Loading summary

Transcript67 lines

[00:00]
A
History is messy. It's weird, wild and anything but boring. Rainy Day Rabbit Holes is a history podcast about unhinged stories that make you stop and ask, wait, is this real life? From crazy disasters and tasty scandals to enlightening and surprising heartwarming tales, we explore the moments where people behave badly and sometimes beautifully. We've got naughty politicians, cultural chaos and a deep love for the Pacific Northwest, including Bigfoot. It's thoughtful, irreverent, occasionally serious and always entertaining. Let's fall down the rabbit hole.
[00:35]
B
MSW Media. Hey everybody. Welcome to the Breakdown. I'm Alison Gill, host of the Daily Beans podcast. Thanks to the Midas Touch Network for giving this show the Breakdown a little bit of a platform a with all their incredible followers and subscribers. I really appreciate it. As you know, we've been following the saga of the Epstein files. You know, I have a lawsuit out there to get training materials from a year ago. Not after the fact, not after everything was redacted. I want the training videos that came first. They have admitted they exist. But they had. They said that they don't have to give them to me because of deliberative process, privilege and law enforcement things and victim redactions and all this other stuff. So talking, speaking about victims. Last time we met, Katie Fang was here talking about how Judge Emmett Sullivan had ordered Todd Blanche to hand over a handful of unredacted Epstein files documents, along with proof of why some of the things were redacted, hidden behind redaction bars. Documentary evidence supporting that those names should be removed from the public eye and that he was going to review these in camera. The judge was going to review them by himself in his chambers and he came out with an order since we last met. And the order basically says, I'm not picking up what you're putting down. Mr. Blanche, who by the way, in a four in the morning vote was confirmed by the Senate to be the Attorney General of the United States, even though he's currently in defiance of a court order, in my opinion. But we're going to talk. Talk about what Judge Emmett Sullivan is now ordering pursuant to an up upcoming status hearing in the Katie Fang case. And we're going to do that with Katie Fang. Everybody. Welcome to the Breakdown. Hey everybody. Welcome to the Breakdown. I am so excited today to be joined by the inimitable Katie Fang. Hi, Katie, how are you?
[02:56]
C
Hi. That's a really impressive. That's a really tough word, by the way. Inimitable. Right. There's certain words out there that I see coming and I Get very nervous if I have to, like, read it. I'm like, is there another word I can use? So inimitable is. That's impressive that you were able to see it so easily.
[03:14]
B
It took me a second, though. You heard the little bit of a pause. That slight pause right before that. And politicization. I always am like, oh, here it comes.
[03:23]
C
Now you're making me nervous about that one, too.
[03:26]
B
So Judge Sullivan is not buying what Todd Blanche is selling.
[03:31]
C
He has not been buying. Has not been buying. Yeah. He hasn't been like, would you. If you saw Todd Blanche walk up to you on the street and be like, hey, you want to buy some watches? But, I mean, does he look like a trustworthy fella to you? I think not.
[03:46]
B
Yeah. No. But after reviewing these unredacted Epstein files in camera. In chambers. That's a word for in chambers. Sullivan is ordering Todd Blanche to prepare to few questions in your upcoming status hearing, which takes place this week on August 13th. So, first of all, and I'm paraphrasing here, it's three main things the judge says. Todd, you said you would provide documentation proving the redacted names are, in fact, victims, and you didn't do that. Instead, you just said they are victims based on a lawyer self identifying their clients to you as victims. Therefore, you failed to comply with my court order. So be prepared to bring in that documentation. And right here last week, you said, what is this documentation? Was any documentation provided? Because if you'll recall, Katie, explain a little bit. Todd Blanche had effectively changed the definition of victim as it pertains to this case, to not just be victims of Epstein and Maxwell, but anyone who self identifies to the Department of Justice, either by themselves or through counsel, as a victim. And so it seems like Judge Sullivan has the exact same questions that we had last week about this particular issue.
[05:09]
A
Yeah.
[05:10]
C
And as you and I talked, I mean, you and I have been incredibly prescient on kind of issue spotting. I think, like, where this litigation is going and like, what is. What's at. You know, what's. What's going to be a bone of contention. I think so. You know, I'll even spot Todd Blanche, this one. Allison, there's no definition, I don't believe, and I checked, of victim per se.
[05:30]
A
Right.
[05:30]
C
In the Epstein files Transparency Act. So in the absence of a definition, I understand if there could be some measure of liberty taken. But of course, for the intent, the good intent of protecting a victim of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and others. But by expanding and also Continuing to not really define what a victim is by expanding. Expanding that definition to include people who self identify, We've now created this Pandora's box being opened of allowing people to either self identify or identify through counsel that they are victims. And in doing so, Blanche has said, well, that means that I am obligated to redact their names, email addresses, and other pii, you know, personal identifying information. And so we've now created this. This really very uncomfortable space where, again, I have no intent of outing a victim at all. And I want to make sure that we're very careful about this. Alison, that has been something that you and I have been. This has been paramount for us to make sure that doesn't happen. But I also think Blanche has now created this situation where people that were legitimate co conspirators, co defendants, true enablers, that they are now self identifying as victims. And so now not only is their information being redacted, but I fear that that's also buttressing Blanche's argument to the Epstein survivors and victims that he met with and that he's publicly stated where he said, oh, Epstein never trafficked the girls to anyone else, which has always been one of these. Like, what do you mean he trafficked them to himself? That's not possible. And also, there's no investigations here for me to do, either for the FBI or the doj because there's nothing to go after. Remember how he said before there's no third parties? I mean, that goes back to Pami Jo with the bad hair in July of 2025 when she and Kash Patel issued that infamous memorandum that said, we've looked at terabyte upon terabyte upon gigabyte upon terabyte of whatever byte of info, and there are no investigations of third parties that should be done here. And that makes me wonder. That's just not possible.
[07:45]
B
Right, Right. Because are you saying it's like. It's like he's an inch away from saying Epstein didn't traffic any girls because he had other girls do that for him or other modeling agents do that for him. Yeah. Right. And so at what point? And again, your whole point is to make sure that victims are protected and to have the court litigate what Todd Blanche is trying to define as a victim because it's not defined in the Epstein files Transparency Act. And so it's, I don't think, understood in a concise manner as far as this case goes. And last week you said to me, you're like, well, maybe there are emails or grand Jury testimony or litigation or communication that would substantiate the fact that the person's name behind this box is a victim. That that was what Judge Emmett Sullivan was expecting to see. And he got none of it. Because, remember when I said, what did he hand over? Just his definition of what a victim was, and that he's allowed to do this because that's. He's got, he's got a history of doing that.
[08:49]
C
And Blanche literally, once again, told Judge Sullivan, trust me, bro. Yeah, right. He lit.
[08:56]
A
He.
[08:57]
C
He said it at the beginning. He said, just trust me. These redactions are proper. July 25, 2026, Judge Sullivan said, I don't believe you. I don't. I don't accept the trust me, bro exception, which doesn't exist. And so I'm making you come to court in chambers, bring the unredacted documents and the documentation corroborating and supporting your assertions that, that, that these redactions across the board are legitimate, by the way, not just for the, the emails and stuff, but for everything else. And then Blanche goes, brings the unredacted emails and the way that. I read this order that just got entered by Judge Sullivan, I read it, Allison, as stating exactly this situation. You, your assertions do not comply with the court's order, which requires documentation to support the assertions. It's almost like a little inception moment, right? You're going to make this assertion, I told you to be the docs. You don't be the docs. You say, trust me, bro. That's not sufficient. The defendant, as in Todd Blanch, shall not permissive, but ordered, shall be prepared to discuss what documentation he will provide to support his assertions. And so Judge Sullivan is saying, you violated the court order. I don't believe you. Once again. And now he's no longer acting Attorney General. He is now the Attorney General of the United States, which I think is yet another red flag of no credibility, according to a federal judge. So now the judge says, I'm not asking you to come and bring these documents. You're going to tell me exactly what you are going to give me and that I hope when this happens. So notice this is an open court. The status hearing is not behind closed doors. So I'm interested because does this mean then Blanche comes in or the DOJ comes in, and they say, we are prepared to provide to the court the following. Because you know me, I'll be having my ears completely peeled to this, because I'm curious to know what they're relying upon, because I just don't believe that all of these redactions are all, quote, victims. I just don't. I don't believe it.
[10:59]
B
Right, right. And. And that should be left up to the judge. And I imagine, since this is open court, that it'll be like, well, we need to file this under seal or give it to you on the under seal or on camera.
[11:10]
C
Still got to tell us what it is, you know.
[11:13]
B
Now, the second thing that Judge Sullivan says, in this order, he says, todd, again, I'm paraphrasing. Todd, you claim you didn't supply handwritten interview notes because they are substantially similar to the typed up reports. There's nothing in the Epstein Files Transparency act that allows you to withhold similar documents. So be prepared to explain why you can't hand redact a handwritten document. So I thought this was a very interesting assertion, a very interesting argument from the judge on the law here, because the Epstein Files Transparency act allows for duplicates to be, you know, not released or withheld.
[11:56]
C
Yeah, but there's no shortage of duplicates. Right. We've seen in these files. I mean, I've seen multiples of the same email, some with different redactions on each time, you know, but what Todd
[12:04]
B
