no, I can't. I'm not going to comment on that. Thank you. You said this is the end of the Epstein, of your review of the Epstein files.
- [24:09]
Yan
So.
- [24:09]
Todd Blanche
So just to clarify, is the public going to learn the identities of the men who abused the girls with the information that you're releasing? And if not, why not? And then I have a quick follow up. I mean, you just baked in an assumption into your question that I have never said and I don't know to be true. Is the public going to learn about men that abused these girls? What does that mean? I mean, I understand what that means. Well, I mean, the men who abused the young women through Epstein's, through Epstein, we said in July, and it remains as true today as it was in July. If we had information, we, meaning the Department of Justice, about men who abused women, we would prosecute them. Right. We talked about the work that we're doing. That's why I said that, I said this earlier. There's this built in assumption that somehow there's this hidden tranche of information of men that we know about that we're covering up or that we're choosing not to prosecute. That is not the case. I don't know whether there are men out there that abuse these women. If we learn about information and evidence that allows us to prosecute them, you better believe we will. But I don't think that the public or you all are going to uncover men within the Epstein files that abuse women. Unfortunately. Just to follow up on the investigation into federal, Federal Chairman Jerome Powell is the Justice Department. What's the status of that investigation now? Now that President Trump has nominated a new Fed chair? Are you, is the Justice Department looking to bring a close to the investigation into Chairman Powell as soon as possible? I don't have a comment on that. On the subpoenas that were issued. I don't think the timing of President Trump's decision to nominate somebody is a controlling factor in any investigation.
- [26:09]
Interviewer/Host
Hi. I just wanted to follow up on Alana's question. So you're saying that the shooting investigation of Alex Preddy is now a civil rights investigation. You're saying, you're implying that that's always been the case. Can you also say if has that. What about the shooting of Renee Goode? I mean, is she. Is that why or why not? Is that a civil rights investigation?
- [26:32]
Todd Blanche
I didn't say it was always a case. I said it's the same thing that we said as of last Sunday with respect to last weekend. There are thousands, unfortunately, of law enforcement events every year where somebody is shot. The Civil Rights division of the Department of Justice does not investigate every one of those shootings. There has to be circumstances or facts or maybe unknown facts, but certainly circumstances that warrant an investigation. So when we talked about, when I talked about last weekend and when others have talked about this week, the fact that President Trump has said repeatedly, of course this is something we're going to investigate. That's what I meant about what we're doing. It doesn't mean that every time that there's a federal officer related shooting that that's something civil rights takes up. It depends on the circumstances.
- [27:25]
Interviewer/Host
Follow up on that.
- [27:26]
Todd Blanche
Can you just go ahead?
- [27:27]
Interviewer/Host
I know you can't be specific about details of the investigation, but can you kind of just characterize the scope of the Preddy investigation? What kinds of things that they'll be looking for and who will be involved?
- [27:38]
Todd Blanche
Well, I mean, it's an investigation. So what do we think we're looking at? We're looking at everything that would shed light on what happened that day and in the days and weeks leading up to what happened. And that's like any investigation that the Department of Justice and the FBI does every day. It means we're looking at videos, talking to witnesses, trying to understand what happened. I mean, you're talking about an incredibly tragic morning and then trying to unwind and investigate. Investigate. That is. It takes a lot of time. I'm not going to prejudice what they're doing or not doing by laying any, you know, any markers. But I expect that the folks that are doing this are the most experienced in this space and are doing that.
- [28:23]
Yan
Yeah.
- [28:23]
Interviewer/Host
So to follow up on that, how would a civil rights investigation work with DHS taking the lead, which is what was said over the weekend? And are prosecutors in Minnesota? I mean, who is involved in this? We know that there's a lot of frustration within the department, both in Minnesota and the Civil Rights Division, that they feel they are not being brought in and they are the experts here.
- [28:44]
Yan
So.
- [28:45]
Interviewer/Host
So just to follow up, how would this work with DHS taking the lead and who is from DOJ involved in this investigation?
