Trump DoJ In Crisis After Major Epstein Ruling | The Breakdown

Summary

---

The Daily Beans: Trump DoJ In Crisis After Major Epstein Ruling | The Breakdown

Date: July 6, 2026
Host: Allison Gill (MSW Media)
Guest: Katie Fang (Attorney, Legal Commentator)
Theme:
A detailed breakdown and lively analysis of the Department of Justice’s (DoJ) response to Judge Emmet Sullivan’s preliminary injunction regarding unredacted Epstein files, the government’s alleged defiance, and the ongoing battle for transparency and justice for Epstein survivors.

---

Main Theme and Purpose

This episode unpacks the latest crisis within the Trump-era DoJ following a major courtroom ruling on Jeffrey Epstein records transparency. Host Allison Gill and attorney Katie Fang dig into the July 2 government response to Judge Sullivan’s injunction—mandating the DoJ to produce or justify withholding specific Epstein files. The episode scrutinizes the filing’s credibility, exposes deflection tactics, and debates the need for a special master to oversee the process, all wrapped in the Beans’ signature snark and legal insight.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Judge Sullivan’s Injunction and DoJ’s Response

• Background: Judge Emmet Sullivan granted a preliminary injunction compelling the DoJ—represented by Todd Blanche and signed by Stanley Woodward—to produce or provide legal grounds for withholding unredacted Epstein documents under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
• Government’s Move: On July 2, the DoJ refused full compliance, requesting more time, blaming survivors, and offering incomplete or deflective justifications.

Erosion of Trust in the Department of Justice

• Presumption of Regularity Lost:
  • There’s a growing judicial skepticism toward the DoJ—judges “no longer grant them the presumption of regularity.”
  • Allison: “The Department of Justice no longer enjoys a presumption of regularity...” ([03:20])
  • Katie: “I still believe... I grew up believing... now I’m actually a litigant... experiencing their bad faith in real time.” ([05:00])
• Special Master Proposal: Both agree that the DoJ’s inadequate and untrustworthy responses make a special master—the court’s independent reviewer—the logical solution.
  • Katie: “Why not just get that special master installed right now... and let them tackle these issues?” ([02:20])

Government Deflection Tactics and Excuses

Key Findings:

• Victim Blaming and Redaction Skirting:
  • Blanche repeatedly cites “victim privacy” as a reason for redacting names, without credible review or context—sometimes extending “victim” status dubiously to enablers or perpetrators.
    • Allison: “Blanche blames the victims like he always does…” ([07:55])
    • Katie: “Some of them could be victims turned recruiters… maybe even perpetrators themselves.” ([08:38])
    • On the “your littlest one was so naughty” email: “That’s just not credible.” ([09:21])
• Inventing New Redaction Rules:
  • Blanche argues, in contradiction to the law, that private emails don’t have to be disclosed, conflating Transparency Act requirements with FOIA provisions.
    • Katie: “He invents out of whole cloth this new redaction scheme that doesn’t exist in the Epstein Files Transparency Act.” ([10:32])
• Withholding Indictment Drafts:
  • The DoJ claims it cannot even locate the original unredacted draft of a key Southern District of Florida indictment.
    • Allison: “You can’t locate an indictment draft?” ([13:45])
    • Katie: “I’m supposed to trust this man?” ([14:22])
• Excuses for Handwritten Notes:
  • DoJ argues that handwritten FBI notes are too hard to redact, blaming “technical limitations.”
    • Allison: “Sit down with a black magic marker and read—borrow the Sharpie from convicted felon Donald Trump.” ([15:18])
• Foreign-Language Material Delay:
  • DoJ claims translations are ongoing, blaming lack of complaints from Congress as an excuse for slow compliance.
    • Katie: “He says… Congress didn’t complain. So the court cannot complain.” ([16:38])