Blanche is trying to argue here is that the reason we didn't go through the handwritten notes is because they've been typed up. And so those are similar enough. No, they are not. And there's no exemption for this in the Epstein Files Transparency act for Todd Blanche to actually say, oh, the handwritten stuff is close enough to the. To the typed up stuff. You don't need the handwritten stuff. And Judge Sullivan is like, you can just hand redact these. And by the way, that's not an explanation pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
[12:37]
C
God, this one was like a real burn for Todd Blanche. Right. Because not only is Judge Sullivan right, as we told him and as he had already agreed with us when he granted the preliminary injunction back in June, there's no exception provided for in this federal statute called the Epstein Files Transparency act for withholding. This is not even. I'm giving it to you heavily redacted, Allison. This is. I'm not even going to give it to you at all. So he's never given us these handwritten interview notes. And no coincidence here, I believe these are the FBI handwritten interview notes from the four interviews done of a single victim who alleges that when she was 13 years old, she was sexually abused and physically beaten by Donald Trump. And I don't think this is a coincidence that I am jumping through hoop upon hoop upon hoop to get these handwritten notes. So for Judge Sullivan to call Blanche out on the mat and say, look, man, not only is there no exception here, but this was the most delicious thing. Another thing that I was supposed to get that Blanche was supposed to turn over in an unredactive form for the judge to look out in chambers was a draft indictment prepared by the Southern District of Florida, then supervised and run by Alex Acosta, who eventually gave him that non prosecution agreement, including the co conspirators immunity part. And then he eventually got that sweetheart deal from the state back in the mid-2000s, he being abstract. So what did Blanche say? And this is why I was kind of impressed. I'm always impressed by Sullivan, but really impressed here. In a prior filing, Blanche told the court, I don't have the exact bait stamp document that Ms. Fang is looking for. I've looked, but I don't have the original. But Judge, rest assured, I have something that is pretty much the same. The substantially similar draft indictment. And in that substantially similar draft indictment, the names that appear are the names of victims. Even though, Allison, the document I wanted is a draft indictment, it is the names that are co defendants. They are not co conspirators. They are notified as victims. They are identified as co defendants of Jeffrey Epstein for purposes of presentment to a grand jury. So Judge Sullivan says, Mr. Blanche, not only is the no exception for handwritten notes being substantially similar, but you yourself represented to this court that you have and you can produce substantially similar draft indictments. So you need to come to court at the status hearing and explain why you can't just manually redact by hand the handwritten notes. Which means for me, Alison, I'm getting the handwritten notes. He's going to order them to redact them manually. It's not like it's 4,000 pages either, right? I mean, I'm not asking for thousands of pages. I'm probably asking for. Well, I don't know. I'm guessing, right? Because I have no idea because I still haven't gotten the notes. So it's just not going to be voluminous to the point where you can't hand redact it.
[15:31]
B
Yeah, and for him to say those are victims names redacted in a draft indictment that's substantially similar to the indictment that Ms. Fang wants that I can't find for some reason. When you read an indictment, and I've read a few, the victims of the crime in the indictment are person one Person two, Jane Doe. They don't name victims in an indictment because it's purportedly going to be a public document. Right?
[16:02]
C
So, yeah, I'm talking the names that appear at the top of page one that says United States of America versus. And this document I wanted said Jeffrey Epstein. And then it had three names redacted. They were the co defendants of Jeffrey Epstein. Which means that at the conclusion of a investigation done by the Southern District of Florida, that office had determined that there were three people that were co defendants of Jeffrey Epstein. Now, look, let me be explicitly clear. It doesn't mean that perhaps some of them started out in a different way with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and perhaps others. But that indictment, by the time we made it to the point in 20 freaking 2008, I guess whatever is when it was, when they were ready to present this to a grand jury, the U.S. attorney's office had made a determination that those people were co defendants, that their conduct was criminal in nature beyond to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Their conduct was the commission of a crime that violated criminal statutes in the United States of America. I want those names. If those people want to sit there and say that they were victims, I guess that's up to them. But for us to not get access to that so that I can also do more of an investigation into who those people are, that defeats the purpose of the Epstein files. Transparency Act. End of story.
[17:29]
B
Yeah. And I'm thinking to myself, like, is it the person who runs the Mademoiselle Modeling Agency? Is it Jean Luc Brunel that's under there, who has had a lawyer? Well, he's passed away now.
[17:42]
C
Most people say it's Sarah Cowan. Okay. Who we know claims that she was a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. And she went. She did house oversight and all. Okay, fine. But you know what? I shouldn't have to guess, right? And again, not everybody takes the position that Sarah Kellen is a victim. Epstein survivors I've spoken to have taken the position that Sarah Kellen is not a victim.
[18:04]
B
Well, she's going to be indicted.
[18:06]
C
And she was. She was going to be indicted. Maybe a grand jury would say, you know what? After the presentment, I don't think she's a co defendant. Whatever. But at the end of the day, I don't have access to that name. Judge Sullivan will decide in his ultimate wisdom, based upon what is provided, whether I get that information or not. But I think when it comes to the specific provision of those handwritten notes, I think Todd Blanche just had his own words and excuses used against him. And a federal judge didn't have a problem saying, I'm going to use this against you.
[18:35]
B
Yeah. And there are whole other cases like the Epstein survivor who anonymously reached out to me, who had the friend that was sort of sent by the Trump modeling agen an Epstein party. And she gave multiple interviews to the FBI, but only one typed up, no handwritten notes. Only one of the typed up interviews was released and it was one of four that didn't mention Donald Trump, that only mentioned Jeffrey Epstein. So where are those other things? We've talked to Annie Farmer about her sister Maria, who, who had that report finally released from 1996. But she was like, I know there are more. I spoke to them more than that. And where are those. Right. So all kinds of things are missing here. And I. And particularly handwritten notes that sort of proceed or go along with those typed up FBI. Everybody remembers the Excel spreadsheet. Some things were highlighted in yellow, some things were not. That's where we learned about the summary of the 13 year old. And then, you know, finally, after some complaining, the typed notes came up, but not the handwritten notes. And Todd is saying they're close enough that you don't have to see them. Well, that's not, that's not what the law says. No. And then the final thing here in Sullivan's order, Todd, again, I'm paraphrasing. You are required to provide explanations for each redaction. The parties dispute the deadline. So be prepared to answer why you think you complied in time.
[20:12]
C
It gets even better than that, Allison. Judge Sullivan says the defendant shall be prepared to discuss his timing for complying with this requirement. It's not even like I'm going to let you come and argue with me and Ms. Fang over whether you have a deadline or not. The judge is like, you're going to come and tell me when you're going to actually provide this redaction log, which is what he granted by way of the preliminary injunction anyway back in June. Right. And so it's so I was so grateful to see that Judge Sullivan issued this order. There's one outstanding thing which is the foreign language documents which I did get granted and I still haven't seen addressed in terms of the non compliance by Blanche. And so I'm happy to bring that, you know, nicely to Judge Sullivan's attention on Thursday to say, and hey, Judge, by the way, the PI said we get these foreign language documents and Blanche's only excuse was it wasn't practicable. To do it. And that's why we didn't do it. And Judge Sullivan in his PI order was like, that's not an excuse. You gotta turn him over, like starting now. And so I kind of feel like we need to make sure that's done. We need to make sure that's done in so many different ways. Because you and I both know, Alice, and what's gonna happen is he'll start turning them over and those are gonna be heavily redacted. I'm gonna have to litigate that too. Right. So there's like a whole war about rollout that's about to happen here. But I was pleased to see this order. It was candidly, was unexpected. I thought we were gonna get it maybe a little bit later. And I thought frankly, we were going to have to argue over this issue of Blanche blowing this deadline to respond before we were going to get this. So I was happy to see we got this order from Judge Sullivan.
[21:48]
B
Yeah. And just like the first thing that jumped out to me that I talked to you about last week and jumped out to you initially was the expanded definition of victim and how that is relevant and what the documentation is needed to prove somebody's victimhood, et cetera, et cetera. And that we're so. I'm just so thankful that it's going to be a of law that is going to get to litigate that definition and decide, because it doesn't seem to make sense that anybody can just come in and say, well, how do you really define murder, your honor? Like maybe it doesn't include these three things that I happen to do. Right. And so there has to be some interpretation of the Epstein files Transparency act definition of victim to fit here so that the documents can or cannot be released pursuant to that definition of victim.
[22:42]
C
Yeah. And two things really quickly. One, can you imagine if Ghislaine Maxwell had yet to have been indicted? She could say, I'm a victim of Jeffrey Epstein, I was bamboozled by him, I was abused by him, blah, blah. And so now we have Ghislaine Maxwell, who potentially could have been redacted based upon the self identification. And look, there's a very credible group of people that are Epstein victims that have come forward and said and incredibly were victims. I am not saying that that is not a reality. I just think again, Blanche created this slippery slope of a problem of allowing people to be doing this. And I think that that is a challenge that I trust Judge Sullivan will be able to tackle. And look, even if he errs on the side of caution on the redactions, at least he still forces Todd Blanche to have to corroborate it. I think not forcing Todd Blanche to do that would be a serious, serious injustice here to real victims. Right. And so I do think that this is important. The second thing too, I think that is important here is that, you know, again, this is just a subset of the bigger documents that I am seeking. It is incredible and yet on point that the DOJ would create this measure of litigation over a subset of documents. And of course it probably forecasts how the entirety of my litigation is going to go. Right. In terms of all of it. But I do think it's so powerful because it sets the tone and I think it creates one of another of very important inflection points in the way that the rule of law is being looked at. Because I honestly think it's. Because it's Judge Sullivan who's like, look, you know, this is what we do here. This is like normal course, like we're not, we're not doing something differently because you're the Acting Attorney General or the Attorney General of the United States. This is what we're going to do. And I'm grateful for that because there's such a double standard when it comes to these things. And I'm just glad that we actually have again, some normalcy when it comes to dealing with this litigation in terms of, of just orders. But of course we still have non compliance by them.
