Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hi. So yesterday was a big day. Todd Blanche, the Acting Attorney General of the United States, produced to Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan in the District Court in D.C. produced unredacted emails and documents for purposes of a in camera or an in chambers review. I'm not allowed to be there. It's something for the judge to be able to do on his own. It is pursuant to an order that was entered on July 25, 2026 that we've covered here at Katie Fang News. This order was specific, excuse me, about the bait stamp documents that were to be submitted and ACcompanying those unredacted Batestamp documents, Todd Blanche was to provide documentation supporting his representations that the redactions that were done were compliant with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. That's really an important, nuanced kind of detail that we're going to talk about in just a minute because as we sit here right now, Friday, July 31, 2026, Todd Blanche continues to violate the Epstein Files Transparency Act. I also want to say at the get go the following. There's been some, I'll call it chatter on social media and beyond, maybe Internet, that I am doing something that's running afoul of protecting the confidentiality and the privacy of, frankly, any abuse survivor, but specifically survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, Glenn Maxwell and others. It is one of the most offensive suggestions to make to me or about me. If. If you've done so, you don't know me. If you've done so, you haven't been following my work. This is not the pursuit of money on my behalf. This is not the pursuit of anything but the ability to achieve accountability and justice. I spent a good portion of my career as a lawyer, as a prosecutor. I believe in the rule of law. I believe in our judicial system. I have made that explicitly clear from day one here, not only at Katie Fang News, but before when I was at msnbc, and before then when I was doing legal analysis, and before then and even now, as I am presently a member of the Florida Bar and other jurisdictions, I'm very serious about the work that I am doing. I have no desire to abuse, exploit, or do anything to harm any survivor or victim. So the idea that I am pursuing that in any way is. Is, for lack of a better word, bullshit. So if you hear it, put it to bed. Help me tamp it down. Because if you know me, you know it's not about me. All righty. So let's talk about the notice of compliance that was filed yesterday on July 30. It cites that hand Delivery was made of the ordered documents at 2:28pm Eastern on July 30. And according to Todd Blanche's representations, the submitted documents show that the justifications that were cited in his briefing. And what is he referencing? He's referencing this. His response to the order to show cause. Blanche says that the submitted documents show that those justifications cited in this document support each redaction. Let's take a minute. What is still not produced? The redaction log that the Epstein Files Transparency act requires by law for the Attorney General to submit in addition to the summary of redactions and withholds that Toblanch seems to think covers all bases. He's wrong on the law. Judge Sullivan granted the redaction log as a part of my preliminary injunction. And as we sit here today on July 31, still no redaction log. Remember that. But thank you, Todd, for laboring so fucking hard. Okay? To support each redaction with an explanation like you were supposed to do for all of the redactions. But okay, now let's start with the first. The first document. EFTA 00749245. I want to do this with you. I think it's important to go through these emails. This is the I loved the torture video email. This is the email that Todd Blanche wanted to say that if I had just googled it, I would have found out that it's Sultan Bin Sulayem. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. I don't have to trust Tom Blanche. I don't even have to trust Tom Massey's word for it. I don't have to trust anybody's word for it. I get to see the unredacted email. As I've said before, there is no trust me, bro exemption in the Epstein Files Transparency act that gives Todd Blanche cover to continuously violate not only the law, but Judge Sullivan's order. Now, the email address and name remain redacted. This was provided to Judge Sullivan yesterday unredacted, with the name and the email address unredacted. What does Todd say? Todd says that the in camera documents show that the redacted text contains only emails address that are consistent with the government's briefing. That's not even English. Number one, it's grammatically wrong. But number two, his briefing, as I've said, says that when it pertains to the torture video email, as we are calling this, he says, well, it's a private email address and there's no purpose beyond sharing that private email address. Oh, I beg to differ. Todd, the email is to show one, a potential perpetrator of crimes against the survivors of Epstein, Maxwell and others. Two, I'm not supposed to give quarter to somebody who loves torture videos. Let me be clear top Blanche, by insisting on maintaining the redaction of the sender of this email about their love of torture videos. Tom Blanche, as the acting Attorney General of the United States is saying that if you love torture videos that you have a safe space with him and by extension the Trump Department of Justice. I want you to sit on that for a hot second because that is one of the most offensive things that anyone could say, let alone somebody who wants to be the top cop of our country. But Todd wants to spare the exposure of a private email address for somebody who loves torture videos. Why, Todd? Because the Epstein files transparency act explicitly states you are not allowed to do redactions or withholdings to spare somebody embarrassment, shame or any type of