- [28:52]
Todd Blanche
I don't think that. Look, I think anytime there's a. Every single federal agency, including dhs, as a process that they use, when there's something like this that happens, an internal review investigation, however you want to want to call it, that's what DHS was doing, as they do every single time something like this happened. There was nothing unique to these facts. There might have been outsized focus on it because of what happened, but DHS was doing an investigation. I don't know that that will stop. I don't expect that investigation to stop because we're investigating and of course, we're coordinating with them. There's nothing. We're not working against them or. But. But it's. It's a. It's. There's, I suppose, potentially separate goals or potential goals in the two investigations. I mean, DHS is conducting an investigation, and then the FBI conducts an investigation. It's not as if one goes one way and one goes the other, but they are their own. Their own investigations.
- [29:46]
Interviewer/Host
Very clearly said on Sunday that HCI is leading the investigation. He did not want to overstep and say anything. Was that not true anymore or was that true at the time?
- [29:56]
Todd Blanche
I don't think it's fair to say whether it's true anymore. Okay. And I don't think it's also, I don't want to say who's lead or not lead. I don't even really know what that means in the course of an investigation. There's. The FBI is investigating. They are for sure coordinating with Secretary Noem and her folks as well. And I expect DHS is also continuing their investigation to some extent. And there's outsized folks on this. This happens, like I said, thousands of times a year, and it is tragic every single time it happens. And it's tragic this time like it's tragic every other time. And so there is a process that has to be allowed to play out internally with these law enforcement organizations and certainly with the FBI as well, to allow this investigation to go on. You've talked about the expectations surrounding the Epstein files. Do you agree that the DoJ itself, senior officials at the DoJ, played up those expectations for the first half of this year? I'm just sort of trying to understand.
- [30:55]
Reporter
What responsibility does the Justice Department have for the criticism that has come over the handling of the Epstein files.
- [31:03]
Todd Blanche
I'm not commenting on criticism, people can criticize all they want. My point was just to make plain that when it comes to what we've been doing the past two months and why we weren't able to complete the review of over 6 million pages. Okay, so you're talking about two Eiffel towers of pages in 30 days in a way that made sure we complied with the act. Right. So the act had multiple requirements. Get it done in 30 days, and you better not release any victim information. So there's a lot of statutory construction, there's a lot of case law that exists that says that if those two are in conflict, we obviously are not violating the 30 day requirement by taking our time to comply with the act. And so my comments were directed at this idea that because we didn't review the six plus million pages within 30 days, somehow the Attorney General doesn't care about victims or is further doing damage to victims because of that. Because exactly the opposite is true when it comes to the Attorney General.
- [32:10]
Interviewer/Host
Sir, I have questions on Epstein and Minnesota. First on Minnesota, for transparency, would you commit to releasing the body cam video from federal officers that was involved in that shooting and their names at a point when the investigation can allow that? Will you make that public? And I did not hear clarity on whether Renee Good's case is also in a civil rights realm.
- [32:36]
Todd Blanche
I'm not committing to anything with respect to that investigation. That would be completely unfair to the investigation itself for me to stand here and, you know, commit to something for any reason. It just. It depends. It depends on what happens at the investigation. And that's a decision that we made by, by the folks that, that are. That are working the. The investigation as it relates to Ms. Good. I don't. Like I said before, there's investigations that happen all the time with respect to shootings like what happened last Saturday, and cases are handled differently by this department depending on the circumstances.
- [33:15]
Interviewer/Host
On Epstein. Sir, if I may just ask one on that, please. You mentioned a letter to Congress. How and to whom did you notify the White House about the production that you're announcing today before you came out and spoke to us?
- [33:28]
Todd Blanche
How did I do what?
- [33:29]
Interviewer/Host
Notify the White House? What was your interface with the White House? You said there's a letter to Congress. Who did you update at the White House about this?
- [33:37]
Todd Blanche
Well, I don't know. I don't really understand the question. You mean, who did I update? The White House?
- [33:42]
Reporter
Yeah.
- [33:42]
Interviewer/Host
Did you provide them an explanation of what today's release would be?
- [33:47]
Todd Blanche
Look, my team has certain communications with the White House. Let me just be clear. They had nothing to do with this review. They had no oversight over this review. They did not tell this department how to do our review, what to look for, what to redact, what to not redact. They absolutely knew that we were. I was doing this press conference today and that we were releasing the materials today. But there's not. There's no oversight by the White House into the process that we've undertaken over the past 60 days.
