Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:01]
A
It's time for a sidebar. Live with me, Katie Fang. Welcome to the Katie Fang News Channel. If you're new here, I have to ask, like and subscribe because what we tackle here are going beyond the headlines to give you a little bit more information than what you're seeing. I am so excited to be able to launch today's show, to be able to do a deeper dive on my lawsuit against Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. I see your comments on social media, I read them, and I see what you're posting here on YouTube. And I, you know, wanted to make sure that I'm able to not only answer your questions, but then I'm able to really kind of go behind the curtains and let you understand why. Why we're doing things the way that we're doing in this lawsuit. If there's anything that we're making sure that we're chasing down here, it's the truth, and it's justice, it's transparency, and it's to not only help me do my job as an independent journalist so I can be a better reporter for all of you that are tuning in now, but it's also to make sure that we have justice and accountability for the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, Galen Maxwell, and others. As you also know, my research and my investigation has brought me overseas to be able to look into Jeffrey Epstein's ties to France and to other foreign countries, to be able to dive deeper into the world of international modeling and to look at serial predators like Gerald Marie and others that use the world of modeling, to be able to give them some measure of COVID to be able to do the abuse, the transporting of young women, if not children, across international borders, to be able to lure them with promises of lucrative, amazing careers as models, to take them out of their homes in other countries, bring them into a place where you put them up, as Jeffrey Epstein and Gerald Marie did, in apartments that they owned and that they controlled, and they gave you the visas and they controlled your. Your food and your money and everything about your life so that you had no autonomy. Imagine having that happen to you when you're less than 18 years of age and how scared you are and what you had to go through. And then imagine being trafficked to other sick individuals who were a part of this trafficking ring. I heard, and it makes sense. The other day during Todd Blanche's Senate confirmation hearing, who do you traffic people to? If you're being charged with trafficking, you don't traffic them to yourselves. You're not being prosecuted for that. There are other people that are involved, and yet as we sit here today, it' just Jeffrey Epstein and Gillette Maxwell. So without further ado, I have an exciting special guest that I had previewed for you, and that is my incredible lawyer from the Public Integrity Project, Brendan Ballou. He and Sam Ward Packard have been doing the Lord's work, as I like to say, really just kicking ass and being true defenders of democracy and making sure that my lawsuit is stewarded and guided in the right hand. So, Brendan, and this is a first, by the way, so this is definitely breaking news. Exclusive. I've never interviewed you as my lawyer, so welcome Brendan Ballou to Sidebar with Katie Fang.
- [03:30]
B
Thanks so much for having me.
- [03:31]
A
Brendan, let's start with whatever the heck we got from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch late yesterday. It's not Even, it says five pages, Brendan, the top, but let's be honest. But there is a lot of white on that first page. Let's dispel this misapprehension. If somebody has it, there's no requirement that they only put the title of their filing on the first page and then nothing else, right?
- [03:58]
B
No, this felt real like undergrad padding, the margin sort of situation. It was five pages, and that included the COVID page and the service of process page. And then the last page was a half page. It was like two and a half pages, a little, a little short.
- [04:11]
A
I think it's a little generous to spot them to have. But what was the purpose, Brendan, for this filing? I know it was court ordered. Everybody who's tuning in understands it was court ordered by Judge Sullivan to happen by July 20th. But why, why was Blanche having to file this necessarily?
- [04:30]
B
Yeah. So let's start from the beginning here. You know, as. As you certainly know, but as probably most of your viewers know, too, you know, we move for a preliminary injunction saying that there are certain things that the government obviously didn't do in complying with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. They just didn't produce a bunch of documents they were supposed to. And so we filed a motion saying, look, Judge, it's obvious that the government needs to comply here. The judge agreed. Then the government just failed to follow the court order. Instead, they issued something called a response to the order, which, I mean, Katie's a lawyer too, you know, that you don't really respond to a court order. You comply with one. And the judge, I think, was frankly, kind of flummoxed by the response and so asked both sides, well, what am I supposed to do? Functionally, he didn't phrase it this way, but functionally with the government's non compliance. So we responded and said, you know, among other things, they need to produce the foreign language documents that they never did. They need to produce the redaction log that they never produced. They need to allow the judge to review various documents that they're review, refusing to produce. So far, that's what we asked for. Then we got this response from the government late last night, and it really seems like something that they threw together, wrote in one sitting and didn't even, I don't want to be too unkind, but didn't even really seem to know what they were arguing. They at various points sort of said, well, we're complying with the law, but didn't really get into how or why. They didn't address most of our substantive arguments. I'll say, you know, this document is signed by Stanley Woodward, who's the Associate Attorney General of the number three attorney in the Department of Justice. I think the fact that this was written the way it was, as fast as it was and as short as it was, tells us that Stanley Woodward is doing his own lawyer in here.
- [06:11]
A
Well, Brendan, here's the other thing. They had seven days to be able to write something. They filed it late last night. They, in theory, because there was no time that was given in the order from Judge Sullivan, had until 11:59pm Eastern to be able to do it. But it seems like it was just cobbled together. It didn't really seem to have a lot of thought. But I would say for the first time in the litigation, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, especially because you're my lawyer, it seemed a little personal. Like I felt like it was a little bit, I called it bitchy, but I think that that's what they were trying to say is what I was doing. It was a little misogynistic. They made me sound like I was some hysterical female. They said I was hyperbolic and they said I was outlandish. I mean, there were some other adjectives. And listen, I understood that they we're trying to attribute it to the filings that I, that we have done together, Brendan, but it seemed a little personal.