[25:05]
B
Yeah. And meanwhile in the background is the reality that the presumption of regularity has been dismantled piece by piece over the last year and a half. And judges, you know, have always said, look, we, we don't exist in a vacuum. That is also something that can be taken into account when going through these. And I think a lot of this maneuvering and defensiveness and well, the handwritten notes are just too. And four language stuff's too hard. And I, I don't, I don't need to provide documentation because I wrote up a memo that says if somebody just says this, then it's true. And so you just have like all of that just. And mixed with the presumption, irregularity, destruction just leads me to it. It feels like it's a naturally leading us to justify a special master in this case.
[25:54]
C
You know, I share your sentiment on that because Judge Sullivan has a full audit of cases. Mine is just one of several. And so he cannot reasonably manage this case, especially when we start getting down to the real nitty gritty on these docs. Right. I feel like the Special Master would be, not would be, is the person who would stand in the shoes of Judge Sullivan and do exactly what he's doing now. Take an unredacted document, take the supporting documentation from the DOJ that says that the redaction is a legitimate one pursuant to the law, and then that Special Master makes a finding which can be refuted.
[26:39]
A
Right.
[26:39]
C
And can be challenged.
[26:40]
B
Yeah. Here's a list of everything we have questions about. You have this long to answer us and provide documentation to back it up. And then we'll review and then we'll turn our report over to Judge Sullivan.
[26:51]
C
And this is not an unusual thing. I have litigated financial cases that have been voluminous in nature when it comes to docs. I've litigated other complex cases that have been very paper heavy. Although these days everything's kind of not printed out. Although I'm still old school and I like to print it out. But I've done this and we've used Special Masters and then we. Or we used a magistrate judge. But even now, even magistrate judges in federal court are so doing. But I'll give you an example, right? You and I both have talked about on our respective channels the BBC case, right, where you had a magistrate judge, not the district court judge, but the magistrate judge, looked at the litigation over the documents that Trump is supposed to turn over concerning, you know, 400 business entities or whatever. Now, that document production hasn't happened yet, but when it happens, that mag judge is kind of dealing with all of that. And because Trump didn't agree with that, Trump is also trying to get the federal District court judge to disagree with the mag judge. But the point is that even the mag judges are so overwhelmed too, with their work audits that a Special Master would be a fantastic addition to my case. It's what I've asked for in my lawsuit. And I'm hoping that the judge says, you know, this is the workflow we're going to do moving forward. You make this assertion. You say this is, this is unredacted. You say this is the grounds. And the Special Master says, balls and strikes. No. Yes, whatever, you know. Yeah.
[28:18]
B
And we saw it in the fraud investigation into Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, by the New York Attorney General Letitia James. There was, it wasn't, the title was different Special Master, but it was a fiduciary babysitter, basically. But it was, it was Barbara Jones, who we've seen many times as a Special Master before, and that's millions and Millions of documents that, you know, that needed to be reviewed through that special master. And so she had a staff set up, and they go through it, and
[28:49]
C
there's a whole process there, and that's what they do, and they know how to do it. And I'm, you know, most of us just come along for the special master ride, but that's what we want in my lawsuit, something we've specifically asked for, because we feel like that's the best way to manage this type of case.
[29:05]
A
Yeah.
[29:05]
B
And if you got 10 documents and the DOJ screwed up half of them, you know, that speaks a lot to, I think, the justification of that. So I'm very excited about this status hearing. It's coming up again, August 13th. That's this Week. And I look forward to, you know, seeing everything that you put out about this when it happens. And everybody, you know, if you subscribe to Katie Fang's YouTube channel, you will get it all first, and then. And then she'll come over here and talk to me about it a little bit.
[29:33]
C
Yes. We'll break it. We'll do the breakdown again on it. No, but I really appreciate it, Alison, the way that you're incredibly nuanced on these issues, and I appreciate being able to talk about it, because, you know, I mean, I'm living this case, right. I mean, this is not just something I report on. Like, this is, like, something that I am actively litigating. And so I will get on a plane and fly to D.C. because the court ordered the parties to appear. It's not just Blanche, it's me. He said status hearing parties to appear. And I want people to know, like, this is. This is, this is. And it's so hard because with Blanche getting confirmed, and it's just been such a real painful moment, I think, for a lot of us to see this happen. And so being able to continue to push this case forward is so important. I know it's not just for me. I know it's for so many other people, but it's really important because it's really kind of the only case. Second, I think, maybe only to yours with your training videos, but it's like, the only case that's really making progress. Right. And that's what we need. We need to show that this Trump regime doesn't have a monopoly on the truth, because I feel like that's the energy they're giving. Like, we're going to distort everything, we're going to weaponize everything, and we're going to gaslight the shit out of you. So that you think that what we're pedaling to you is truth and it's not. Which is why if I can, you know, show that these redactions are illegal and I can show that these withholdings are illegal and these are all being done by the Attorney General of the United States, then that chips away at this idea that, you know, everything that comes out of this government is true. In fact, it's the opposite. And that's something we've been kind of, you know, kind of ringing the bell about for a long ass time. But when it comes to this singular issue, I mean, it didn't escape my notice that Cornyn and Tillis in the end never made the Epstein files the issue. No, nor, nor did Bill Cassidy, which is why I was upset beyond. Because he's a doctor. And I said, of all people, Alison, who should care or have some empathy, it would be a doctor about sex, child rape and sex abuse of a child and the trauma and, and Cassidy, I don't know. I don't know what the hell he did, but it definitely wasn't the right thing.
[32:08]
B
No. And they knew it would have to. They'd have to confirm him at some point. And so if you went against him on the Epstein files, that's a huge losing issue on both sides of the aisle. Do you think it, do you think, do you think it'd be Todd Blanche or do you think they'll send like Stanley Woodward?
[32:24]
C
Oh, Lord.
[32:25]
B
Stanley. Stanley.
[32:27]
C
He looks like an oaf.
[32:28]
B
I'm hoping for Stanley. I hope they send Stanley. I don't know.
[32:31]
C
Jeanine Pirro freaking has her on the filings again, which is so bizarre to me. So it's like, is box of wine going to roll up? It's one. It's kind of early for cocktails. I don't know. But listen, I do think, because somebody asked me, I do think if Todd doesn't show up, which it'll probably be Stanley, because Stanley Woodward jumped in when the PI. When the preliminary injunction motion was granted. Woodward jumped in. He's the number three. I guess he becomes the number two now, right? Todd's become the.
[33:01]
B
If he names him deputy. Don't you have to confirm a deputy?
[33:05]
C
Yeah, you have to come.
[33:06]
B
You do. You have to confirm a deputy. So you might just stay in his weird.
[33:09]
C
That's interesting area.
[33:10]
A
Probably.
[33:13]
C
Maybe he'll send this poor line prosecutor who makes the craziest assertions as well in his filing. So I have no idea. But you know, whoever shows up, I do Think there's a time when the judge is going to have Blanche himself show up. Like, Blanche himself show up. I think Solomon's going to get to the point, like a lot of federal judges do, where they're like, I'm done. We're not doing this anymore. We're bringing in the Marco Rubio's, we're bringing in the Kristi Noems when she was still working, you know.
[33:35]
B
Right. Because every lower line prosecutor is like, I can't answer that. I don't have that information. I don't. You know, I remember the whole Bozberg Alien enemies act case where he's like, can't get a straight answer out of any of you.
[33:45]
C
Bring in the person who made these decisions, which was, you know, we were getting to that point in the Kilmar, Abrego, Garcia Abrego.
[33:51]
B
Yeah.
[33:51]
C
And then in the end, you know, the judge dismissed that criminal case. But. But anyway, I, you know, I think there will come a point in time. It's Todd. But you know what? I just want this judge to lower the boom. That's what I want.
[34:02]
B
There you go. Well, I'm looking forward to it. I look forward to. Talk to you soon, everybody. Make sure you subscribe to Katie Fang's channel here on the Midas Touch Network. Such important work and I really appreciate everything that you do to. To chip away at this so we can get a little bit of. Get a little bit of sunlight on there. I've been saying lately, you know, they flood the Zone with shit and we flood the Zone with sunlight, and that's what we'll continue to do.
[34:25]
C
I like it.
[34:26]
B
Yeah. All right, everybody. Thank you so much for watching. Thank you, Katie. I'll be back next week right here on the Breakdown.
[35:03]
C
Breaking news right now. My brothers and I wrote a book. It's called WTF America? And, well, doesn't that just say it all? It comes out officially this October, but
[35:12]
B
you can pre order your copy today.
[35:14]
C
Just scan the QR code code or click the link in the description below.
[35:31]
A
History is messy. It's weird, wild, and anything but boring. Rainy Day Rabbit Holes is a history podcast about unhinged stories that make you stop and ask, Wait, is this real life? From crazy disasters and tasty scandals to enlightening and surprising heartwarming tales. We explore the moments where people behave badly and sometimes beautifully. We've got naughty politicians, cultural chaos, and a deep love for the Pacific Northwest, including Bigfoot. It's thoughtful, irreverent, occasionally serious, and always entertaining. Let's fall down the rabbit hole.
[36:06]
B
MSW Media.