- [34:18]
Interviewer/Host
I wanted to ask a question about the evidence in the Alex Preddy investigation. Early on, our reporting showed that the only type of evidence that the FBI initially had in its possession, that it was processing for ballistics and DNA, et cetera, was Preddy's firearm. It did not have the firearm. The two firearms that were used to shoot Preddy, those were in the hands of hsi. And also there were concerns about chain of custody, things not being properly bagged and tagged, et cetera. Where are the guns now? Are they in the FBI's possession and being reviewed at one of their labs?
- [34:54]
Yan
And where.
- [34:54]
Interviewer/Host
Who has the phone that Preddy was using and filming, and is that going to be reviewed by the FBI?
- [34:59]
Todd Blanche
I don't know. I don't have an answer to those questions. Look, I think that there's. Secretary Noem is been clear with the American people, but also with the Department of Justice that we're doing this together, we're coordinating. And so I'm not following in the weeds about who actually has possession of the firearms that were discharged.
- [35:21]
Interviewer/Host
Would that be something the FBI would need in order to conduct a thorough investigation into a color of. This is obviously a color of luck.
- [35:27]
Todd Blanche
When I said I didn't know, I wasn't being critical of the question. I was just simply saying I don't know. On the Fulton county seizure of ballots, local officials there, election officials say those materials were set to become public by February 9th and that the Justice Department could have simply asked for them. Why was it necessary to conduct a search warrant? And do you expect the affidavit in that search warrant matter to become public anytime soon? Do you have any comment or explanation as to why that was necessary? Listen, I'm not going to comment on. It's a criminal investigation. I'm not. I will not comment on it. I will say that. That it should be no surprise to many of this room that or anybody watching that election integrity is extraordinarily important to this administration, always has been and always will be. And so the fact that President Trump and this administration are investigating to make sure. That. Well, are investigating issues around elections to make sure that we do have completely fair and appropriate elections should not be surprising. But I can't comment on any criminal investigations to follow up on that.
- [36:37]
Interviewer/Host
Regarding Fulton county, can you explain Tulsi Gabbard's role in doj? Could you please explain Tulsi Gabbard's role in DOJ activity regarding the Fulton county search?
- [36:47]
Todd Blanche
What do you mean, her role?
- [36:50]
Interviewer/Host
It was reported that she happened to.
- [36:53]
Todd Blanche
Be present in Atlanta. I mean, yes, I saw the same photos you did. I mean, she's not. She doesn't work for the Department of Justice or the FBI. She's an extraordinarily important part of this administration. This administration coordinates everything we do as a group. And so I think her presence shouldn't be there, shouldn't be questioned. Of course, that's a big part of her job. And so the fact that she was present in Atlanta that day, you know, is something that shouldn't surprise anybody.
- [37:25]
Interviewer/Host
Sean Maxwell.
- [37:27]
Todd Blanche
All right, just two more.
- [37:28]
Jan Jekielek
Go ahead.
- [37:29]
Yan
Just following up on that.
- [37:30]
Interviewer/Host
So are you saying that Gabbard's appearance in that area had nothing to do with the Justice Department action?
- [37:37]
Todd Blanche
I most certainly did not say that. No, I did not say that. I said that. Exactly the opposite. I said this administration works closely together in all kinds of different areas. And so I'm not sure if there's surprise that the administration is working together on things like election integrity. But if there is surprise, let me unequivocally state we are working together as an administration on election integrity type issues. And so that's all I can say about that. All right. One more can you clarify who at the Justice Department is involved in the Preddy investigation?
- [38:14]
Yan
Is it the Civil Rights division?
- [38:15]
Todd Blanche
Is it the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota? So the. I want to be careful about I want to choose words carefully about involved. Investigations like this are led by law enforcement. So that's the FBI. There's coordination with the civil rights with Harmeet Dillon's group, and there's trial attorneys there that have this is their lives. They've done this for decades. And so to the extent there's questions during an investigation that require a trial attorney to weigh in, or if you need a civil rights attorney to draft a search warrant or help with an investigative process, I expect the Civil Rights division here at Main justice will be part of that effort. But I don't want to overstate what's happening. I don't want the takeaway to be that there's some massive civil rights investigation that's happening. This is what I would describe as a standard investigation by the FBI. When there's circumstances like what we saw last Saturday and that that investigation, to the extent it needs to involve lawyers at the Civil Rights division, it will involve those. All right, thanks a lot, everybody. I appreciate merit the same kind of investigation.