- [07:03]
B
It, the tone was, and I, you know, I'll be diplomatic here, was less than ideal. And, and you know, I think that the, the set this suggests to me, you know, again, based on the tone that they took, based on how short it was, based on how, you know, relatively late they found they could have filed earlier and, and really Fleshed out their arguments really suggests to me that the line level attorneys, the career folks, are just no longer involved in this case whatsoever. So when this case began, there was what was called the line level AUSA Assistant United States Attorney, who did the initial opposition in our case. That person's no longer signing these briefs. And so I think that is to our advantage because I think, frankly, the political folks are less experienced in this stuff than the career folks are. But I also think, you know, to go back to your point about tone, perhaps the reason that they're using this tone is because this is going to the very highest levels of the Department of Justice, maybe in the Trump administration as a whole. This is a case they care about a lot. And I think, for better or worse, we see that in the way that they're approaching it.
- [08:11]
A
And I think they care about it because we saw the removal of the line prosecutor, as you referred to them, and the replacement with Stanley Woodward, after Judge Sullivan granted the motion for preliminary injunct and entered his order compelling Todd Blanche to have to comply with the specific five areas. And so I wanted to really kind of tick tock quickly through those five areas because, Brendan, I think it's really important to refresh people's recollection as to what we were seeking in the motion for preliminary injunction. The bigger lawsuit that we've brought is to seek the entirety of the Epstein files, not just the ones that have been produced thus far by the DOJ with the illegal redactions and withholdings, but even the ones that Blanche is squatting on. As I say, we know that he admits that he's sitting on them, but in the immediate sense, this preliminary injunction was done to be able to facilitate and kind of hurry up the ability for me to do my job as an investigative journalist. And the, the. Let's start with the last two areas that we had identified, because I think those are the biggest, most egregious ones. Brendan. And it kind of dovetails with how I started today's episode. There were supposed to be foreign language translations done. There was no exception in the law that told them that they didn't have to do it. We've told Judge Sullivan that Todd Blanche hasn't done it. Tom Blanche said it wasn't practicable, so that's why they didn't do it. But, But Sullivan never gave Blanche the option to explain why he didn't do it. Sullivan told him, you just have to start translating.
- [09:44]
B
Yep. No, no, Judge Sullivan didn't give them the opportunity to do otherwise. And they didn't follow the order here. It was pretty clear. And you know, just to be clear, you know, so the law said produce all the relevant documents that, you know, includes non English language documents for an investigation that spanned multiple decades in countries, seems likely that those documents would be interesting. The government's answer for why they weren't following the law here was, well, we like, as you said, they said it wasn't practicable. We told Congress that and then Congress didn't do anything. And that's not really how any law works. You know, just because you announce that you're not going to follow the law doesn't mean that you don't have to follow it. You know, if I told somebody, hey, I'm going to rob this bodega and then I do it, just because I announced it in advance didn't make it legal. So, you know, it was kind of astounding actually, that that was the argument that they, that they took maybe to jump ahead just a little bit. You know, the other thing that we're, we're talking about is this redaction log.
- [10:42]
A
Yes, please, that's important, very important.
- [10:45]
B
And I think this is, this is really crucial. So, you know, hundreds of thousands of pages were redacted in full or in part. The law said you have to explain every redaction. There is a separate requirement to provide a summary of the redactions, explain the general categories that you redacted. They did produce a five page summary, but there is a separate section in the law saying that you have to individually explain every redaction. The government failed to do that. And the court said you need to either produce this redaction log or explain why you won't. And they both didn't produce it and didn't really explain why. I suspect it's because the redaction log doesn't exist. I imagine they did this and then didn't really track their work. But that just sort of speaks to the general slapdash nature of how they approach this entire project to try to rush through it. Not doing it with any level of care, not doing it with any level of sensitivity to the victims. And it just sort of emphasizes why this log is going to be so important to get.
- [11:40]
A
One of the other areas that we successfully got the judge to agree with us for them to produce are the four handwritten interview the sets of notes done by the FBI agents that sat with an alleged victim of Donald Trump himself. She alleges that at the age of 13 she was sexually abused and physically Abused by Donald Trump. There are handwritten notes. Todd Blanche's excuse was it's too hard to redact handwritten notes, even though we've seen them in the files thus far being produced. And he said, you run the risk of releasing or exposing private confidential information about victims. And so we're not going to do it because it's not only too hard, but we don't want to do that because we don't want to run afoul of the law. I mean, Brendan, it being too hard is not an excuse, last I checked, not only under the law, but it's certainly not an excuse under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
- [12:38]
B
Absolutely. And, you know, it's undercut by the general fact that they have allegedly revealed the identities of hundreds or, you know, 100 or more Epstein victims in documents that they were supposed to redact. So it doesn't seem like they're approaching this with a great deal of care. Why are they just especially focused on these documents that reference Donald Trump? You know, and to go back to your earlier point, this is a preliminary injunction. This is just a partial, you know, solution that we're seeking here. We're seeking a much broader resolution ultimately to release all the relevant files. You know, there's been all sorts of reporting about the shenanigans that the administration's taken around. Any documents related to Donald Trump, as you've noted before, allegations that they potentially are tracking all documents that relate to the president, potentially redacting documents and so forth. So I think the fight over these handwritten notes are a microcosm of the larger fight that we're gonna have to have in order to release the documents wholly that relate to Donald Trump.