Persistent Non-Compliance with Clear Legal Standards

• Redaction Log Requirements:
  • DoJ was supposed to catalogue every redaction with specific reasons. Instead, they offer only vague summaries despite clear statutory language.
    • Katie: “The law says… a written justification for each redaction. A summary or category is not.” ([18:31])
• Resource Complaints & Gaslighting:
  • Blanche contends the work is too difficult and time-consuming, hinting at a lack of adequate Congressional funding—ignoring the extensive resources previously spent on other redactions like those for Donald Trump.
    • Allison: “You didn’t need money from Congress to redact Trump’s name… paid a couple million dollars in overtime…” ([22:27])
    • Katie: “Am I being gaslit right now?” ([20:48])
• Contempt and the Path Forward:
  • The hosts predict that Judge Sullivan won’t tolerate the excuses and may appoint a special master or even initiate contempt proceedings soon.
    • Katie: “I would never ever flirt with a federal judge’s... ability to impose contempt.” ([24:33])
• Potential for Broader Accountability:
  • The timing of Todd Blanche’s Senate Judiciary confirmation hearing is discussed; senators are paying attention to the DoJ’s “proud peacock strut” of non-compliance.
    • Katie: “...Senate Judiciary members are looking at this case, my specific lawsuit... that Todd Blanch flaunts... that he doesn't have to obey the law.” ([27:26])
• What’s Next?
  • Katie is ready to pursue further legal action if the judge doesn’t swiftly intervene.
    • “I’m not sitting on my ass, right. Whenever it’s appropriate, we’ll do it.” ([32:31])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “They’ve essentially bolstered your argument for a special master.”
  – Allison Gill ([02:00])
• “There’s a lot about this filing that doesn’t seem credible... why not just get that special master installed right now?”
  – Katie Fang ([02:17])
• “The Department of Justice no longer enjoys a presumption of regularity.”
  – Allison Gill ([03:20])
• “Blanche blames the victims like he always does.”
  – Allison Gill ([07:55])
• “He invents out of whole cloth this new redaction scheme that doesn’t exist in the Epstein Files Transparency Act.”
  – Katie Fang ([10:32])
• “I think they truly are having an ‘oh shit’ moment, which is ‘oh shit, we have to go back to page one of three point something million…’”
  – Katie Fang ([18:33])
• “Am I being gaslit right now? Like, am I taking crazy pills?”
  – Katie Fang ([20:48])
• “I would never, ever flirt with a federal judge’s... ability to impose contempt.”
  – Katie Fang ([24:33])
• “We are prepared by the way, to deal with it. Yeah, but still.”
  – Katie Fang ([24:55])
• “There’s stuff that’s being drafted. Wink, wink. There’s stuff that’s being drafted.”
  – Katie Fang ([32:11])

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• 00:35–01:55: Allison recaps the injunction and the DOJ’s recalcitrance
• 02:00–04:20: Katie and Allison dissect government strategy, underline need for special master
• 07:55–09:55: Victim blaming and the “just trust me, bro” approach in DoJ redactions
• 10:32–11:23: DoJ admits to inventing new redaction criteria and failing to follow the law
• 13:45–15:08: DOJ’s inability to produce key indictment draft and lack of sworn statements
• 15:18–16:03: Excuses regarding handwritten notes and technical limitations
• 16:38–17:26: Congress as a scapegoat for inaction; law versus legislative complaint
• 18:26–21:23: Redaction log failures; DOJ’s resources and transparency questions
• 24:33–25:25: Potential for contempt; judge’s likely impatience with DoJ stalling
• 27:26–29:10: Political implications for DOJ lawyers and upcoming Senate hearings
• 30:11–32:31: Katie outlines litigation next steps and her determination for justice

---

Tone and Final Remarks

Throughout, the tone is sharp, irreverent, and fiercely committed to accountability and justice. Katie Fang and Allison Gill blend legal acumen, incredulity, and humor (“just trust me, bro”; “am I taking crazy pills?”) to convey both the gravity of the DoJ crisis and their ongoing fight for transparency for survivors and the public.

Closing sentiment:
“It’s about justice and it’s about the survivors and justice for them and transparency for the American people. A couple of concepts from independent media and independent journalists on this weekend of America’s 250th birthday. I think that these are the things that I’m celebrating this weekend.”
– Allison Gill ([33:28])

---

This summary covers the central debate, government pushback, legal expectations, and the emotional stakes as recounted by those directly involved in the legal fight for Epstein file transparency.

Transcript

[Katie Fang]

History is messy. It's weird, wild, and anything but boring.

[Allison Gill]

Rainy Day Rabbit Holes is a history podcast about unhinged stories that make you

[Katie Fang]

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

[Allison Gill]

a deep love for the Pacific Northwest, including Bigfoot.

[Katie Fang]

It's thoughtful, irreverent, occasionally serious, and always entertaining. Let's fall down the Rabbit hole.

[Allison Gill]

MSW Media. Hey, everybody, it's Allison Gill, host of the Daily Beans podcast. Welcome to the Breakdown and thanks to Midas Touch for hosting this show last week. As you know, most of you were here. I spoke to Katie Fang about Judge Emmett Sullivan granting her preliminary injunction, which gave Todd Blanche and the Justice Department until July 2 to hand over certain documents from the Epstein files, or at least explain why withholding them is appropriate under the law under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And you'll never guess what the most transparent administration in history did on July 2nd. They refused to hand over the information. Blamed the survivors again. Used them as a pawn like they always do. Asked for more time, even though they've had almost seven months and a stay from the judge who already denied both of those requests in his preliminary injunction. So we're going to go over the government's woefully inadequate response with Katie Fang on today's episode of the Breakdown. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the Breakdown. And welcome Katie Fang. Hi, Katie.