- [39:31]
Interviewer/Host
Do you have comment on the career prosecutors that are resigning in Minneapolis?
- [39:42]
Jan Jekielek
Todd Blanche right there walking off the stage, the deputy attorney general we interview. It's noticeable that Pam Bondi and Cash Patel were not there. So they're going to release all everything that he said that meets the standard of the law that was passed by Congress. They sent a letter. They're going to send it, I guess, millions of pages of documents. I'm sure people are going to be asking millions of questions because they said they've redacted it for any of the victims and they're not putting out a list of victims. Says it doesn't exist. Anyway. I'm sure that's going to be highly controversial and you'll see how that plays out after it's delivered. It sounds like sometime today. Also, breaking news. We follow this pretty closely. I didn't realize DOJ and FBI were doing an investigation of the ICE officers around the Preddy shooting. Jan, hang on for one sec. John, let me ask you. You keep up with the news. Did you know that I got. Jack Bosobik's going to join us. An old China hand. Had you heard that there was an investigation of the shooting by FBI and doj?
- [40:39]
Yan
I hadn't heard that, actually.
- [40:41]
Jan Jekielek
No.
- [40:41]
Yan
That was new information. I think.
- [40:45]
Jan Jekielek
He acted. Jack Posobie's with us also. Jack, he handled that like. And I kind of like Todd Stahl. I know you don't, but I don't think he's snippy. I just think he handles the press pretty well. Did you know that there was a DOJ and FBI investigation in the shooting of Preddy and including the. And focused on the ICE officers as a civil.
- [41:08]
Steve Bannon
Well, Steve, that's something that I think is coming as news to a lot of people. And look, we know that the agents were put on leave. I believe it's Border Patrol, actually, not ice. And so people, that's, that's one of the big things there because there's sort of this, this jurisdictional turf, you know, kind of almost like a, like a turf scuffle between the two agencies there on the ground, the Border Patrol and ice. But the idea that there's a civil rights investigation, that's new. I Think to a lot of people that the looking at the situation. Of course, obviously anytime there's an officer involved shooting, we know that there's going to be an internal investigation. And that as he mentioned, would be Under Secretary Noem and the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security. But if there is an investigation into Alex Preddy, I certainly hope that that investigation would include his involvement in the signal groups, his involvement in these anti ICE antifa organizations such as ice. Watch this reporting that Mike Howell has over from the oversight project that he may have been one of these antifa spotters.
- [42:15]
Jan Jekielek
So are you're implying that you think there's enough evidence out there? There ought to be invested pretty ought to be investigated for his role in antifa or antifa affiliated organizations which TIFF.
- [42:27]
Steve Bannon
Has been designated showing up everywhere, everywhere Border Patrol is everywhere, the convoys are everywhere, everywhere that ICE is in Minneapolis, this guy just magically happens to be walking down the street. Does that really pass the smell test or does it make more sense that he was involved in these organizations that were targeting and creating the chaos, creating the disruption or as President Trump said yesterday, an agitator and perhaps an insurrectionist. Alex Preddy.
- [42:54]
Jan Jekielek
Yeah, he said his stock went way down. Also, before I go back to Jan about the book, I want you to hang on, if you hang on through the break. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the overall investigation of the stealing of the 2020 election, not the criminal part, the criminal part's being handled by the FBI and doj, but that the overall investigation to the stealing of the 2020 election is being handled by Tulsi Gabbard. He implied that. I thought he implied that she really wasn't having much to do with that there was some national security aspect to it. What is your read from how TODD AN.