- [13:38]
A
The last two areas, Brendan, I have now kind of said that they're covered by the trust me, bro excuse that Todd Blanche has been using, which is, Judge, trust me, bro, I have redacted them in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency act. Because I. He's trying to be like the white knight, right on the horse, flying in. I'm protecting the victims because what Ms. Fang wants is for me to sit there and expose the victims and their privacy. And so you can just trust me, Judge, I don't have to reveal names or email addresses because that would violate people's privacy, number one. And number two, they may not be victims, but under the Privacy act, they are not allowed. They're not supposed to have their information put out there. Last I checked, Brendan, the Epstein Files Transparency act did not have an exception or an exemption to protect people's Privacy when it comes to their email addresses. I mean, literally, Todd Blanche is protecting the identities of some people that the emails suggest were either co conspirators, perpetrators of crimes themselves, including a sultan. And I'm just supposed to trust that somebody else has seen that name and that means that that's true?
- [14:55]
B
Yeah. You know, the Sultan example that you give, you know, this is a conversation with Jeffrey Epstein about a torture video, and the government is refusing to reveal that identity or that email, which is pretty extraordinary. You know, I think it was so disappointing at so many levels that after we filed our brief, after they filed the opposition, after they lost on the preliminary injunction, then they issued a public statement about how this would require revealing victim identities, an argument that they had not, to my knowledge, made at any point in a litigation before then. And I think that's manipulative to throw this out in the public but not make that argument in court. And I think it, you know, for somebody like me who used to work at the Department of Justice, it's just heartbreaking to see DOJ really become the same institution in name only. I can't imagine Department of Justice and a prior administration refusing to make an argument in court, but then making it in public. But that's exactly what they're doing now. I think it speaks to a lack of respect to the victims, and I think it speaks to a lack of respect of the court.
- [15:57]
A
Well, the fish rots from the head down, Brendan. And we know, because I interviewed sky and Amanda Roberts yesterday that when they met with Todd Blanche last week, because Thom Tillis said meet with the victims and the surviv. Tom Blanche was dismissive and rude. He was disrespectful. He cut them off when they were speaking. And he said, I can't just investigate people. I need leads. And leads, in his mind, was evidence, corroboration, sworn testimony, and others. I mean, pretty much Tom Blanche said, I want a fully presented case file given to me until I'm willing to do anything at DOJ in my mind. And you can tell me if I'm wrong. Because you worked as a DOJ prosecutor just very recently, Brendan, you prosecuted January 6th insurrectionists. I mean, is it the responsibility for victims to come with a fully packaged envelope with evidence and more sworn testimony? And when was it required for there to be independent corroboration? Always for there to be the investigation, frankly, there's enough there with 3 million plus documents, Brendan. There's names there. We see that there's also corroboration. But since when did you need corroboration to be able to even investigate perpetrators.
- [17:14]
B
Yeah, I mean, the question answers itself. And I think it speaks to how Blanche and the Department of Justice generally have been treating this. I think they think of the Epstein survivors as a problem to be solved rather than as witnesses to a crime that needs to be investigated. And I think it speaks to the general perspective that the Department of Justice has overall, which is, in general, it seems that they are advocates for the very powerful and making sure that powerful, powerful people and institutions in every form are treated differently under the law than the rest of us. You know, you think, you know, go back to Stanley Woodward, you know, who is personally litigating our case. It appears, you know, there's public reporting saying that he doesn't think that there should be so many prosecutions of corporations. You know, you think about Todd Blanche, who admits that he oversaw the deal to approve Paramount's acquisition of Warner Brothers. You know, this profoundly allegedly corrupt acquisition that's going on. I mean, just in area after area after area, this is a Department of justice that is really interested in protecting defendants, especially powerful defendants, rather than going after them as criminals.
- [18:24]
A
Brendan, let's bring this thing home. Now that we filed what we did last week, Monday, now that Todd Blanche has filed what he has filed on July 20, we can reasonably expect something from the judge. Right? That's not. The case moves forward. That's the great thing about our lawsuit. The reason why we haven't seen anything before is because there's never been litigation until we brought this case. It still remains the only, only case that has been brought pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act. So the case is surviving, it's alive, it's going, we're p. Finishing it. Should we expect something from the judge to kind of address the failures and the non compliance from Todd Blanche?
- [19:07]
B
Exactly. You know, and, and it's in the judge's literal court now. And we'll see how. How he rules. I think he's been very fair, very understanding and very prompt in issuing decisions here, which we're enormously grateful for. So, you know, I'm hopeful that we're going to get an answer pretty soon. A reaction to how DOJ has been handling this. You know, I think the Department of Justice's posture here is delay, delay, delay. You know, anything that they can do to slow this down gives them another day where they don't have to produce these files. And so, you know, I think in another era where we would have been more accommodating and, you know, maybe A little less aggressive in our asks. I think that ERA is over and we need to be really, really forward looking and move really quickly to try to get the resolutions we seek because the Department of Justice has a completely different approach to this case.
- [19:57]
A
Well, and the reality is they were supposed to have complied. Todd. Blanche. Excuse me. The Attorney General of the United States was supposed to have complied by December 19th of 2025. Seven months later, we still don't have compliance. In fact, we have a pretty direct middle finger that's being given not only to a federal court, but also to the American people and those that are interested in this transparency. So I think it is absolutely reasonable for us to keep our gas on the pedal to make sure that this thing still moves forward. Brendan Ballew, thank you so much for getting us started today. And a sincere and heartfelt thank you to you for being my lawyer. All kidding aside, it is an oddity to be a litigant and to not be the lawyer proper, but you and Sam and just the incredible team you have at Public Integrity Project. And Brendan, before I let you go, because I really want you to take a little bit of a victory lap on this too, just let people know the other cases that you have brought, because I'm not your only lawsuit against the Trump administration.