[Katie Fang]

Hey, Alison. And hey to everybody who's tuning in.

[Allison Gill]

All right, so correct me if I'm way off base here, but what Todd Blanche and Stan Woodward have done here with their 12 page non answer full of obfuscation and deflection and victim blaming is that they've essentially bolstered your argument for a special master.

[Katie Fang]

I'm glad that you kind of went to the heart of the matter. The answer is yes, because number one, I'm glad that you didn't actually impute the filing to any line prosecutor. I think it's notable that we didn't see the prosecutor who signed the previous documents that have been filed on behalf of Todd Blanche in this case. We saw Stanley Woodward's signature on it, which I think is a big tell about what this Department of Justice thinks about the value of this case. And it's important. So number one. But number two, yeah, I couldn't think of a better solution to of an. Not like he'd be looking for one. But for Judge Sullivan to have an off ramp. Just appoint the special master now, even in this limited capacity of dealing with a preliminary injunction. Because, Allison, I can tell you that there's a lot about this filing that doesn't seem credible when it comes to Blanche's explanations as to the redactions and the withholdings. So why not just get that special master installed right now and let them tackle these issues?

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, and let's talk about that credibility, because the Department of Justice no longer enjoys a presumption of regularity. If anybody has listened to today's episode of unjustified with Andy McCabe, we go over with a fine tooth comb. Ex CIA, Chief Brennan's filing his preemptive lawsuit to say, hey, can you please ask the government to preserve all their communications. Here's 900 examples of when they haven't and why they've. And here's 20 other quotes from judges about how they've lost the presumption of regulation, the general credit due, the deference due generally to the Department of Justice that we trust what you're doing and we trust what you're saying. And I can't think, I have a hard time believing that Judge Sullivan would be still willing to grant them this presumption of regularity when it comes to at least show me these documents in camera. But a special master would solve that problem.

[Katie Fang]

Yeah, it's weird, you know, because Blanche offers the in camera inspection route or a, quote, protective order thing. Right. Like some way of being able to turn over these documents that are at issue with it, with not exposing them to the public, which defeats the purpose of Judge Sullivan's order. He said, look, you either produce it or you show cause as to why you cannot. And their explanations, the show cause part of it, again, is incredible. And you know, I think it's important too that Judge Sullivan is also going to be contemplating next moves in this case against the backdrop of not only John Brennan's lawsuit, which is spectacular, amazing and incredibly strategic. But remember, former special counsel Jack Smith just went on Ms. Now with my former colleague Nicole Wallace to talk about how there is a presumption of irregularity now when it comes to his former doj. And so I just feel like to have the. I'm going to have a third party do this so that I don't continue on this path. That's your special master. If you're Judge Sullivan. And I also find so many of the excuses that you and I are going to get into in today's episode. I find so many of the excuses from Todd Blanche to just ring either whole wholesale untrue, just lies on their face, or this level of just disrespectful for the judicial process. I did an episode on my channel on Friday where Alison, I started the episode by saying, I'm still capable of being surprised by this doj, and I'm still capable of being angry by this doj. And maybe some people out there think that's either naive of me or I don't know what the adjective would be, Alison. But it's because I still believe. Right. I grew up believing and I was a trial lawyer and a prosecutor. I believe in this stuff, Alison. And so now I'm left to say, okay, I'm actually a litigant. Right. I'm an actual party in a lawsuit with Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice, and I'm experiencing their bad faith in real time.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And you know, when you talk about this sort of deflection and we'll get into these examples, because you asked for several things. The judge required, the judge asked for several things. Granted you your asks, you know, but to sort of hide behind the truth. I think I responded before July 2nd. I think I told you. What do you want to bet he tries to hand in stuff like in camera or under seal?

[Katie Fang]

Oh, yeah, you totally did. No, you called it.

[Allison Gill]

He took it a step further and he said, I'm not going to hand it in at all. And do you want it under seal? Like, it was just the most bizarre thing. So.

[Katie Fang]

So I do. Wait, but let me interrupt you because. So considering the entirety of the filing, but then at the fact on the very last page in the conclusion section, he offers the in camera. Why do you think he threw that in there?

[Allison Gill]

I don't know as to. So that they. As a way to.