Summary5 min read

Podcast Summary: The Daily Beans: The Breakdown | Trump DoJ Ordered Into Court Over Epstein Files

Date: August 10, 2026
Host: Allison Gill (MSW Media)
Guest: Katie Fang
Main Theme: Judge Sullivan’s Order Demanding Unredacted Epstein Files and DOJ Compliance

Episode Overview

This episode centers on a major legal confrontation over the release of Epstein-related files, focusing on recent court orders directing the Trump Department of Justice (DoJ) to justify and potentially lift redactions, particularly concerning the definition of “victim” and transparency of investigative materials. Host Allison Gill and attorney/journalist Katie Fang break down Judge Emmett Sullivan’s strong rebuke of Attorney General Todd Blanche's handling of sensitive documents and outline the upcoming legal stakes as a pivotal status hearing approaches.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background: What’s at Stake with the Epstein Files? (00:35–03:25)

Allison Gill recounts her lawsuit seeking unredacted Epstein-related training materials and the US government’s reliance on “deliberative process privilege, law enforcement, victim redactions” to withhold them.
Focus is on the legal battle over how “victim” is defined and how names are being withheld under that label.
Katie Fang returns to update listeners on Judge Emmett Sullivan's recent order, following his review ("in camera," i.e., privately in chambers) of unredacted files.

2. Judge Sullivan’s Order: Rebuke of Todd Blanche (03:25–10:58)

Quote: “Judge Sullivan is not buying what Todd Blanche is selling.” (Allison Gill, 03:25)
The court had demanded that Blanche provide documentation proving that redacted names are truly victims—not just based on lawyer assertion or self-identification.
Judge found Blanche’s rationale insufficient and ordered the DoJ to prepare proper evidence for the August 13th hearing.

The ‘Victim’ Definition Controversy

Katie Fang: “By expanding that definition to include people who self identify, we've now created this Pandora's box... now not only is their information being redacted, but I fear that's... buttressing Blanche's argument to the Epstein survivors and victims... that Epstein never trafficked the girls to anyone else...” (05:30)
Both hosts stress the paramount importance of not outing victims, but worry the loose definition could conceal co-conspirators or enablers.

3. The ‘Trust Me, Bro’ Defense & Documentation Gap (08:49–10:58)

Memorable Moment: Fang jokes that Blanche’s argument amounts to: “Trust me, bro.” (08:49)
Judge Sullivan is explicit: assertions absent evidence violate his order and are not legally sufficient.

4. Specific Document Disputes and Legal Arguments (11:12–18:35)

Handwritten Interview Notes

Blanche refused to turn over handwritten FBI notes, arguing they’re “substantially similar” to typed reports—an argument Sullivan rejects.
Fang: “There’s no exception... called the Epstein Files Transparency Act for withholding... I'm not even gonna give it to you at all.” (12:37)

Draft Indictment Controversy

Blanche also refused a sought-after draft indictment, claiming only to have a “substantially similar” version—while redacting co-defendants’ names as “victims.”
Fang: “That indictment said Jeffrey Epstein and then it had three names redacted... they were the co defendants of Jeffrey Epstein.” (16:01)
The debate underscores the larger fear: potential co-conspirators or enablers cloaking themselves as victims to avoid scrutiny.

5. Missing Documents and Pattern of Non-Compliance (18:35–21:47)

Gill and Fang discuss missing handwritten FBI notes, incomplete interview transcripts, and foreign language documents the court already ordered released.
Judge Sullivan’s order is seen as unusually strong and specific—a “real burn for Todd Blanche” (12:37)—and signals judicial impatience.