- [20:57]
B
Yeah, no, you're very kind. And let me just say it's a blast having you as a client. You know, it's so much fun having a lawyer and somebody that understands all these things to litigate. It makes it a lot more fun to do this stuff. So, yeah, we've been, you know, last week we sued Paramount for its allegedly corrupt acquisition of Warner Brothers. We've sued. We brought the first lawsuit against the Trump $1.8 billion slush fund. We're currently, currently litigating against Donald Trump for approving the sale of TikTok to various cronies of his. And we've got more in the works. So if you're interested in supporting the work, we are @Public Integrity Project.org and
- [21:31]
A
you also have a cute dog, so.
- [21:33]
B
Yes, my mother has a cute dog.
- [21:35]
A
Yes, we are. We are abject crazy dog lovers here at Katie Fang News. So do not worry about your dog, who is excited about the fact that you're on Sidebar with Katie Fang. That's the way that I put it.
- [21:48]
B
Thanks so much.
- [21:49]
A
Alrighty, my friend. I'll see you later. I'll talk to you tomorrow because I want to know what the hell's happening. Bye, Brendan. So, folks, that is Brendan Malone. If you didn't know who he is. Now you do. And I'm not bullshitting you when I tell you that he and Sam Ward Packard and the team that is working at Public Integrity Project are doing incredible work for you. You may not be the direct client, you may not be the direct litigant, but you are the beneficiary of people like Brendan leaving the Department of Justice, leaving a place where he was prosecuting insurrectionists and truly defending the rule of law to go into public service law. He is doing things that are pro bono. He is doing things that are being done so that we can advance the ball and get transparency when it comes to the Epstein files, accountability when it comes to the $1.8 billion slush fund, which is just theft of American taxpayer dollars. He's representing shareholders to block that Paramount, Skydance, Warner Brothers discovery lawsuit that just got blocked because our other friends, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and others, Letitia James in the state of New York, those Democratic state attorneys general, brought their own lawsuit. Why? Because the Trump Department of Justice already blessed this crazy mega merger. So it's falling on people like the Democratic state attorneys general. It's falling on people like me as private citizen, independent journalist Katie Fang, to be able to bring these cases. So if you can go and you can support Brendan, I ask you to go and spend a little bit of time to support Brendan. But I wanted to make sure that you got the latest on what's happening with my lawsuit. There is some complexity to the legal issues that are happening, but I appreciate Brendan explaining things so clearly. For those of you that are worried, I'm not relenting. I could tell it was a very personal response from Todd Blanche. But, you know, the way that I look at it, it means we're getting under his skin. And you and I know that. That's when we know that they are sweating this and pretty badly moving on into what's next. In sidebar today, it's very relevant. Let's talk about how the Trump DOJ wants to punish the press, but they're letting themselves be weaponized on behalf of convicted felon Donald Trump. Check out this latest reporting. Do you remember how we heard last week that the Trump DOJ sent FBI agents to the personal homes of some New York Times journalists because little convicted felon Donald Trump was so hurt and his feelings were just so badly injured because there was accurate reporting from the New York Times about the lack of security for the outfitting and the retrofitting that happened for that bribery jet. The $400 million Qatari jet that was given to Donald Trump that he claims he's going to park in his presidential library after his term and how he flew on it to go to that NATO summit and then he couldn't fly it back because we're in an illegal war with Iran. And he felt nervous because he's chicken. And so his Secret service said you can't fly on the crappy 400 million dollar Qatari jet because it's not retrofitted to protect you. So they put, they parked his ass on the old Air Force One. That's the reporting there. I don't, I don't see anything outlandish about that reporting. I didn't read anything crazy about the reporting. But Trump's feelings because he's such a, I can't use the word about things so thin skinned. He ordered Cash, Patel, Almitza and Valhalla brother FBI director ordered Cash to now oversee the investigation involving the New York Times. Now I covered here at Katie Fang News last week that these subpoenas for a grand jury appearance tomorrow on Wednesday in Manhattan was supposed to happen. Now. Where in Manhattan and who issued the subpoenas? Oh, the Southern District of New York. And I explained who's currently the U.S. attorney there in the Southern District of New York, a guy named Jay Clayton, another Trump loyalist who's been nominated by Trump to become the Director of National Intelligence. Because remember Tulsi Gabbard, footnote, Is it her brother who got arrested for being, for having child sex abuse material and being a pedophile? I think that's it. So Tulsi Gabbard got fired and now Trump wants Jay Clayton to be the next DNI Director of National Intelligence. The same Jay Clayton who's been running around telling lies about election fraud in California in the gubernatorial race. So this reporting just coming out today from the New York Times, not only was it a subpoena to go in front of the grand jury in Manhattan tomorrow. Well, guess what? Those subpoenas have been put on hold because now a federal judge has also discovered that the United States Department of Justice was seeking the phone records for these New York Times journalists. Oh, but wait, there's more. You also get the Ginsu knives. Guess what, folks, The Justice Department having to admit because the lawyers for the New York Times doing a motion letting the court know that it had subpoenaed third party phone service providers seeking not only their phone records but their text messages. That is also in addition to subpoenas that sought information about calls and messages on the phones of two of the reporters spouses. You heard that right. It wasn't just the reporters phones that they have subpoenaed third party providers to get the phone calls and the text messages, but they also wanted it for the spouses, the spouses for two of those reporters. Now get this. The phone numbers that the government was seeking information about was used by one journalist's mother as well, and also two spouses of those journalists. The mother