- [43:35]
Steve Bannon
Well, so people have to understand that the way the department of the DNI works, the Director of National Intelligence, so the office of the department or the Director of National Intelligence is an umbrella compendium, overarching office. And the way that it works typically in the past has been, you know, when Clapper was running the place and with his buddy Brennan over at CIA, the way they ran it was pretty much just a rubber stand for whatever Barack Obama wanted. But, but now with Tulsi Gabbard coming in, she's come in and said wait a minute, we've got access here and authorities for access to information from every single one of the national security agencies. That includes what? That includes FBI, that includes DHS, and that includes cisa, which would be under the auspices of DHS as well. Homeland Security, because of the fact that election infrastructure was deemed a Homeland Security protected piece of infrastructure for our elections. So any of the reporting that was done in 2020 that came up through those channels, any of the censorship or perhaps anything else that was done electronically, shall we say, would fall under cisa. Remember, we were told again and again by, you know, the guy with the long hair with the mullet and the fun socks back in 2020, that it was the most secure election ever. The most secure election ever. Well, guess what? All of that information is now under the authority of Tulsi Gabbard.
- [45:05]
Jan Jekielek
Jack, hang on one second. The White House has just notified us they put the slave. So we may be going to the White House with either Caroline Levitt, maybe the President. So just everybody stick around.
- [45:16]
Todd Blanche
Jack, just one question.
- [45:17]
Jan Jekielek
The timing of Tulsi Gabbard's involvement and the degree that she went down there and spent more time than the. Really, the FBI agents or the senior FBI guys. Do you think any of that's related to Maduro? The Maduro being picked up and any information may be coming out of Venezuela has been such a hot button issue for the maga.
- [45:34]
Yan
Right.
- [45:36]
Steve Bannon
Look, Steve, I've heard that, you know, chatter as well as anyone. I haven't heard that officially from anyone at the dni. I will say, though, that, remember, Tulsi Gabbard set up the dig team over there at that, the, the directors Initiative Group. And their job was to go into all of these things, the censorship, the, the election, the integrity issues, all of these pieces. And she's talked about this at Cabinet meetings in the past. So not any direct ties to Maduro necessarily, that she said publicly, but she has publicly said. And there was that bombshell a couple of months ago. I was actually at the White House during that Cabinet meeting and had a brief moment, just chat with her afterwards, where she dropped the bombshell that said we have uncovered things about the 2020 election and, you know, didn't really follow up on that. I think we're now seeing the follow up.
- [46:29]
Jan Jekielek
Yeah, President Trump's applied to. Just hang on one second. We're going to go to the White House momentarily and I'm sure it's going to get picked up during the Charlie Kirk Show. They've notified us that they're going to come out and make some statements. Jan, let me go back. Peter Schweitzer's book is a number one bestseller, and the Warren Posse audience had a lot to do with that. This is about The Chinese Communist Party and the Mexican government's involvement. The subtitle is How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon. You have worked on your book for 20 years. Tell me about this. Because now we're coming forward and we are going to drive as hard as possible to make sure this book is a New York Times number one bestseller. Talk about your journey. You've worked on this for 20 years. You've done amazing interviews, epic times. You're American thought leaders. But to get down and take all the research. Cause this thing is as documented as Peter Schweitzer's. Talk to us about the journey. And why is this such a big component of your life? Over at Epoch Times you get so much stuff going on. You guys are the leading voice as a newspaper in content of the anti CCP movement. We would hope War Room will be equivalent to you as a streaming platform. But why have you turned your entire life over to doing this and exposing this?
- [47:45]
Yan
Well, this is crime yet to be seen on this planet. You know, to quote David Matis, who was one of the original researchers, describe this. You know, this is not your garden variety black market organ industry situation, okay? This is a thing. And I started talking about this yesterday. And of course the President. The President cut us off. It wasn't a bad way to go. This, you need a state actor to do this. You need to be able to push mass propaganda through a population and dehumanize a group of people. And you need to be able to incarcerate a huge number of those people, maybe a million or something like that. And this is what the CCP did to Falun Gong practitioners back in 1999 and 2000. When Jiang Zemin the dictator basically decided this peaceful movement based on truthfulness, compassion, forbearance was going to get wiped out, to use his words, eradicated. Okay? And they pushed, they, they made these people less than human through the propaganda. They put millions of them in prisons, in the laborers camps and everything else. And then they started blood typing, tissue typing, organ scanning them, okay? They created a database of their vitals. And now someone here in America or some other country basically could see an ad, and this happened many times and say, well, I need a new heart. I'm desperate for 200 grand. I can get it done in two weeks or less in communist China. Meaning that they knew when someone was going to die. And the reason they knew that was that they already had that person pre typed in prison, ready to go, ready to be killed to order. And that's why that's the name of the book, the title of the book, Killed to Order.