[Katie Fang]

Maybe they tried to look reasonable.

[Martin Sheen]

Right.

[Katie Fang]

I don't know. You know, I don't know. Right.

[Allison Gill]

Avoid contempt and be like, hey, we offered. It's like, well, then you should have just done that. Like I ordered you to do it.

[Katie Fang]

Yeah. Why didn't you? Don't you think that would have been the out for them? Like, we were kind of noodling this Brendan Ballou, my legal team and myself and others were like, what if they just turn it over? But they say we're doing it in camera for now just so we can show what it is. Blanche is asking Judge Sullivan to believe Todd Blanche. And I just don't think his credibility carries the day for him at this point.

[Allison Gill]

No. It's almost like, well, my mom told me and so you have to believe me. It's like, it's just the weirdest. Like, it's the whole just trust me, bro method. Just trust me, bro of answering court orders. Now, let's go over some of these excuses here. First, Blanche blames the victims like he always does. For the first six of the eight emails listed, the redacted sender and or recipient names are the names of victims. One of the complicating aspects of administering the Epstein Files Transparency act is that many communications written by victims without context can appear disturbing on their face. So here we have him saying, oh, these redaction bars, that they're just victims.

[Katie Fang]

Not. Let me tell you something. Some of them. Some of them could be victims turned recruiters, enablers, maybe even perpetrators themselves.

[Allison Gill]

That was my fault. Like, are you considering Ghislaine Maxwell, for example, a victim?

[Katie Fang]

I don't, you know, I don't know. But, you know, listen, there are multiple redactions on these pages, right? And so I think the in camera, or more importantly, the special master could sit there and see the context of the sender, recipient email names and addresses. I do feel like the context is important because, look, maybe credibly, some of those emails deal with women that have become recruiters for Epstein, Maxwell and others because they've been groomed. And so maybe they do get that victim label. But I'm sorry, I don't know how anybody at the DOJ could say with a straight face that the email that says your littlest one was so naughty that on its face is not a woman or young woman who used to be a victim who's now become a recruiter. That's just not credible.

[Allison Gill]

Right. And again, solved by a special master.

[Katie Fang]

You don't have to ask Katie Fang, right? Just have the special master look at it.

[Allison Gill]

Now, then get this. He admits that he actually inappropriately redacted someone's identity, a perpetrator, and that he shouldn't have to lift the redaction bars because, well, everyone kind of knows who it is, right? Further, he says, further, the individual who emailed Jeffrey Epstein that he loved the torture video has been repeatedly identified by members of Congress granted access to the files. So, oh, you know, we. We don't have to go through and follow the law if you guys could sleuth it out on your own. That's just so weird to me.

[Katie Fang]

Yeah, that was it. He made a dig at me. He said, the plaintiff, as in me, as in myself, and if I had done, quote, basic Internet search, that I would have found out that it's, you know, the Sultan Ahmed Bin Suleiman. But let me ask you a question. Like, why am I supposed to take Tom Massie's word for it? Like, it's like hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay. It's like, just show me the fucking email with the guy's name. But then you know what he does? He goes further, Alison. And what's wild to me is he invents out of whole cloth this new redaction scheme that doesn't exist in the Epstein Files Transparency act that says private email addresses don't have to be revealed. I'm like, yeah, they kind of do. That's what the law says. And so, yeah, he admits to continuing to breaking the law. You know, at the beginning of this filing, he's like, I never conceded anything. I'm like, yeah, you just kind of did.

[Allison Gill]

I think he's thinking of FOIA requests, which by the way, he tried to say you should be able to use to get that information. Which was last.

[Katie Fang]

He tried that and he lost.

[Allison Gill]

He did. Now then he says that some other redactions are also victim names. He says three of the four names listed under the co conspirator heading. This is what you were talking about. Belong to individuals who are in fact victims. I would really love to know what their definition of victim is. All the DOJ assertions here can be checked by an in camera review or a review by a special master. I mean what I don't understand how you can be like, nope, those redactions are victims. We supposed to. We're supposed to. I'm adding a new rule that says private emails can't be released. And you don't have to check my work if you want to. Kind of like that whole hedging is bet.

[Katie Fang]

So here's the other added layer to what you just said which is on point. There's specifically a document they can't even find.

[Allison Gill]

That's what I have on deck.