is a mental health professional with confidential client relationships. And one of the two spouses is, is the general counsel for a major law firm. And then it gets even worse. Two of the subpoenas were seeking records beginning on January 1, 2026. Now, you can ask yourself, what were the dates of those New York Times articles that Trump got all in a tizzy over? July 8th and July 9th. So appropriately, the federal judge says a, nobody's appearing in front of a grand jury tomorrow. Let's have a hearing on Thursday. And guess what? Those subpoenas to those third party cell providers, they're not going to be complied with at this time. It makes you wonder, what is the Trump DOJ looking for? If you're going as far back as January 1st of 2026, it's a fishing expedition. It's being done to dive even deeper to see what information can be gleaned from those source documents, as we call them, the cell phone records and the text messages. This is going beyond just going and finding out who gave this information that the FBI is claiming is classified and is of national security about the airplane. They now want to go beyond that, not just discover the names or the identities of the sources for this. They now want to go as far back as January 1st. Which means what? They want to get even more source information beyond what was relevant to this. Now, why do I bring this up to you? Because it's consistent. It's consistent with the war on the Fourth estate that we have seen from convicted felon Donald Trump. And now we have seen how Trump continues to weaponize the Department of Justice to try to bully and put pressure on others, including people in the media that he wants to punish or he wants to hurt in some way. So guess what is happening on Friday. I'm going to ask you a question. If somebody called you names and if somebody treated you badly, if somebody talked shit about you publicly and privately, and if somebody threatened to do stuff like, I don't know, put you in jail if you didn't do what you wanted them to do, don't you think you Wouldn't invite them to break bread with you. I mean, who am I? What an outrageous idea. Guess what is happening this Friday? It's the rescheduled White House correspondence dinner. Remember back in April, there was an alleged. I'm going to use that adverb. An alleged is an adverb or an adjective? Somebody, somebody help me. Somebody fix me. An alleged assassination attempt of President Donald Trump by a guy named Cole Allen at the Washington Hilton, at the White House Correspondents Dinner. You know, the dinner that I refused to go to. The dinner that several people like Jim Acosta and Joy Reid and others refused to go to because access journalism clearly isn't dead. Now, at this dinner, this alleged attempt was made on somebody. I don't know. It just structurally didn't make sense, seeing how it was happening on a whole other floor. But that's, again, a whole other thing. So what happened that night? Felon Trump said, we're going to redo this dinner. And the White House Correspondents association had a very binary choice. They either don't do the dinner again, they don't reschedule it, or they reschedule it. And which one have they done? They've rescheduled it. Not a profile. Encourage. So what is a profile in courage? More than 500 journalists have called on the White House Correspondents association to at least confront Donald Trump on Friday at this dinner. Why? Because of his continued attacks on the free press. Similar requests were made prior to the dinner in April. That, of course, never went through. Right, the dinner. But this coalition of veteran journalists and press organizations like Jim Acosta are making this ask. And the number of signatories has now doubled ahead of this rescheduled dinner on Friday, April 25, was the date of the original White House Correspondent's dinner. As we know, Cole Allen, who was armed, breached the security and fired shots on site at the Washington Hilton. Trump promised to attend the rescheduled dinner. Now, this letter that was sent to the White House correspondents association is 10 pages long. And I just want to highlight a little bit of the language that came from it because I think it's really important. So here's some of it that I wanted to share with you. The letter states that there is a long tradition of presidents attending the White House Correspondents association dinner. But these are not normal times, and this cannot be business as usual, with the press standing up to applaud the man who attacks them on a daily basis. The collective weight of the administration's actions, retaliatory access bans, coercive Regulatory investigations, frivolous lawsuits against the press, defunding public broadcasting, dismantling international broadcasting, physical restrictions on journalists, personal verbal attacks on reporters, assaults on the media in official White House press releases and social media posts. Arresting journalists. Right. Don Lemon in Virginia and the pardoning of Virginia Ford and the pardoning of those who committed violence against the press represents the systematic and comprehensive of assault on freedom of the press by a sitting American president. Folks, the language couldn't be any clearer. Why in the world would you invite somebody to break bread with you? That shows that they don't not only they not only not respect you, but they're kind of gunning for you to fail and they're doing stuff like arresting your ass. I don't understand why there's this disconnect there. But you know what? I also don't understand what the hell is happening with the prosecution of this guy Cole Allen. Have you heard anything at all about his prosecution? Don't you think that if a man allegedly attempts to assassinate the President of the United States, that there would be some more information? You're looking at the indictment. Look at the first page of the indictment. There are multiple violations of federal law. What's the first one, folks? 18 U.S. code 1751 sub C attempt to assassinate the President of the United States. Gosh, you would think that I would actually get a little bit more coverage. You would also think that the administration would be talking a little bit more about what's happening with that investigation. Guess what the latest docket entry says, because there's really not a lot to look at, because you know me, I went and I looked. Here's the following June 29, 2026 Status Conference was held on June 29th. A further Status Conference is now set for August 20th at 10am that's all they wrote. So do you guys know anything more about the Cole island stuff? Nah. Have you heard anything more about any of the other ones? Like, I don't know, Pennsylvania?
- [35:49]
B
No.