political humiliation. And yet Todd seems to think that that is a priority. So that's this email next efta1187999. That is email chain dated January 17, 2013 from somebody working at the Mademoiselle agency, which again, if you go and you Google that is a modeling agency in Paris, France. According to Tom Blanche, the names that have been redacted and email addresses are victims that are represented by counsel. Now why is this one so important? EFTA 1187 999. Well, Blanche says that the victims in this email are represented by counsel and have requested that the individuals whose names and email addresses appear in this particular document that they want to be, quote, treated as a victim, end quote. Todd also references something called an attorney review protocol for Epstein files dated January 4, 2026. Let's take one minute to go over that because that's a very important thing that we should talk about. So this memorandum is dated January 4, 2026. I'm going to do an entirely separate episode about this memorandum because it's worth detailing. But I want to highlight in this memorandum, the subject heading is attorney review protocol for Epstein files. What Todd Blanch has done in order to, for example, protect the name and email address of the torture video lover and in order to also protect the the names and the email addresses of the people in the Mamozel modeling agency. Email is the following. So in this memorandum, what he did was he said that victims personal identification, identifying information includes email addresses. Okay, fine, that's okay. But if you go to the beginning of the protocol, he says that what they're defining as victims now is not just victims that have been identified through investigations, but individuals who have identified themselves as victims or potential victims either through prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell as well as all individuals who have self identified as well as those that have been identified and that have reported to the Department of Justice as being potential victims of state or federal offenses or other claims of sexual exploitation or misconduct by Epstein or Maxwell. So what Todd Blanche has done has taken a non existent definition of victim and expanded it to include victims, potential victims and people that arguably, arguably were co conspirators, co defendants and co perpetrators of abuse to allow them to self identify as victims. As such, their identities have been redacted. I think it merits a conversation and I want to be able to talk about it in the interest of time. I do think we should probably talk about it at another time. But I wanted you to understand why this information will continue to remain redacted based upon how the victims have been identified in the withholding and redactions here. So that's for EFTA 1187999. Now let's move on. Let's go to EFTA 1930501. Again, according to Todd Blanche, the sender of this email is a victim represented by counsel and that counsel has requested that the individual be treated as a victim and that's why that information is not unredacted. EFTA 1928255. Now that is another email where within it the redacted text are the identities of victims, plural who are represented by council and they have requested that these individuals be treated as victims. Now this one is the long soft blonde hair beautiful little girl one and the one before the 1930501. My apologies that I didn't address this. This is the your littlest girl was a little naughty. Now this is why there is already a conversation about whether it is appropriate to allow those names of people that were helping allegedly Jeffrey Epstein and others to be able to recruit, to groom, to be able to participate in these offenses. Whether it is okay to allow them to have their identities remain unredacted. Again conversation. Excuse me, redacted again conversation for another time. But but I want you to understand the context of what is happening here. EFTA 628112 now this is another one that really upsets me. This is the email dated 02.02.2015 sent from a redacted sender that talks about being called a sexual pervert is no fun. The key are the 14 to 15 year old girls, I am a sexual pervert because I say that they are now of reproductive age. According to Todd Blanche, the Privacy act allows this person's identity to remain confidential. And according to the attorney review protocol for Epstein files, Tob Blanche said that the Privacy act allows identities of people like this person, their email addresses to remain confidential. So once again the Acting Attorney General of the United States wants somebody who thinks it is okay to have sex with 14 and 15 year old girls because they are quote now of reproductive age. He wants this person's identity to remain confidential from you. So because he wants to keep keep their private email address not released. Why Todd? Why are you protecting this person? They're not a victim. But according to you it would be a shame that their private email address be exposed. I think it's a shame if you don't expose somebody who thinks that it's okay to have sex with a 14 and 15 year old girl. Alrighty. EFTA 264-8868. Again Todd Blanche says that the redacted text. This is the. She is like Lolita from Nabokoff. Tomorrow we travel to burn for visas. Visas for What? Modeling. Modeling visas. May 23, 2017. This person is represented by counsel and claims that this person is a victim and that's why their Identity is redacted. EFTA 2504630 March 19, 2018 Sender is redacted. I found at least three very good. Young, poor, but we was so tired. The sender is a victim represented by council. I will cover up this week. Meet this one. Not the beauty queen, but we both likes her a lot. Is this a recruiting email? Is this somebody who is out working for Epstein trying to find find other victims? Is that what's happening here? Let's go to EFTA now. 1022356 email chain dated September 21, 2018. According to Todd Blanche, the names and the email addresses pertain to two victims. The recipient of the email is a potential victim and the name in the email that is redacted is the potential victim. Talking about my favorite from Lithuania. Redacted. 