- [49:20]
Jan Jekielek
You're saying that they actually, once they knew what the demand side was, they could go back and create their own supply side. They would actually kill these people. The book is going to show us systematically. So there's no doubt that they could actually murder people. The state, the Chinese Communist Party, the state of China, not the Chinese people, but the state of China could actually kill people to order for their organs.
- [49:43]
Yan
And to monetize that well to our best knowledge. And there's a number of really incredible. I basically bring together all of the research that's been done over the last 20 years and some of it is unbelievable. I mean, I'll give you an example, Steve. 2022, American Journal of Transplantation, there's a paper titled, and I kid you not, okay, Execution by organ Procurement. They actually published that title in the American Journal of Transplantation. The researchers looked at the Chinese transplant literature. This is the public Chinese transplant literature that's available, okay, for anyone to look at. They found 71 instances of dead donor rule violations, very clear violations of the dead donor rule in the published public Chinese transplant literature. Basically, it's such a norm, we're talking 60 to 90,000 transplants a year. This is industrial scale, okay? It's such a norm over there. This is how the transplantation is done. There may be exceptions, I'm not saying the other, the ethical way does never happens, but it's happening at such a scale that they've kind of forgotten that you can't do dead donor. You can't do you know what the dead donor rule violation means? It means that the person is being killed by their organs being extracted. And in the published literature there's at least 70 instances of that. And that is not by no means a comprehensive look at the literature. It's crazy.
- [51:00]
Jan Jekielek
Okay, the books order to kill where they go for your website to push this book where they go to order today it's on pre order. When's the release date?
- [51:10]
Yan
So Release date is March 17th. We're hoping to do a big thing here in Washington D.C. around that. The URL to go to is killedtoorder.com killedtoorder.com that'll take you right to the Amazon link. And I want to encourage you to pre order. Steve, I really appreciate your endorsement for this. I mean you even said in that endorsement, you said, you know, this is going to shock you and this is going to, you're going to want to go pray after this. Whenever I Think about it. I feel the same. So anyway, thank you for giving this an audience because for decades. Okay. I've worked for this, on this for 20 years. For the longest time, it was just very hard to even talk about it because the human mind does not want to believe that such things are possible. Such extreme violations of human dignity are even possible today. Somehow there was a survivor. I talk about all that in the book. There's amazingly a survivor. And also, I think the COVID years also showed us some of the depravities that are possible. I think we're finally as a collective consciousness society, ready to face this issue and understand. And this is the bigger part of the book, in a sense, that this is how Communist China works and we have to understand this and then we'll know how to deal with them in a more reasonable way. The communists, I'm talking about not.
- [52:24]
Jan Jekielek
Give me one minute.
- [52:24]
Yan
I always want to highlight.
- [52:27]
Jan Jekielek
Yeah, I want to go to Jack about the ccp, but give me one minute. On your summary you gave about this, put the power movement of Xi in the, in the military staff because we're a unique opportunity to get Jack Besobuk, naval intelligence officer, to comment. What, what is your thought on this?
- [52:43]
Yan
Well, look, the bottom line is, you know, there was a kind of a. Not a coup, but basically the military took a lot of control back from Xi last year. Right. Now what's happened with this top military general being deposed, okay, Being investigated is basically Xi having taken back his power. Okay. The problem is that to do that, he basically destroyed all semblance of rule structure in the system. And he's actually basically in a way crippled the CCP's, especially the military's ability to respond right now. So it's like, it's also creates a bit of instability. So we don't know exactly how this is going to play out, but this is a once in a decade, perhaps one in a generation shift and, you know, a lot of chaos going on there right now.
- [53:28]
Jan Jekielek
Jack, your thoughts on this? We haven't had a chance to cover this. Your thoughts on that topic?