- [35:50]
A
Wasn't there another one? I could have sworn. Oh, the guy down in Florida, he actually went to a really fast trial. It was in front of a ling cannon and now he's been sentenced. But did you really hear anything about that one? Nah. There are no such things as coincidences, people. Alrighty, so this is what Donald Trump said. Oh, before I get to that, the dinner on Friday will be at the Waldorf Astoria. The invent the event, according to the organizers, will be a more intimate gathering with significantly enhanced safety measures and new access procedures. I gotta tell you, I don't really know if I would want a more intimate setting with the orange turd. I don't think I would want that. And then this is what Trump wrote on June 3. I don't know whether or not I will give the same rather nasty statements, at least as it concerns certain people. But we will soon find out. In any event, it will be a hot in all caps ticket. Interestingly, the location will be the Waldorf Astoria on Pennsylvania Avenue, a building and ballroom that I built. I mean, doesn't he just prove our point collectively as to why the White House Correspondents association should not be doing this with an invitee? It's not his dinner. It doesn't belong to him. It's a celebration of the First Amendment and the freedom of the press. And they've invited the guy who doesn't like the First Amendment or, excuse me, rules for me, right? Rules for thee, but not for me. He only likes the First Amendment when he can sit there and shit all over people. So that's when he only likes it. And he doesn't like freedom of the press unless it's the press that he likes. Like the mypillow guy in Fox News. Right? But otherwise the rest of us can go pound sand according to Felon Trump. Anyway, we're going to take a really quick break. We are going to listen to a few of our sponsors which we are always excited to have here at Katy Fang News. Don't go anywhere. I promise it'll be fast, but it's interesting, so take a listen. You know me and you know that I am obsessed with my Jones Road Beauty Miracle Balm. I am that person that's running around crazy in the mornings. I have no time. I'm always traveling. The last thing I need is some huge bulky makeup kit with a million things inside when all I can do is use my Jones Road Beauty Miracle Balm and I get a blush, I get a lip tint, I get a bronzer, I get a highlighter. It's all in one. And all of the Jones Rare beauty products, they are clean and high performing. That's really important because you don't want to be doing anything bad to your skin. You also don't want to look heavy or cakey when it comes to your makeup during the summer when it is hot and humid and then there's sometimes when I need a little bit more coverage, that's when I reach for my foundation stick, available in 30 shades. You're going to find the one that matches for you and it's Going to give you just that little bit more that you need. Modern day makeup that is clean, strategic and multifunctional for effortless routines. And for a limited time, our listeners are going to get a free full size mascara with their first order by using the code Fang P H A N G at checkout. Just head to Jonesroadbeauty.com and use the code fang at checkout. After you purchase, they're going to ask where did you hear about them from? Please support our show and let them know that we sent you. Okay, so don't laugh, but I had no idea that cotton and satin were causing frizz in my hair and sleep creases on my face until I switched to Blissey. I thought if it's satin or smooth cotton, that actually it would be better for me. But turns out Blissey reduces frizz breakage and it preserves my hairstyle and the color. Why? Because silk, it's a natural, cooling, gentler product and material to use for your skin and your hair. It's naturally cooling, it's breathable, it's hypoallergenic and it's hydrating. And Blissy, well, it's dermatologist tested and recommended. Did you know it's also fully machine washable? I love my Blissy products. Not only do I use my pillowcase, but I also use my eye mask mask every single night. I also use my scent, it's like a lavender eucalyptus scent. And when I tell you I spray it, I go to sleep like this. Because you're a listener, Blissey is offering 60 nights risk free plus an additional 30 off when you shop@blissey.com forward/fang. That's my last name. P H A N G. I want you to go to Blissey b l I ssy.com fang and use that code Fang to get an additional 30% off your skin and your hair. Well, thank you. So my husband and I were recently talking about life insurance and I thought it was an important conversation because I'm about to celebrate a birthday in a few weeks and we have a daughter. And you know, you want to hedge. You want to hedge against the bad because you always want to be prepared. And it reminded me about when my late father passed away and how it impacted my mom and how she felt financially about the stability of the rest of her life. You know, it really means a lot to be able to speak to you about ethos. Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy. It's a hundred percent online. You can get a quote in seconds. You can apply in minutes and get same day coverage. You can get up to $3 million in coverage with some policies as low as $30 a month. And let me be clear, there's no medical exam. You just answer a few simp health questions. So take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote@ethos.com Fang P H A N G that's my last name. That's ethos.com fang e t h o s.com Fang application times may vary and rates may vary. I feel like we just took a trip down memory lane with my hair with this hat if you guys were paying attention. Anyway, thank you to all of the amazing sponsors that we have at Katie Fang News. It is how we're able to also bring you this channel. So I'm very grateful to our amazing sponsors and they're legit and I love them. Alrighty, very quickly, let's do some news roundup so that y' all can be more informed. As you know, I like to have high information Americans so y' all can be more informed. Let's talk about Darlene Graham. Do you know who Darlene Graham is? Do you know who Darlene Graham is? Well, Darlene Graham used to be known as Darlene Graham. Wait, I want to make sure I pronounce her last name right. Nordone. So maybe you knew her as Darlene Nordone. But guess what, Darlene, Lindsey Graham's sister, the late Lindsey Graham. Darlene has now been appointed to be a United States senator with no political background whatsoever. All right, so let's talk about Darlene really quickly. She was appointed with the full throated support of Felon Trump to serve out the remaining months of Lindsey Graham's term, which ends January 3, 2027. Now, she's going to be up, up for a special primary on August 11th. And so there's going to be this special primary for the Republican candidate to be selected for the late Lindsey Graham's US Seat. Right? And it's that person. Whoever wins is going to go up against the Amazing, incredible winner, Dr. Annie Andrews, who is a Democrat. Now, now I wanted to share a little bit of info about this darling Graham thing because I think it's interesting, number one, the family appointment process for a vacancy created by the death, for example, of somebody like Lindsey Graham. It's called the widow's succession. There was actually a name they coined the phrase for this happening and it often involved historically wives temporary filling a husband's seat until the successor was elected. Now what's ironic is this widow's succession thing was actually helpful because it helped open Congress to having more women in service in congress in the 20th century. Darlene Graham. But I really just call her Darlene Nardone. Anyway, Darlene makes history. Now as the first woman to represent South Carolina in the U.S. senate. I want you to take a second to think about that. The first woman in the history of the state of South Carolina to represent the U.S. senate. Putting aside my feelings about Darlene. Is it Darlene? Is it Darlene? Anyway, putting aside my feelings for her, I do think it's a shame that they haven't had any women elected. And now think about the South. Carolin, you could have Dr. Annie Andrews. You could not only get a woman serving for, for you in the U.S. senate, you could get a kick ass doctor. You could get somebody who's smart and reasonable and a fighter. So y' all that are in South Carolina, let's get some support for Dr. Annie Andrews. Now, Darlene's never held elected office and she says in the, this is what she said, quote, I promise to work hard over the next several months to support the President and carry forward the efforts of my brother on behalf of the citizens of South Carolina and the United States. I think this is what Lindsay would have wanted and I plan to honor him in this way. Listen to this clip of Darlene being interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox News. Take a listen. It reassures me that, you know, I feel like I can do this. And the meeting with the president, it was such an honor. It was, was comfortable. And, you know, I told him two things. I said, I can tell you this about me. I will work hard and I'm loyal.