[Katie Fang]

Next I'm like, okay, because what I. Because to let people understand what judge, what I asked for and what Judge Sullivan granted were two internal DOJ documents. One was one spoke to with specificity, you know, the existence of these co conspirators. But then the other document that you and I are just about talk about, it was the proposed draft indictment that the Southern District of Florida prepared. It was like 60 something counts. Right, whatever. And like that never got presented because Alex Acosta, the U.S. attorney at the time said, effort, we're just going to give you an on prosecution. So you can get that sweetheart plea deal by the state. But how can somebody. How can they be a. They've now. They've now gone from co conspirator status to co defendant status. So how can you say that somebody is a co defendant for purposes of presentment to the grand jury, which assuming they the grand jury returns a true bill, it means you are prosecuted. How can you, Todd Blanche, say credibly that that person is a victim? And that's why we're not disclosing the name when you also your office, the doj, said through Pammy Jo last July that you have nothing to investigate. So does that mean you investigated these people? Well, let me see your investigation. Well, show your work. Show your work. But no, we're just supposed to do. I love what you just said. Just trust me, bro. Just trust me, bro.

[Allison Gill]

Come on, we're the doj. We tell. Everyone trusts us. Come on. There's not a huge backlog record of judges not trusting us this term. Now, and here's the. Here's the. The thing that you just mentioned. Let me bring it up on the screen. It says this document. This document number is a draft indictment from the Southern District of Florida bearing handwritten notation on page one stating old draft. The redactions appearing in this document were present in the original file. The department has not been able to locate the unredacted version of this specific photocopy. You can't locate an indictment draft.

[Katie Fang]

And then he goes on to say, but trust me, we looked at another redacted version of the indictment and its victims. Again, I'm just assume that this man. And by the way, you know what? It just occurred to me, while you and I are having this conversation, this wasn't some type of sworn response under penalties of perjury. Alison, this is just a filing. This is just a filing. Wasn't signed by Tom Blanche. Signed by Stanley Woodward. And I'm just supposed to trust this man? I did a sworn declaration, right? When I put forth my assertions about how this has impacted me, the work I've done and who I am as a person. Let me tell you something. That was sworn declaration under penalties, right? I didn't see anything from Todd Blanche saying that I'm supposed to believe what he's representing to this court.

[Allison Gill]

No, there was no affidavit. There was no declaration. There was no sworn under penalty of perjury. Much like the rescission of the $1.776 billion slush fund. I don't need to put that in

[Katie Fang]

Trust me, we're not moving forward. Forward. Just trust me.

[Allison Gill]

Just trust me, bro. Then this is some audacity here. Regarding. Regarding the FBI interview notes he was ordered to produce. He says this. Their handwritten nature further complicates the redaction process and increases the. Look, man, sit down with a black magic Marker and read, borrow the Sharpie

[Katie Fang]

from convicted felon Donald Trump. Your bestie. He'll give you that black Sharpie.

[Allison Gill]

It increases the risk of inadvertent disclosure of victims, including because of technical limitations on the department's ability to run meaningful quality. Like, look, if you don't have to run this through AI, bro, you can just sit there and read it or maybe have a special master do it.

[Katie Fang]

Well, and here's the thing. These, these people, like, I wonder sometimes if they really think we're just dumb because there are other handwritten notes that have been turned over with redactions in the Epstein files.

[Allison Gill]

Oh, and let's not forget all of the handwritten notes that Jim Comer and Jim Jordan wanted to put out about the Russia investigation that they had no problem reading and redacting. Now, as far as the foreign language materials, this one's also funny. He says, we're working on it, bro. You've had seven months. You've had seven months.

[Katie Fang]

It's not even that, too. He says, we. We. We told Congress it's just too much for us to do, and Congress didn't complain. So the court cannot complain because Congress didn't complain. It's like, huh. I'm like, I don't. I don't understand. Like, why is Congress now the gold standard on the Epstein file? It wasn't Epstein Files Transparency act for purposes of Congress. It's a law, people. It's not just targeting members of Congress. It's a law. And he's like, well, if Congress doesn't complain, then, Judge Sullivan, you can't complain. And it's like when you. When you put something like that out there, it's like a Mack truck has been created. Like a hole that big for Judge Solomon to drive that special master white through.

[Allison Gill]

I think so, too. And it would be really funny if there was like, a little amicus brief that just said, we complain from Congress. Hi, we're now complaining. Congress. I'm Congress.

[Martin Sheen]

Hi.

[Allison Gill]

I complain. Now, as far as the redaction log, this is the last little bit here. This is where. And it was pretty clear in the law, it said, if you're not good, if you're going to withhold something, you have to put a log together that looks kind of like a privilege log that says redaction number 669-423 is because of victim privacy. You have to lay it out in like a nice Excel spreadsheet, kind of like the Excel spreadsheet you created for mentions of Donald Trump in the Epstein files. You had no problem doing that. But as far as the redaction log, again he says, you know, we're working on it, we're working on it. Like this is what you were supposed to have worked on and had done 15 days after the release of the files. That was supposed to happen on December 19th.