6. Deadline Disputes & Redaction Logs (20:11–21:47)

Judge Sullivan requires explanation for each redaction and clarity about compliance deadlines, demanding specificity and a schedule going forward.

7. The Legal and Policy Implications (21:47–25:54)

Gill: “It doesn't seem to make sense that anybody can just come in and say, well, how do you really define murder, your honor? Like maybe it doesn't include these three things that I happen to do.” (21:47)
The expanded victim definition could theoretically let even infamous co-conspirators (e.g., Ghislaine Maxwell) self-identify as “victims” and escape scrutiny.
The lack of transparency marks a “serious injustice” to actual victims.

8. The Case for a Special Master (25:04–28:48)

Given DOJ’s repeated poor compliance and voluminous documents, Gill and Fang argue a Special Master is needed to review disputed redactions impartially—analogous to Barbara Jones’s oversight of Trump Organization records.
Such an official could swiftly resolve document disputes, given the scope and complexity.

9. The Broader Political Context (29:33–32:07)

Both discuss Attorney General Blanche’s controversial confirmation despite ongoing defiance of court orders, and political failures to hold key figures accountable.
Fang laments bipartisan unwillingness to take the Epstein files seriously during confirmation.

10. Looking Forward: Next Steps (29:05–End)

Listeners are encouraged to follow Fang for live updates after the high-stakes August 13th hearing, which could shape the future of the Epstein files litigation.
The effort is cast as a critical fight for factual truth and accountability, against an administration attempting to “distort everything... and gaslight the shit out of you.” (Katie Fang, 29:33)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

"Trust me, bro." (Katie Fang, 08:49) — On Blanche’s lack of evidence for redactions.
"Judge Sullivan is not buying what Todd Blanche is selling." (Allison Gill, 03:25)
“By expanding that definition to include people who self identify, we've now created this Pandora's box being opened of allowing people... to identify as victims.” (Katie Fang, 05:30)
“This is just a subset of the bigger documents that I am seeking. It is incredible and yet on point that the DOJ would create this measure of litigation over a subset of documents.” (Katie Fang, 22:42)
“We flood the Zone with sunlight.” (Allison Gill, 34:24) — Reaffirming the goal of transparency.

Key Timestamps

00:35 — Allison Gill introduces the ongoing Epstein files saga and outlines the key legal conflict.
03:25 — Introduction of guest Katie Fang; opening remarks on the judge's latest order.
05:30 — Deep dive on the problematic definition of “victim.”
08:49 — “Trust me, bro” moment; spotlight on Blanche’s unsupported assertions.
12:37 — Judge’s rejection of handwritten notes argument; connections to Trump case.
16:01 — Fang explains the draft indictment controversy and its implications.
21:47 — Discussion of why legal definitions matter; dangerous precedent of self-identification.
25:54 — Calls for appointment of a Special Master to manage ongoing disputes.
29:33 — The personal stakes; why the fight for document transparency matters.
34:24 — Memorable sign-off: “We flood the Zone with sunlight.”

Conclusion: Why This Matters

This episode is essential listening for anyone following the campaign for Epstein case transparency and accountability in the justice system. The hosts' blend of legal expertise, lived litigation experience, and biting commentary brings clarity and urgency to a complex legal and political saga, as the DOJ faces a rare public reckoning before a federal judge.

For ongoing updates, follow Katie Fang on YouTube and Allison Gill on The Daily Beans.