- [46:01]
B
So I bet he liked the second part better.
- [46:04]
A
Yeah, maybe. Yeah.
- [46:07]
B
What's interesting, and I think part of it's a good thing.
- [46:14]
A
He wanted the loyalty part. He don't give a shit. You know that all Trump did to vet Darlene for this job was what he asked her. Are you going to deviate in any way from the support that was given to me by your late brother? And you know, she answered yes. So right now at this point, we have Lindsey Graham's sister serving in this role until his term is up, but she's going to be up for a primary starting August 11th or on August 11th. So. So for those of you out there, again, show support to Annie Andrews because we don't need another Graham in the United States Senate. Senate Majority Leader John Thune saying he's going to stay out of getting involved in this August 11th special election. Thune, who was close friends with Lindsey Graham, saying his sister is a strong candidate. But I'll let the voters in South Carolina decide. What does that tell you? What does that tell you about John Thune reading the tea leaves about what's going to happen in South Carolina? All right, let's quickly move on. Do you guys remember where in the world is Carmen Sandiego? Where in the world is Mitch McConnell? Do you know? Put it in the chat. I'd like to know where Mitch McConnell is. Here's the latest. Mitch McConnell, aged 84, sending a letter to his constituents. Not a video, not a live appearance. Live being the operative adjective. A letter to his constituents. It's being called a proof of life letters. That's in addition to that proof of life photo that we saw of him and Elaine Chao. His letter to constituents basically said, I am alive. I am not weakened at burning it, and I am recovering from a fall and an illness. But he wouldn't give specific details about his health and that he promised he would keep them updated on his recovery. But here's the crazy thing that came out in the news today. Mitch McConnell's own staff will not answer questions about what work he is doing. McConnell has been MIA since his fall. It's been 37 days since he was loaded to the back of an ambulance and whoosh, sent off to the hospital. His longtime aide, Terry Kamak, is paid $226,000 a year. Hold on to your britches, people. Terry gets $226,000 a year to be the top aide to Mitch McConnell, who hasn't been seen for more than 30 something days to do his job as a U.S. senate. Now you know why they want to park their asses in those jobs and never leave, huh? So $226,000 a year, longtime aid. Terry refusing to tell whether or not the United States senator had even spoken to any of the members of his staff in recent days. Andy Beshear, the governor of Kentucky. Why did it say South Carolina anyway? Andy Beshear, the governor of Kentucky, sent a letter to Mitch McConnell saying, Haven't heard from you. Want to know if you're doing okay. Didn't hear back until July 12, four days after Andy Beshear's letter. And then Bashir, of course, famously this weekend saying that he has heard from other agencies suggesting that Mitch McConnell has passed away. Now listen to what Josh Hawley of Missouri had to say about Mitch McConnell. Take a listen. We're talking to members about this whole McConnell situation.
- [49:39]
B
Yeah. Do you think he's put out enough information?
- [49:42]
A
Some people are saying you should put out a video. And what do you think it says about the issue of age limits? That's what people are talking about for members of Congress.
- [49:50]
B
No, I don't know anything about McConnell's health out. Because I. I know. Zero. I'm totally in the dark. And, you know, I certainly wish him well, his family. I. I do think that at a certain point, you have an obligation to your constituents in the country to tell them what's going on.