[Katie Fang]

Well, and he did a summary back in February.

[Allison Gill]

The trust has proceeded.

[Katie Fang]

Here's, here's a summary that says we made redactions and withholdings for the following reasons. And he lists, you know, victims personal identifiers. And then he made up again this whole area of privileges, attorney client work product. He then, then he invoked the Privacy act, which was explicitly not in the Epstein files Transparency act either alongside those privileges. And he said in the summary, this is what is the grounds for redaction. Then he had an area in that February memorandum to Congress that said something to the effect of categories of withholdings. And then in his response Thursday, he says, I'm just going to file that with the Federal Register. Pat me on the back, I'm done. But the law says clearly that he, as the Attorney General has to provide a written justification for, for each redaction. And look, strict constructionists out there, you textualists, I don't give a shit who you are. A quote, written justification for each redaction. A summary or category is not. So he's dead ass wrong on that. And it's funny because Brendan and I have both said this publicly now, we think that the DOJ did not keep contemporaneous notes when they were doing the redaction process. And I think they truly are having an oh shit moment, which is, oh shit, we have to go Back to page 1 of 3 point Something million to have to go back and log the grounds for said redaction. And that's part of the reason why, because he complains wholesale through all of his filings about how time consuming and laborious it is. And then at the beginning of his filing, he says it should be handled by Congress. Let members of Congress look at the unredacted files and then come to us at the DOJ and we will, quote, respond accordingly. And I'm like, bruh, are you kidding me? Members of Congress were not elected to D.C. to go sit and look through three point something million files. And then what are they supposed to do? Are they then supposed to go with a piece of paper? Because I know members of Congress that have gone and they haven't been able to see unredacted files. It's the most ridiculous thing. It's like, I look at it and I think, am I being gaslit right now? Like I, I'm like, am I taking crazy pills? Because I know for a fact members of Congress have go. And they've only begun limited amount of time. There's only been four fucking terminals that have been provided to them. And they said when they tried to un. Redact, like sometimes the DOJ redactions would come off and then they would be confronted with something that you know intimately well because you've been screaming this from the rooftops before anybody even noticed the FBI redactions. They're still there.

[Allison Gill]

And so, and so when, how is

[Katie Fang]

anybody supposed to see this?

[Allison Gill]

When you brought those 1500 FBI analysts and paid the millions in overtime and made them work 48 hour shifts to redact things from the Epstein files, did you not have them put in your spreadsheet what the redaction is for? And here's the thing, right? The FOIA redaction unit, for example, very small group of people. And so they had to bring in FBI analysts who were not trained on what is something that needs to be redacted or not. And so they had to create these training videos which I've filed a Freedom of Information act request for. Because if it says in those training videos, yeah, you gotta redact everything. And then you gotta put the reason for redaction in column B. And then you gotta put your initials in column C or whatever the, whatever the instructions were. We would have that. And I think that that's crucial and central to, you know, once this law was passed, why didn't you bring those 1500 analysts back? They've already been trained, according to you, so why. Well, first of all, why didn't you do it the first time? And second of all, you're right, it was an oh, shit moment. And so, and they were. He kept complaining about, well, Congress didn't give us any money in this to do anything. It's like you didn't need the money. You didn't need money from Congress to redact Trump's name. You just paid a couple million dollars in overtime for 1500 analysts to do it in 48 hour shifts. You didn't, you didn't Complain that Congress didn't give you money to redact Trump's name from it. So I don't, you know, I don't want to hear their excuses, really.

[Katie Fang]