Loading summary

Transcript67 lines

[00:00]
A
History is messy. It's weird, wild and anything but boring. Rainy Day Rabbit Holes is a history podcast about unhinged stories that make you stop and ask, wait, is this real life? From crazy disasters and tasty scandals to enlightening and surprising heartwarming tales, we explore the moments where people behave badly and sometimes beautifully. We've got naughty politicians, cultural chaos and a deep love for the Pacific Northwest, including Bigfoot. It's thoughtful, irreverent, occasionally serious and always entertaining. Let's fall down the rabbit hole.
[00:35]
B
MSW Media. Hey everybody. Welcome to the Breakdown. I'm Alison Gill, host of the Daily Beans podcast. Thanks to the Midas Touch Network for giving this show the Breakdown a little bit of a platform a with all their incredible followers and subscribers. I really appreciate it. As you know, we've been following the saga of the Epstein files. You know, I have a lawsuit out there to get training materials from a year ago. Not after the fact, not after everything was redacted. I want the training videos that came first. They have admitted they exist. But they had. They said that they don't have to give them to me because of deliberative process, privilege and law enforcement things and victim redactions and all this other stuff. So talking, speaking about victims. Last time we met, Katie Fang was here talking about how Judge Emmett Sullivan had ordered Todd Blanche to hand over a handful of unredacted Epstein files documents, along with proof of why some of the things were redacted, hidden behind redaction bars. Documentary evidence supporting that those names should be removed from the public eye and that he was going to review these in camera. The judge was going to review them by himself in his chambers and he came out with an order since we last met. And the order basically says, I'm not picking up what you're putting down. Mr. Blanche, who by the way, in a four in the morning vote was confirmed by the Senate to be the Attorney General of the United States, even though he's currently in defiance of a court order, in my opinion. But we're going to talk. Talk about what Judge Emmett Sullivan is now ordering pursuant to an up upcoming status hearing in the Katie Fang case. And we're going to do that with Katie Fang. Everybody. Welcome to the Breakdown. Hey everybody. Welcome to the Breakdown. I am so excited today to be joined by the inimitable Katie Fang. Hi, Katie, how are you?
[02:56]
C
Hi. That's a really impressive. That's a really tough word, by the way. Inimitable. Right. There's certain words out there that I see coming and I Get very nervous if I have to, like, read it. I'm like, is there another word I can use? So inimitable is. That's impressive that you were able to see it so easily.
[03:14]
B
It took me a second, though. You heard the little bit of a pause. That slight pause right before that. And politicization. I always am like, oh, here it comes.
[03:23]
C
Now you're making me nervous about that one, too.
[03:26]
B
So Judge Sullivan is not buying what Todd Blanche is selling.
[03:31]
C
He has not been buying. Has not been buying. Yeah. He hasn't been like, would you. If you saw Todd Blanche walk up to you on the street and be like, hey, you want to buy some watches? But, I mean, does he look like a trustworthy fella to you? I think not.
[03:46]
B
Yeah. No. But after reviewing these unredacted Epstein files in camera. In chambers. That's a word for in chambers. Sullivan is ordering Todd Blanche to prepare to few questions in your upcoming status hearing, which takes place this week on August 13th. So, first of all, and I'm paraphrasing here, it's three main things the judge says. Todd, you said you would provide documentation proving the redacted names are, in fact, victims, and you didn't do that. Instead, you just said they are victims based on a lawyer self identifying their clients to you as victims. Therefore, you failed to comply with my court order. So be prepared to bring in that documentation. And right here last week, you said, what is this documentation? Was any documentation provided? Because if you'll recall, Katie, explain a little bit. Todd Blanche had effectively changed the definition of victim as it pertains to this case, to not just be victims of Epstein and Maxwell, but anyone who self identifies to the Department of Justice, either by themselves or through counsel, as a victim. And so it seems like Judge Sullivan has the exact same questions that we had last week about this particular issue.
[05:09]
A
Yeah.
[05:10]
C
And as you and I talked, I mean, you and I have been incredibly prescient on kind of issue spotting. I think, like, where this litigation is going and like, what is. What's at. You know, what's. What's going to be a bone of contention. I think so. You know, I'll even spot Todd Blanche, this one. Allison, there's no definition, I don't believe, and I checked, of victim per se.
[05:30]
A
Right.
[05:30]
C
In the Epstein files Transparency Act. So in the absence of a definition, I understand if there could be some measure of liberty taken. But of course, for the intent, the good intent of protecting a victim of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and others. But by expanding and also Continuing to not really define what a victim is by expanding. Expanding that definition to include people who self identify, We've now created this Pandora's box being opened of allowing people to either self identify or identify through counsel that they are victims. And in doing so, Blanche has said, well, that means that I am obligated to redact their names, email addresses, and other pii, you know, personal identifying information. And so we've now created this. This really very uncomfortable space where, again, I have no intent of outing a victim at all. And I want to make sure that we're very careful about this. Alison, that has been something that you and I have been. This has been paramount for us to make sure that doesn't happen. But I also think Blanche has now created this situation where people that were legitimate co conspirators, co defendants, true enablers, that they are now self identifying as victims. And so now not only is their information being redacted, but I fear that that's also buttressing Blanche's argument to the Epstein survivors and victims that he met with and that he's publicly stated where he said, oh, Epstein never trafficked the girls to anyone else, which has always been one of these. Like, what do you mean he trafficked them to himself? That's not possible. And also, there's no investigations here for me to do, either for the FBI or the doj because there's nothing to go after. Remember how he said before there's no third parties? I mean, that goes back to Pami Jo with the bad hair in July of 2025 when she and Kash Patel issued that infamous memorandum that said, we've looked at terabyte upon terabyte upon gigabyte upon terabyte of whatever byte of info, and there are no investigations of third parties that should be done here. And that makes me wonder. That's just not possible.
[07:45]
B
Right, Right. Because are you saying it's like. It's like he's an inch away from saying Epstein didn't traffic any girls because he had other girls do that for him or other modeling agents do that for him. Yeah. Right. And so at what point? And again, your whole point is to make sure that victims are protected and to have the court litigate what Todd Blanche is trying to define as a victim because it's not defined in the Epstein files Transparency Act. And so it's, I don't think, understood in a concise manner as far as this case goes. And last week you said to me, you're like, well, maybe there are emails or grand Jury testimony or litigation or communication that would substantiate the fact that the person's name behind this box is a victim. That that was what Judge Emmett Sullivan was expecting to see. And he got none of it. Because, remember when I said, what did he hand over? Just his definition of what a victim was, and that he's allowed to do this because that's. He's got, he's got a history of doing that.
[08:49]
C
And Blanche literally, once again, told Judge Sullivan, trust me, bro. Yeah, right. He lit.
[08:56]
A
He.
[08:57]
C
He said it at the beginning. He said, just trust me. These redactions are proper. July 25, 2026, Judge Sullivan said, I don't believe you. I don't. I don't accept the trust me, bro exception, which doesn't exist. And so I'm making you come to court in chambers, bring the unredacted documents and the documentation corroborating and supporting your assertions that, that, that these redactions across the board are legitimate, by the way, not just for the, the emails and stuff, but for everything else. And then Blanche goes, brings the unredacted emails and the way that. I read this order that just got entered by Judge Sullivan, I read it, Allison, as stating exactly this situation. You, your assertions do not comply with the court's order, which requires documentation to support the assertions. It's almost like a little inception moment, right? You're going to make this assertion, I told you to be the docs. You don't be the docs. You say, trust me, bro. That's not sufficient. The defendant, as in Todd Blanch, shall not permissive, but ordered, shall be prepared to discuss what documentation he will provide to support his assertions. And so Judge Sullivan is saying, you violated the court order. I don't believe you. Once again. And now he's no longer acting Attorney General. He is now the Attorney General of the United States, which I think is yet another red flag of no credibility, according to a federal judge. So now the judge says, I'm not asking you to come and bring these documents. You're going to tell me exactly what you are going to give me and that I hope when this happens. So notice this is an open court. The status hearing is not behind closed doors. So I'm interested because does this mean then Blanche comes in or the DOJ comes in, and they say, we are prepared to provide to the court the following. Because you know me, I'll be having my ears completely peeled to this, because I'm curious to know what they're relying upon, because I just don't believe that all of these redactions are all, quote, victims. I just don't. I don't believe it.
[10:59]
B
Right, right. And. And that should be left up to the judge. And I imagine, since this is open court, that it'll be like, well, we need to file this under seal or give it to you on the under seal or on camera.
[11:10]
C
Still got to tell us what it is, you know.
[11:13]
B
Now, the second thing that Judge Sullivan says, in this order, he says, todd, again, I'm paraphrasing. Todd, you claim you didn't supply handwritten interview notes because they are substantially similar to the typed up reports. There's nothing in the Epstein Files Transparency act that allows you to withhold similar documents. So be prepared to explain why you can't hand redact a handwritten document. So I thought this was a very interesting assertion, a very interesting argument from the judge on the law here, because the Epstein Files Transparency act allows for duplicates to be, you know, not released or withheld.
[11:56]
C
Yeah, but there's no shortage of duplicates. Right. We've seen in these files. I mean, I've seen multiples of the same email, some with different redactions on each time, you know, but what Todd
[12:04]
B