- [50:12]
A
Yeah. Don't always agree with Josh Hawley. About 99% of the time I do not. But I agree with you. Senator Josh Hawley. We're in the actual hell is Mitch McConnell. And here's the thing, people. Anyone can write a letter. Anyone can send an email. I don't really think anybody's really had a conversation with Mitch McConnell. I don't think Mitch McConnell has the mental acuity to be able to do this job anymore. And I think they're just parking him in that Senate seat so that they don't lose that Senate seat. That's what I think is happening. Those of you that maybe could go check out what is happening, maybe. Can you report back and let me know? If I could, I'd be there, parked myself there, and I'll see what's going on, but I can't. But let me tell you something. Maybe I can sneak in, pretend to be Elaine Chow. All righty. Moving on. Did you hear last week, it actually happened on the day that we had sidebar that a man was killed by a truck in St. Augustine, Florida, when he was running from immigration officers. Do you remember that happening? It was the third of a series of deaths at the hand of ice. Remember, it was Lorenzo in Houston, and then we also had Johan in Maine. Well, this man, this Mexican man who was killed when he was hit by a truck, a Semi, right in St. Augustine, guess what we found out today. This Mexican man was actually a father of two on vacation, and he was here in the United States with a valid tourist visa. I'm gonna say it again. This Mexican man was a tourist with a valid tourist visa, a husband and a father here in the United States, killed when he was running away from ice. Unbelievable. His name, Juan Jairo Coronilla Duran, age 28, visiting the United States from his hometown of San Luis de la Paz, a small city in the northeastern state of Guanajalto in Mexico. Arrived in the United States three weeks ago on vacation, had only been in Florida for two days when he was hit and killed by that truck on July 14th. He was actually supposed to be returning this past Saturday. He had already bought a flight to go back to Mexico. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has opened an investigation into the deaths of at least 18 Mexican nationals since Trump resumed office. Some of who had died while in these detention centers, some of who had died during arrest. She says the Mexican government wants to file criminal charges because of the deaths of of these Mexican nationals. The Florida Highway Patrol telling the Miami Herald last week that this gentleman from Mexico, Mr. Duran, was running from an encounter. This is interesting language, right? Think about this. Running from an encounter with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security investigation agents when he died. His wife found out about his death while she was watching television. She had not heard from her husband in more than a day. She saw on the news that a man had been killed and was scared that it was him. The couple have been married for more than 10 years, have a 7 month old daughter and a 7 year old son and they own a small business in San Luis de la Paz. I suspect what we are going to learn, assuming arguendo the truth comes out is that ICE was doing their indiscriminate I see you, you look brown, you look Hispanic, you look Latino. I'm going to sit there and illegally stop you and speak to you. I think that's might what have happened. And look, even if you come to the United States legally on a tourist visa, it's not like you're not aware of the dangers of being here. In fact, I have heard people saying don't come to the United States people even on vacation or on touristy things because you run the risk of being killed when you're here. You know how they give the travel alerts about you traveling to another country. I bet you this guy got scared when he was approached by INS or excuse me, approached by ICE or CBP and he ran because who the hell wants to be taken into custody? Because people end up dying when they're in detention and in custody. And so I bet you he ran because he was scared. Either way, this man was not an illegal. This man was not some, quote, illegal like they like to say about the migrants that are being murdered by federal agents. I was appalled, I was really upset when I heard this. This is horrible. And the wife hearing about it on the news is really no way to do this. This is terrible. And yes, the FBI won't investigate it, nor will INS or excuse me, ICE investigate themselves anymore. Nobody's going to be investigating it, which is horrible. Which is why we need to make sure that we get the truth out. So those of you that know information about this happening, make sure that you get the news out. Did I go to Trump University? The hell's wrong with you, dumbass? Alrighty, here we go. Next, Citizens Bank. Here's some good news, people, to wrap up. Sidebar Today, Citizens bank will no longer fund two private prison companies that house migrants that are being detained by the Trump administration. The federal government purchased facilities it had been using from private prison operator Corecivic, and they were planning to buy some from the Geo Group. So those companies no longer need the lending of the funds from Citizens Bank. Citizens will now exit those lending relationships and no longer fund those private prison companies. Citizens was targeted in New Jersey and in other states by local ordinance proposals urging towns to withdraw public accounts from Citizens. Jersey City and Montclair, New Jersey voted earlier this summer to withdraw more than $300 million in accounts from citizens. ICE has run and operated these detention centers with Corecivic and GEO Group. Citizens has been serving CoreCivic since 2011 and GEO Group since 2018. Protesters have been marching outside of at least 70 of citizens. 988 full service branches last winter and this spring. Think about the power of your voice, people, as you are out there protesting. They are being heard. In 2024, citizens had actually led a group of lenders to raise $1.3 billion in capital for GEO Group, which operates 82 prisons for state and federal agencies. And then last year, Citizens led a group of lenders in raising half a billion dollars for Corecivic to pay down debt and for general corporate purposes. And guess what? Citizens now says we're not going to fund them anymore. It's good news. And the reason why I wanted to end sidebar on that good news is I wanted you to understand that as we said at the very beginning of today, your voice matters. It has strength. It has weight. Our voices together collectively can be even stronger. The protests that were happening, the pressure on local towns and cities to have these ordinances to pull these accounts from stuff like and banks like Citizens made a difference. No irony there, that the name of the bank is Citizens and that it took citizens like you, me and others to raise our voices to protest and to let these institutions know that we won't give them our business. If they are going to fund detention centers that are resulting in the deaths of people that never should have been there in the first place, that is a good way of ending sidebar today. Thank you always for the privilege of your time. I know that you're busy and I know that there's other things you can be doing, but you join me here. For those of you that don't join us live, you're joining us because you can not only come and watch it here as a subscriber on YouTube, but maybe you're listening on the pod. If you guys haven't gone, please go wherever you get your podcast and sign up and subscribe for sidebar the podcast. Maybe you want to drive and listen to it. Maybe you want to go back and listen to it some more. You can't watch it at the same time. I always appreciate your support. We are in this together. That is not an understatement. It's a highlight of my time to be able to join you live. I'll see you next week. In the meantime, I'll just see you tomorrow because we'll have some more reporting here at Katie Fang News. See you on the other side.