- [53:33]
Steve Bannon
Yeah, look, Steve, you know, I'm one of these guys who, as a China hand, I take a bit of a contrarian position to sort of the Gordon Chang and some of the other analysts out there. I'm, I'm Long Xi Jinping. You know, this guy has had a remarkable ability over the last 15 years or so to be able to take out his rivals. He's been doing so since he got rid of Boshi Lai and The mayor of Chongqing and his wife, by the way, who was his main rival for the presidency early on, and the chairmanship of the ccp. He's been able to do this left and right to all of his rivals. And so, you know, look, the communists are conducting another purge. This is exactly what we see in communist systems, in communist regimes doesn't mean there's instability, sure, for a period, but she has been able and shown this remarkable resiliency to be able to weather these storms and bend the party to his will like no chairman that we've seen since the days of Mao Zedong himself.
- [54:31]
Jan Jekielek
I agree. Is, is it, is this foreshadow that he's getting his team in place and getting rid of the guys that he doesn't think to do it for the invasion of Taiwan? Give me a minute on that perhaps.
- [54:42]
Steve Bannon
You know, I think that, I still think that, of course that Xi Jinping's policy is of course, to absorb Taiwan through osmosis, cut them off from the rest of the world, culturally, militarily, economically, and then absorb them long, long frame over time, rather than a direct invasion like we saw with Russia and Ukraine or any of these other U.S. and Venezuela, this type of thing. That being said, if he actually felt like he was threatened, then you would see that.
- [55:12]
Jan Jekielek
Jack, you're back up at 2. We got the Charlie Kirk show next. You're back up at 2. We're going to go to the White House here on Real America's Voice Momentari. What's your social media. People can follow you.
- [55:21]
Steve Bannon
I do want to do that. We're at Jack with Sobic, Human Events Daily. Breaking news though, you mentioned about Tulsi. She just announced she's making a surprise appearance at. Wait for it, Washington D.C. the winter meeting of the national association of the Secretaries of State. So all the state election officials are meeting in Washington D.C. today. Tulsi Gabbard just announced that she's showing up as well.
- [55:49]
Jan Jekielek
Oh my Lord. Okay, this thing's, this thing's really getting serious now, Jack. Thank you so much, Jan. Social media. Where do people go on Twitter?
- [55:57]
Yan
Kellek @J A N J E K I E L E K. That's, that's my Polish ancestry. That's my Polish anti communist ancestry. And go to killedtoorder.com. that'll give you the link to the book and yeah, let's blow this out of the water. This is an amazing opportunity.
- [56:17]
Jan Jekielek
Let's do it. I had two Polish. I had the two top Polish anti CCP guys. It's all gonna be good. Thank you, sir.
- [56:22]
Steve Bannon
Appreciate you.
- [56:23]
Jan Jekielek
Mike Lindell Tulsi Gabbard is we've been told now is overseeing the investigation to the stolen election. Cash is doing the criminal. Jack Bassoba just broke news she's gonna there's secretaries of state are meeting today. You're running for governor. You're the leading voice in stolen elections. What does that mean to you, sir?
- [56:45]
Mike Lindell
This is awesome. It's a day I've waited for for a long time, Steve. And this is all. There's only one truth. And it's all going to come out and we need to secure our elections. And all of our efforts over the last five years are going to come to fruition, everybody. We're going to go from having the worst election platforms in the world to the best.
- [57:04]
Jan Jekielek
We got 45 seconds to sell me a mattress and a topper.
- [57:08]
Todd Blanche
Hit it, you guys.
- [57:09]
Mike Lindell
This has been our biggest sale. The most that you guys have responded the most ever for this sale because it is the best sale ever. This is our mattress. Toppers and mattresses made in the usa. They help you get the best sleep of your life. I helped design them. Just the Queen alone has over 10,000 comfort supports as low as 99.90. Free shipping right to your front door. Six month money back guarantee and a 10 year warranty. Go to mypillow.com forward/war room and take check it out. We have over 200 products now, you guys and they you get them all shipped for free today.
- [57:46]
Interviewer/Host
Promo code War room.
- [57:47]
Mike Lindell
Call my operators 800-873-1062. I'm heading downstairs right now. I love taking your call. Called promo code war room. Free shipping.
- [57:59]
Jan Jekielek
The Charlie Kirk show is next. We're going to the White House. Jack the Soviet 2. We're back at 5.
- [58:04]
Steve Bannon
This is an I heart podcast.
- [58:07]
Interviewer/Host
Guaranteed human.