Blanche is trying to argue here is that the reason we didn't go through the handwritten notes is because they've been typed up. And so those are similar enough. No, they are not. And there's no exemption for this in the Epstein Files Transparency act for Todd Blanche to actually say, oh, the handwritten stuff is close enough to the. To the typed up stuff. You don't need the handwritten stuff. And Judge Sullivan is like, you can just hand redact these. And by the way, that's not an explanation pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
[12:37]
C
God, this one was like a real burn for Todd Blanche. Right. Because not only is Judge Sullivan right, as we told him and as he had already agreed with us when he granted the preliminary injunction back in June, there's no exception provided for in this federal statute called the Epstein Files Transparency act for withholding. This is not even. I'm giving it to you heavily redacted, Allison. This is. I'm not even going to give it to you at all. So he's never given us these handwritten interview notes. And no coincidence here, I believe these are the FBI handwritten interview notes from the four interviews done of a single victim who alleges that when she was 13 years old, she was sexually abused and physically beaten by Donald Trump. And I don't think this is a coincidence that I am jumping through hoop upon hoop upon hoop to get these handwritten notes. So for Judge Sullivan to call Blanche out on the mat and say, look, man, not only is there no exception here, but this was the most delicious thing. Another thing that I was supposed to get that Blanche was supposed to turn over in an unredactive form for the judge to look out in chambers was a draft indictment prepared by the Southern District of Florida, then supervised and run by Alex Acosta, who eventually gave him that non prosecution agreement, including the co conspirators immunity part. And then he eventually got that sweetheart deal from the state back in the mid-2000s, he being abstract. So what did Blanche say? And this is why I was kind of impressed. I'm always impressed by Sullivan, but really impressed here. In a prior filing, Blanche told the court, I don't have the exact bait stamp document that Ms. Fang is looking for. I've looked, but I don't have the original. But Judge, rest assured, I have something that is pretty much the same. The substantially similar draft indictment. And in that substantially similar draft indictment, the names that appear are the names of victims. Even though, Allison, the document I wanted is a draft indictment, it is the names that are co defendants. They are not co conspirators. They are notified as victims. They are identified as co defendants of Jeffrey Epstein for purposes of presentment to a grand jury. So Judge Sullivan says, Mr. Blanche, not only is the no exception for handwritten notes being substantially similar, but you yourself represented to this court that you have and you can produce substantially similar draft indictments. So you need to come to court at the status hearing and explain why you can't just manually redact by hand the handwritten notes. Which means for me, Alison, I'm getting the handwritten notes. He's going to order them to redact them manually. It's not like it's 4,000 pages either, right? I mean, I'm not asking for thousands of pages. I'm probably asking for. Well, I don't know. I'm guessing, right? Because I have no idea because I still haven't gotten the notes. So it's just not going to be voluminous to the point where you can't hand redact it.
[15:31]
B
Yeah, and for him to say those are victims names redacted in a draft indictment that's substantially similar to the indictment that Ms. Fang wants that I can't find for some reason. When you read an indictment, and I've read a few, the victims of the crime in the indictment are person one Person two, Jane Doe. They don't name victims in an indictment because it's purportedly going to be a public document. Right?
[16:02]
C
So, yeah, I'm talking the names that appear at the top of page one that says United States of America versus. And this document I wanted said Jeffrey Epstein. And then it had three names redacted. They were the co defendants of Jeffrey Epstein. Which means that at the conclusion of a investigation done by the Southern District of Florida, that office had determined that there were three people that were co defendants of Jeffrey Epstein. Now, look, let me be explicitly clear. It doesn't mean that perhaps some of them started out in a different way with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and perhaps others. But that indictment, by the time we made it to the point in 20 freaking 2008, I guess whatever is when it was, when they were ready to present this to a grand jury, the U.S. attorney's office had made a determination that those people were co defendants, that their conduct was criminal in nature beyond to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Their conduct was the commission of a crime that violated criminal statutes in the United States of America. I want those names. If those people want to sit there and say that they were victims, I guess that's up to them. But for us to not get access to that so that I can also do more of an investigation into who those people are, that defeats the purpose of the Epstein files. Transparency Act. End of story.
[17:29]
B
Yeah. And I'm thinking to myself, like, is it the person who runs the Mademoiselle Modeling Agency? Is it Jean Luc Brunel that's under there, who has had a lawyer? Well, he's passed away now.
[17:42]
C
Most people say it's Sarah Cowan. Okay. Who we know claims that she was a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. And she went. She did house oversight and all. Okay, fine. But you know what? I shouldn't have to guess, right? And again, not everybody takes the position that Sarah Kellen is a victim. Epstein survivors I've spoken to have taken the position that Sarah Kellen is not a victim.
[18:04]
B
Well, she's going to be indicted.
[18:06]
C
And she was. She was going to be indicted. Maybe a grand jury would say, you know what? After the presentment, I don't think she's a co defendant. Whatever. But at the end of the day, I don't have access to that name. Judge Sullivan will decide in his ultimate wisdom, based upon what is provided, whether I get that information or not. But I think when it comes to the specific provision of those handwritten notes, I think Todd Blanche just had his own words and excuses used against him. And a federal judge didn't have a problem saying, I'm going to use this against you.
[18:35]
B
Yeah. And there are whole other cases like the Epstein survivor who anonymously reached out to me, who had the friend that was sort of sent by the Trump modeling agen an Epstein party. And she gave multiple interviews to the FBI, but only one typed up, no handwritten notes. Only one of the typed up interviews was released and it was one of four that didn't mention Donald Trump, that only mentioned Jeffrey Epstein. So where are those other things? We've talked to Annie Farmer about her sister Maria, who, who had that report finally released from 1996. But she was like, I know there are more. I spoke to them more than that. And where are those. Right. So all kinds of things are missing here. And I. And particularly handwritten notes that sort of proceed or go along with those typed up FBI. Everybody remembers the Excel spreadsheet. Some things were highlighted in yellow, some things were not. That's where we learned about the summary of the 13 year old. And then, you know, finally, after some complaining, the typed notes came up, but not the handwritten notes. And Todd is saying they're close enough that you don't have to see them. Well, that's not, that's not what the law says. No. And then the final thing here in Sullivan's order, Todd, again, I'm paraphrasing. You are required to provide explanations for each redaction. The parties dispute the deadline. So be prepared to answer why you think you complied in time.
[20:12]
C
It gets even better than that, Allison. Judge Sullivan says the defendant shall be prepared to discuss his timing for complying with this requirement. It's not even like I'm going to let you come and argue with me and Ms. Fang over whether you have a deadline or not. The judge is like, you're going to come and tell me when you're going to actually provide this redaction log, which is what he granted by way of the preliminary injunction anyway back in June. Right. And so it's so I was so grateful to see that Judge Sullivan issued this order. There's one outstanding thing which is the foreign language documents which I did get granted and I still haven't seen addressed in terms of the non compliance by Blanche. And so I'm happy to bring that, you know, nicely to Judge Sullivan's attention on Thursday to say, and hey, Judge, by the way, the PI said we get these foreign language documents and Blanche's only excuse was it wasn't practicable. To do it. And that's why we didn't do it. And Judge Sullivan in his PI order was like, that's not an excuse. You gotta turn him over, like starting now. And so I kind of feel like we need to make sure that's done. We need to make sure that's done in so many different ways. Because you and I both know, Alice, and what's gonna happen is he'll start turning them over and those are gonna be heavily redacted. I'm gonna have to litigate that too. Right. So there's like a whole war about rollout that's about to happen here. But I was pleased to see this order. It was candidly, was unexpected. I thought we were gonna get it maybe a little bit later. And I thought frankly, we were going to have to argue over this issue of Blanche blowing this deadline to respond before we were going to get this. So I was happy to see we got this order from Judge Sullivan.
[21:48]
B
Yeah. And just like the first thing that jumped out to me that I talked to you about last week and jumped out to you initially was the expanded definition of victim and how that is relevant and what the documentation is needed to prove somebody's victimhood, et cetera, et cetera. And that we're so. I'm just so thankful that it's going to be a of law that is going to get to litigate that definition and decide, because it doesn't seem to make sense that anybody can just come in and say, well, how do you really define murder, your honor? Like maybe it doesn't include these three things that I happen to do. Right. And so there has to be some interpretation of the Epstein files Transparency act definition of victim to fit here so that the documents can or cannot be released pursuant to that definition of victim.
[22:42]
C
Yeah. And two things really quickly. One, can you imagine if Ghislaine Maxwell had yet to have been indicted? She could say, I'm a victim of Jeffrey Epstein, I was bamboozled by him, I was abused by him, blah, blah. And so now we have Ghislaine Maxwell, who potentially could have been redacted based upon the self identification. And look, there's a very credible group of people that are Epstein victims that have come forward and said and incredibly were victims. I am not saying that that is not a reality. I just think again, Blanche created this slippery slope of a problem of allowing people to be doing this. And I think that that is a challenge that I trust Judge Sullivan will be able to tackle. And look, even if he errs on the side of caution on the redactions, at least he still forces Todd Blanche to have to corroborate it. I think not forcing Todd Blanche to do that would be a serious, serious injustice here to real victims. Right. And so I do think that this is important. The second thing too, I think that is important here is that, you know, again, this is just a subset of the bigger documents that I am seeking. It is incredible and yet on point that the DOJ would create this measure of litigation over a subset of documents. And of course it probably forecasts how the entirety of my litigation is going to go. Right. In terms of all of it. But I do think it's so powerful because it sets the tone and I think it creates one of another of very important inflection points in the way that the rule of law is being looked at. Because I honestly think it's. Because it's Judge Sullivan who's like, look, you know, this is what we do here. This is like normal course, like we're not, we're not doing something differently because you're the Acting Attorney General or the Attorney General of the United States. This is what we're going to do. And I'm grateful for that because there's such a double standard when it comes to these things. And I'm just glad that we actually have again, some normalcy when it comes to dealing with this litigation in terms of, of just orders. But of course we still have non compliance by them.