And I also think Judge Sullivan knows as well that there are still victims that have been outed in terms of their personal identifiers, even as we sit here today, and they still haven't redacted it. Right. I mean, this like the press release that came out after Judge Sullivan entered his order granting my preliminary injunction was, this judge is terrible. He's trying to sit there and harm victims because that's what he's ordering us to do. And I'm like, nah, that's not lawsuit asked for. More specifically the PI motion. It actually asked for some specific information. And the best part was strategically we said or show cause why you can't meaning give me the stuff you can give me unredacted or that you've withheld and the stuff that you are going to remain redacted, which isn't all of it. Then you need to explain. And you do. And it's amazing because that would have been such an off ramp exit. Great for them, right? It would have just been. Here you go, Katie. Here's this. Here's this look. The Tom Massey one's the perfect example, right? Just suck it up, Todd, and give me the fucking email. Well, the Sultan's fucking email address. Sorry. Do you think it's so hard to deactivate that private email address? I don't think it's that hard, buddy. He can shut down his Gmail. Maybe it's like an AOL address. Who the hell knows? But the thing is, that would have been such an act of. Well, I'll call it good faith, but it would have been legal compliance not only with the Epstein files Transparency act, but with a fucking court order when they don't do it. I'm like, you guys have cojones, man. I would never, ever flirt with a federal judges, especially somebody like Sullivan with his capacity and capability to be able to impose contempt. Because I have told folks too, the way he structured that order. He kind of hopped over a couple of intermediate steps that you normally kind of go through that are kind of check the box and aren't essential to be able to get to Cont kind of hastens that. So I think if I'm Sullivan, one of the cleanest ways of doing this is of course he's not going to grant their stay. It ain't gonna happen. No, he's not gonna give them the stays. That they're asking for. But if I'm Sullivan, I just appoint the special master. And then you know they're gonna appeal it, Right? You know they're gonna appeal it. But just do it, man. Just like move it along. Because I don't think this needs to be heavily litigated. I guess is the short of it. And we are prepared by the way, to deal with it. Yeah, but still.

[Allison Gill]

And we might also see a show cause why we shouldn't hold you in contempt for failing to follow my court order. I think we might be a couple steps down the road from that. But this whole idea that if this were a normal DOJ would say would have done this, they would have first of all unredacted what they can unredact. Like the Sultan's name for example, by conceding that it's public already. So there shouldn't be a problem unredacting that email. And then I would file a motion to. To for leave of court to file under seal unredacted victim names in the groups of documents that you asked for.

[Katie Fang]

Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

Scout's honor.

[Katie Fang]

And to show it trust but verify. Here you go. You can see them.

[Allison Gill]

That's all they had to do. Didn't do it. Wonder why. Now here's. Here's the ask for more time that you talked about. It says the government respectfully requests the court grant a stay of 60 days so that the solicitor general has time to consider whether John sour.

[Martin Sheen]

Yep.

[Allison Gill]

Whether appellate review is warranted. At a minimum, any such order should be stayed for at least seven days to allow the government to determine whether to seek emergency appellate review. But the judge already said no to a seven day stay and a 60 day extension.

[Katie Fang]

They cut and pasted it.

[Allison Gill]

What the DOJ would need to say here is instead of just for me, instead of just asking for more time, be like got to judge. Here's the unredacted stuff. We want to file them under seal. Here's the pulling the bars off of the Sultan's name or whatever the things we can pull off. Also for this privilege log. We didn't initially when we did the redactions. We've got them across. DOJ and FBI have a list. We just need a little bit more time to put this list together. We're working on it. Here's the resources that we're putting on it. Please reconsider. More time for those specific things. And in the meantime, here's what we got. That would have been like you said, perfect off ramp. There's a reason they didn't do it. And I think. And I think you think it's because he's full of.

[Katie Fang]

Well, I also think that timing is everything, as we often say, and Blanche has really big fish that are going to be fried. Starting July 15, he has a Senate Judiciary confirmation hearing. And I think the more that they can bump this kaka down the road. Right. The better off Blanche thinks he's going to be on this. But I know for a fact that Senate Judiciary members are looking at this case, my specific lawsuit and this order, the on the PI Motion, and stating this is a telltale sign that Todd Blanch flaunts, like, almost with like a proud peacock strut, the fact that he doesn't have to obey the law. You know, he doesn't think that this applies to him. And what's remarkable is they also admit again in this filing they have done, they admit they never addressed my substantive arguments, but they said, but that's okay because, you know, we asserted the stuff that we asserted about FOIA and no standing. And I'm like, you guys already lost that. So they tried to bootstrap or shoehorn in something that's tantamount to like a motion for reconsideration or rehearsing, which, again, it's not a motion for reconsideration or rehearing. And what's remarkable, too, is they're like, yeah, well, listen, we haven't been able to appeal this, so we don't really think the excuses are legion. I do think they are benefiting from the holiday because obviously the courts and everything was closed and it's the holiday, you know, weekend. But Sullivan, that he's the no mas on that Rolling Stone kind of thing. I'm telling you, he's going to do something very, very quickly on this.

[Allison Gill]

Kind of like how they used the last July 4th holiday to announce that the investigations are closed. There's no investigations into third parties. Oh, and there was no blackmail. Apropos of nothing. And, and, oh, we're going to go talk to Ghislaine Maxwell, waiver sex offender status, and in a couple of weeks, we're going to move her to, to Bryant, Texas. Good.

[Martin Sheen]

Cool.