19 will meet when I am there. Again, according to Todd Blanche, because they are represented by counsel or potential victims, their names are not going to be unredacted. But what are they doing for Jeffrey Epstein is the question. Moving on. EFTA 000-38-227. Now this is another one. The email addresses, sender and recipient. These are law enforcement personnel and according to Todd Blanche Use you should be protecting the identity of law enforcement personnel. Again, that is not in the Epstein files transparency act, but that is in this attorney protocol that the DOJ generated. Why are we protecting the names of government employees? Why? Why is that? What's also not addressed here is that the redactions that are here that are identified as co, co conspirators, their names are redacted. But Galen Maxwell and Leslie Grof, their names are not. And according to Todd in his response to the order show cause Leslie Grof has not asked to be identified as a victim and that's why her name is made available and EFTA 194840. I didn't print it out. It is the draft indictment that was Prepared by the U.S. attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida. And the one that was never presented and the one that eventually was, was what resulted the non prosecution agreement that benefited Jeffrey Epstein and his co conspirators and then he got that bullshit sweetheart plea deal. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That one according to Tom Blanche shows that the co defendants are actually represented by counsel who have asked that the co defendants be treated as victims. Again, having issues. But I want to go back to 1-187-999. This is the Mademoiselle Model Agency 1. And the reason why I want to go back to this one is there's something very important that happened with this email. Todd Blanche admitted in his filing yesterday that Jeffrey Epstein's email address was redacted. He calls it an inadvertent redaction but it's been redacted and has since been lifted. Now you may not think that's a big deal, but I think it's a very, very, very big deal. And in fact that is the biggest red flag that you could find from what has happened here. Putting aside all the other stuff, why? Because it shows that the way that the redactions were done here was wrong. This wasn't some one off mistake. We know for a fact that the Department of Justice released over and over again hundreds and hundreds of times the personal identifying information of several victims. Victims whose names have been submitted on a list to the doj. People like Danny Bensky. We know that the process was flawed. We know that it didn't work. And now we know that it also worked to protect the identity of Jeffrey Epstein, the main perpetrator of of these crimes that we are focusing on right now. And the DOJs want to say, oops, sorry we missed it. There's something flawed with the process and that is what A special master needs to get to the bottom of because this folks, is just a small subset of the millions of documents that have been publicly released in addition to those that are being squat on by Todd Blanche. There is so much more work that needs to be done, but I am thrilled that we have made it this far together. The hands of it's now in the hands of Judge Sullivan. He has to review the unredacted stuff, review the supporting documentation that was allegedly provided, because I kind of have an issue with that. The submitted documents show the justifications cited in the defendant's briefing support each redaction. Now, I'm curious, did Todd also submit the correspondence from the lawyers that are representing the alleged victims to show that they asked to be identified as victims? Because it doesn't say that here. And according to the order from Judge Sullivan, Blanche was supposed to bring with him proof that these redactions were appropriate, not just a hey, here's an unredacted email. And hey, I'm just letting you know that these people are represented by counsel. And so there's a lot of open ended questions that still remain, including where's the redaction log? Where are the foreign language translations? And where are the handwritten FBI interview notes for those four interviews that were done of the victim who was 13 years old when she alleged that she was abused sexually and physically by convicted felon Donald Trump? Where are those? Still remain open? I am still forging ahead. But again, look how far we have made it. Look how far we have come. This is just a preliminary injunction, people. This is not even my entire lawsuit which seeks all of the files to be released with appropriate redactions. We are chipping away, chipping away at the opaque just bullshit block of this black box that the DOJ thinks is okay, but it's not because it's illegal. And we're not gonna take it. So much more to unpack. I'll do more episodes. But in the meantime, thank you from the bottom of my heart, thank you for the support, for the caring, for the words of encouragement. There is nothing that keeps me going. More so than knowing that we are in this fight together. And as always, a shout out to my amazing lawyers, Brendan Malou and Sam Ward Packer at Public Integrity Project. I couldn't do this without them. Just like I couldn't do this without you. Be mad, be outraged. Demand accountability. I'm off to rattle some more top Blanche cages. Katie Feng here. We launched the Katie Fang News Channel in partnership with the Midas Touch Network. So we could bring you the latest in legal and political news. Straight, no chaser. So if you're a fellow truth teller, hit that subscribe button and share the word about this channel so we can build a high information America together.