[25:05]
B
Yeah. And meanwhile in the background is the reality that the presumption of regularity has been dismantled piece by piece over the last year and a half. And judges, you know, have always said, look, we, we don't exist in a vacuum. That is also something that can be taken into account when going through these. And I think a lot of this maneuvering and defensiveness and well, the handwritten notes are just too. And four language stuff's too hard. And I, I don't, I don't need to provide documentation because I wrote up a memo that says if somebody just says this, then it's true. And so you just have like all of that just. And mixed with the presumption, irregularity, destruction just leads me to it. It feels like it's a naturally leading us to justify a special master in this case.
[25:54]
C
You know, I share your sentiment on that because Judge Sullivan has a full audit of cases. Mine is just one of several. And so he cannot reasonably manage this case, especially when we start getting down to the real nitty gritty on these docs. Right. I feel like the Special Master would be, not would be, is the person who would stand in the shoes of Judge Sullivan and do exactly what he's doing now. Take an unredacted document, take the supporting documentation from the DOJ that says that the redaction is a legitimate one pursuant to the law, and then that Special Master makes a finding which can be refuted.
[26:39]
A
Right.
[26:39]
C
And can be challenged.
[26:40]
B
Yeah. Here's a list of everything we have questions about. You have this long to answer us and provide documentation to back it up. And then we'll review and then we'll turn our report over to Judge Sullivan.
[26:51]
C
And this is not an unusual thing. I have litigated financial cases that have been voluminous in nature when it comes to docs. I've litigated other complex cases that have been very paper heavy. Although these days everything's kind of not printed out. Although I'm still old school and I like to print it out. But I've done this and we've used Special Masters and then we. Or we used a magistrate judge. But even now, even magistrate judges in federal court are so doing. But I'll give you an example, right? You and I both have talked about on our respective channels the BBC case, right, where you had a magistrate judge, not the district court judge, but the magistrate judge, looked at the litigation over the documents that Trump is supposed to turn over concerning, you know, 400 business entities or whatever. Now, that document production hasn't happened yet, but when it happens, that mag judge is kind of dealing with all of that. And because Trump didn't agree with that, Trump is also trying to get the federal District court judge to disagree with the mag judge. But the point is that even the mag judges are so overwhelmed too, with their work audits that a Special Master would be a fantastic addition to my case. It's what I've asked for in my lawsuit. And I'm hoping that the judge says, you know, this is the workflow we're going to do moving forward. You make this assertion. You say this is, this is unredacted. You say this is the grounds. And the Special Master says, balls and strikes. No. Yes, whatever, you know. Yeah.
[28:18]
B
And we saw it in the fraud investigation into Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, by the New York Attorney General Letitia James. There was, it wasn't, the title was different Special Master, but it was a fiduciary babysitter, basically. But it was, it was Barbara Jones, who we've seen many times as a Special Master before, and that's millions and Millions of documents that, you know, that needed to be reviewed through that special master. And so she had a staff set up, and they go through it, and
[28:49]
C
there's a whole process there, and that's what they do, and they know how to do it. And I'm, you know, most of us just come along for the special master ride, but that's what we want in my lawsuit, something we've specifically asked for, because we feel like that's the best way to manage this type of case.
[29:05]
A
Yeah.
[29:05]
B
And if you got 10 documents and the DOJ screwed up half of them, you know, that speaks a lot to, I think, the justification of that. So I'm very excited about this status hearing. It's coming up again, August 13th. That's this Week. And I look forward to, you know, seeing everything that you put out about this when it happens. And everybody, you know, if you subscribe to Katie Fang's YouTube channel, you will get it all first, and then. And then she'll come over here and talk to me about it a little bit.
[29:33]
C
Yes. We'll break it. We'll do the breakdown again on it. No, but I really appreciate it, Alison, the way that you're incredibly nuanced on these issues, and I appreciate being able to talk about it, because, you know, I mean, I'm living this case, right. I mean, this is not just something I report on. Like, this is, like, something that I am actively litigating. And so I will get on a plane and fly to D.C. because the court ordered the parties to appear. It's not just Blanche, it's me. He said status hearing parties to appear. And I want people to know, like, this is. This is, this is. And it's so hard because with Blanche getting confirmed, and it's just been such a real painful moment, I think, for a lot of us to see this happen. And so being able to continue to push this case forward is so important. I know it's not just for me. I know it's for so many other people, but it's really important because it's really kind of the only case. Second, I think, maybe only to yours with your training videos, but it's like, the only case that's really making progress. Right. And that's what we need. We need to show that this Trump regime doesn't have a monopoly on the truth, because I feel like that's the energy they're giving. Like, we're going to distort everything, we're going to weaponize everything, and we're going to gaslight the shit out of you. So that you think that what we're pedaling to you is truth and it's not. Which is why if I can, you know, show that these redactions are illegal and I can show that these withholdings are illegal and these are all being done by the Attorney General of the United States, then that chips away at this idea that, you know, everything that comes out of this government is true. In fact, it's the opposite. And that's something we've been kind of, you know, kind of ringing the bell about for a long ass time. But when it comes to this singular issue, I mean, it didn't escape my notice that Cornyn and Tillis in the end never made the Epstein files the issue. No, nor, nor did Bill Cassidy, which is why I was upset beyond. Because he's a doctor. And I said, of all people, Alison, who should care or have some empathy, it would be a doctor about sex, child rape and sex abuse of a child and the trauma and, and Cassidy, I don't know. I don't know what the hell he did, but it definitely wasn't the right thing.
[32:08]
B
No. And they knew it would have to. They'd have to confirm him at some point. And so if you went against him on the Epstein files, that's a huge losing issue on both sides of the aisle. Do you think it, do you think, do you think it'd be Todd Blanche or do you think they'll send like Stanley Woodward?
[32:24]
C
Oh, Lord.
[32:25]
B
Stanley. Stanley.
[32:27]
C
He looks like an oaf.
[32:28]
B
I'm hoping for Stanley. I hope they send Stanley. I don't know.
[32:31]
C
Jeanine Pirro freaking has her on the filings again, which is so bizarre to me. So it's like, is box of wine going to roll up? It's one. It's kind of early for cocktails. I don't know. But listen, I do think, because somebody asked me, I do think if Todd doesn't show up, which it'll probably be Stanley, because Stanley Woodward jumped in when the PI. When the preliminary injunction motion was granted. Woodward jumped in. He's the number three. I guess he becomes the number two now, right? Todd's become the.
[33:01]
B
If he names him deputy. Don't you have to confirm a deputy?
[33:05]
C
Yeah, you have to come.
[33:06]
B
You do. You have to confirm a deputy. So you might just stay in his weird.
[33:09]
C
That's interesting area.
[33:10]
A
Probably.
[33:13]
C
Maybe he'll send this poor line prosecutor who makes the craziest assertions as well in his filing. So I have no idea. But you know, whoever shows up, I do Think there's a time when the judge is going to have Blanche himself show up. Like, Blanche himself show up. I think Solomon's going to get to the point, like a lot of federal judges do, where they're like, I'm done. We're not doing this anymore. We're bringing in the Marco Rubio's, we're bringing in the Kristi Noems when she was still working, you know.
[33:35]
B
Right. Because every lower line prosecutor is like, I can't answer that. I don't have that information. I don't. You know, I remember the whole Bozberg Alien enemies act case where he's like, can't get a straight answer out of any of you.
[33:45]
C
Bring in the person who made these decisions, which was, you know, we were getting to that point in the Kilmar, Abrego, Garcia Abrego.
[33:51]
B
Yeah.
[33:51]
C
And then in the end, you know, the judge dismissed that criminal case. But. But anyway, I, you know, I think there will come a point in time. It's Todd. But you know what? I just want this judge to lower the boom. That's what I want.
[34:02]
B
There you go. Well, I'm looking forward to it. I look forward to. Talk to you soon, everybody. Make sure you subscribe to Katie Fang's channel here on the Midas Touch Network. Such important work and I really appreciate everything that you do to. To chip away at this so we can get a little bit of. Get a little bit of sunlight on there. I've been saying lately, you know, they flood the Zone with shit and we flood the Zone with sunlight, and that's what we'll continue to do.
[34:25]
C
I like it.
[34:26]
B
Yeah. All right, everybody. Thank you so much for watching. Thank you, Katie. I'll be back next week right here on the Breakdown.
[35:03]
C
Breaking news right now. My brothers and I wrote a book. It's called WTF America? And, well, doesn't that just say it all? It comes out officially this October, but
[35:12]
B
you can pre order your copy today.
[35:14]
C
Just scan the QR code code or click the link in the description below.
[35:31]
A
History is messy. It's weird, wild, and anything but boring. Rainy Day Rabbit Holes is a history podcast about unhinged stories that make you stop and ask, Wait, is this real life? From crazy disasters and tasty scandals to enlightening and surprising heartwarming tales. We explore the moments where people behave badly and sometimes beautifully. We've got naughty politicians, cultural chaos, and a deep love for the Pacific Northwest, including Bigfoot. It's thoughtful, irreverent, occasionally serious, and always entertaining. Let's fall down the rabbit hole.
[36:06]
B
MSW Media.