[Katie Fang]

High five, Club Fed. Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

Trust us, bro. All right, so we already talked about some hypotheticals, like maybe a show cause for why I shouldn't hold you in contempt or what Judge Sullivan might do. Are you actually going to file a, what's, what's the next technical step here? Do you file a response to this filing or do you wait and see what Judge Sullivan does with it.

[Katie Fang]

I think we're going to. Well, you know, I. Then I think because of the holiday we might give. Judge. Let me very clear, Judge Sullivan, if you're listening, which I'm sure you do. Your honor, we, we are giving deference of just a little bit of a window of time to see what the judge does himself.

[Allison Gill]

Got it.

[Katie Fang]

And when I say little, I mean very, very short. We're already preparing something ourselves. I mean, you know, at this juncture, we could either respond to what they did in a, in a written filing. We could maybe just, you know, go straight toward a motion for, for contempt. Right. For failure to comply with an order on this, which, you know, in and of itself would be the response. Right. And I, you know, I went through the tick tock of everything wrong on this, in this video I did for my YouTube channel on Friday because I thought it was really important to walk through and highlight all of these deficiencies. It is remarkable to me that, and I still maintain the DOJ is the strongest, biggest, most powerful law firm in the world. And yet this is what they file. I mean, it's a really, I mean,

[Allison Gill]

they, they themselves, they've been filing garbage going back to the defense of Doc

[Katie Fang]

because it's garbage in, garbage out. Right. I mean, look at some of the filings they've done, like in the ballroom case, where it's pretty much a screed of ranting from Felon Trump, and then they just slap a style and a caption on it and then they sign, respectfully submitted, Department of Justice. Right. I mean, it's so sloppy. And there was such prestige and integrity that used to be with this doj. And look, I echo some stuff that Jack Smith said the other day with Nicole where he said, you know, he also wants people to understand that they're still good, noble people working in that department. I don't disagree, but I think at this juncture, sadly, even those people kind of get painted with that wide swath brush of just incompetence. And as you said at the beginning of this episode, there's a presumption of irregularity. Now that exists for this Department of Justice.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, it's sad, but it's true. So are you drafting a motion for contempt?

[Katie Fang]

There's stuff that's being drafted. Wink, wink. There's stuff that's being drafted. But again, we're going to give. I think we're going to see if Judge Sullivan wants to maybe grab that bull by the horns very quickly in the next couple of days. So we're going to.

[Allison Gill]

Awesome. Well, as always, it's a pleasure to talk to you.

[Katie Fang]

You'll be one of the first to know my friends. Close hold embargo. I mean, to answer that question more directly, I'm not sitting on my ass, right. Whenever it's appropriate, we'll do it. And however it's appropriate, we will do it. I had a very visceral reaction to this filing and it and I know. And let me say thank you to you, Allison. You have been screaming this also from the rooftops. There have been some incredibly, incredibly vocal people of that I have never even met in my life that knows that this is truly an Achilles heel for Donald Trump in this administration and for frankly, most if not all Republicans. And they know that this is not performative on my part. And this is something that I am really doggedly junkyard dog over a bone energy focusing on. So whatever. And whenever we're on it, we'll do it well.

[Allison Gill]

It's about justice and it's about the survivors and justice for them and transparency for the American people. A couple of concepts from independent media and independent journalists on this weekend of America's 250th birthday. I think that these are the things that I'm celebrating this weekend.

[Katie Fang]

Love it. Thank you for that perspective.

[Allison Gill]

Thank you, my friend. Thank you everybody for being here again. We really, really appreciate you. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your holiday weekend and I'll see you next week here on the Breakdown.

[Katie Fang]

Sam.

[Martin Sheen]

Hello, Martin Sheen here. And it seems to me that no day of the week is without its endless barrage of bad news, even on Sunday. For God's sake, let's change that. What do you say together, let's make Sunday immune to bad news. Available now every Sunday, Season three of the Martin Sheen Podcast with yours truly, Martin Sheen has begun. Yeah, 10 brand new episodes are already underway. So join me, Martin sheen, for a 20 minute journey as I share my personal stories, a bit of poetry and insightful reflections that will encourage you to take a deep breath and enjoy a relaxing moment. Of course, it's important to know and understand what's happening in the world, but I also believe there's nothing wrong with taking a step back to find strength and clarity. And Lord knows we need that now more than ever. A moment of thoughtfulness and calm may be rare these days, but it doesn't have to be. So what do you say? You want to take back your Sundays? So do I. And guess what? I've already done it with the Martin Sheen Podcast. Season three available now. Don't mess with my Sunday. And thank you for listening.