← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
The Breakdown | Trump Blindsided by Epstein Lawsuit
00:34:30
Today, Allison talks with Katie Phang about her first-of-its-kind lawsuit against Todd Blanche asking the court to appoint a special master to review the release and redactions in the Epstein files.
Loading summary
Transcript63 lines
- [00:00]
A
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? 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.
- [01:13]
B
Hey, everybody, I'm Allison Gill. Welcome to the Breakdown. There was a time when tons of people, after the failed release of the Epstein files, they were asking me how to get somebody to, like a third party, an independent third party, to review the redactions in the Epstein files and the withholdings too, right? Because we haven't gotten everything. So everyone's like, how do we do that? Why isn't a judge asking for this? And my answer was always, well, you have to get it in front of a judge, which means somebody has to file a lawsuit, which means somebody has to have standing. Somebody needs to show harm. And, and you know this. It took me back to the old Mueller report days. And back then, buzzfeed and I think a media organization called EPIC sued pursuant to a Freedom of Information act request to have a judge review Bill Barr's redactions of the Mueller report. And that Judge Reggie Walton went in and reviewed everything in camera and determined that Bill Barr inappropriately redacted the Mueller report and ordered many of the redactions lifted. He said. Here's what Judge Walton said. The court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller report. The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr's statements made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller report to assess the veracity of its statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller report. That conflict with those statements caused this court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller report to the contrary. Now you can pull out all the Mueller report stuff and plug in the Epstein files. And it's, you know, just, it's so similar what the Attorney General is withholding, what the Attorney General is redacting. It goes against the public statements that they've been making and that the government's been making. And so somebody needs to review that. But in order to get a judge to review it, you've got to get it in front of a judge. Means you have to file a lawsuit. Well, somebody filed a lawsuit. And that's what we're going to talk about today on the breakdown. Hey, everybody, welcome. I'm Alison Gill. Joining me today, the amazing person who has filed the lawsuit to try to get at what is in the redacted parts and the withheld parts of the Epstein files. We know we only have about 50% of them out there. Please welcome Katie Fang. Hi, Katie.
- [03:55]
C
Hey. Hey, how you doing? Mueller report. Feel like we're kind of going down memory lane together.
- [04:01]
B
Down memory lane. And I remember Judge Walton being like, you lied to the American people. You misrepresented what was in the Mueller report in order to hide the breadth and depth of Russian interference in the election. Now we're in the same spot where the Attorney General is hiding what's in the Epstein files to hide the breadth and depth of connections of certain people. You know, that stuff that was supposed to be released pursuant to an actual law. And so you are bringing this lawsuit. Tell me about what made you think of this, because I think it's pretty brilliant.
- [04:39]
C
Well, you know, I actually, I have a visual for today. Your Honor may approach. Let the record reflect I'm now showing Exhibit A. Okay, so Exhibit A. I'm being generous. I intentionally picked this one for you and I hang out with. Right, Allison. So Exhibit A has a batestamp number at the bottom, right? EFTA Epstein Files Transparency Act. And this particular document is 623755. Right. And by the way, there's no consistencies on the batestamps at all in this, this production, which is frustrating, but this is a part of a multi page PDF from a law firm called Berman, Critten, Ludier and Coleman llp. This is a law firm in Palm beach county, and this was a part of basically the law firm's accounting to talk about what had been paid by and what had been billed by. Now I actually think, and because this is unclear, I actually think this is generated by Epstein's accountant because it says total critten Fees billed through June 30, 2010. Total paid to Trust for Settlements Other through July 20. Total paid for fees and to trust for settlements other through July 20, 2010. So it has all this stuff here, and I really do think it was prepared by Epstein's accountant because it says stuff like photocopy expense amount is crazy. Research expense amount is crazy. Like things like that. Right. But the reason why I focus on this is this piece of paper Allison says settlement amounts. And Kritzon was the law firm that handled the civil litigation that was brought by the Epstein victims and survivors that were a part of the non prosecution agreement kind of umbrella. Because if you'll recall, a part of that sweetheart plea deal was the requirement that Epstein actually pays civil fees from these victims and survivors settlements. And so the names are redacted. Some, some that are not are Doe, as in Jane Doe. And then, but then there's one name, DiCenzo. But the rest of it, I would say generously, is the DOJ by abiding by the law and redacting because of the identities of victims and survivors. But I don't know, because when you look at other stuff that's related to this law firm and another part of the Epstein files rollout, they have all these redactions that are clearly not supposed to be redacted. And so while I've been doing this type of work because, you know, I really am interested in the lawyers and the follow the money aspect of the Epstein files, et cetera, I keep on hitting all these roadblocks because I want to know what's here, right? And I think it just made sense that eventually I would come to some level of frustration, which is like, I can't do my job. I cannot explain to my viewers, my listeners, my subscribers and my readers what is going on here because I cannot digest, synthesize, discern and do further investigation into this information because I just don't have access to it. And that is materially, materially prevented me from doing my job. I am right now only being used as a propaganda arm for the Trump administration, meaning I can only report on what the Trump administration wants us to have. And that is not what the law said. The law said that the DOJ had to turn over in a downloadable, publicly searchable format, a slew of information. And that's the other thing. If you go back and you look at the language of the statute, it is not just, hey, an email, hey, a piece of paper. It's everything. Photos, videos, documents, you name it. And it's not just Epstein. It's Epstein, Maxwell and people that are mentioned, related in the orbit or whatever. We all know we haven't seen the entirety of what is there. And that was the reason why I said, you know what? I think it's time that we sue the DOJ for its violation of the law. I like to say, Allison, I am seeking a court order to make lawyers actually obey the law.
- [08:35]
A
Right.
- [08:36]
B
And, and let's talk for a minute about, you know, you, how you're being harmed here. Because in order to have standing, in order to bring a lawsuit, you have to one, one of the things you have to do is show that you're harmed. I'm going to bring up the part, one of the parts from your lawsuit here on screen it says defendants failure to follow the law has harmed plaintiff Katie Fang, a journalist, lawyer and legal analyst who has extensively reported on Jeffrey Epstein and his network. Fang's inability to report with substance on all the documents she should be able to access has hu hurt her ability to do her job and made it harder to fulfill her mission as a journalist and a legal analyst. So that's the crux of your harm here.
- [09:16]
C
Right?
- [09:16]
B
And from reading your lawsuit, you actually have, you present proof that there are known missing documents that are not listed as things that can be legally withheld pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Talk a little bit about that.
- [09:35]
C
Yeah. So if you look at the law it provides, I like to think of buckets. It provides buckets of exemptions. Right. And that was signed into law. And one of the buckets is redactions to protect the identity and confidentiality of victims and survivors. We know they screwed that up, right? We know they have outed some people that never wanted to be outed. And that information, I will give them again the benefit of the doubt that they have done according to that bucket. But there's a bucket of information that is in my lawsuit that I am seeking, which is we know that for example, involving Donald Trump, there is a credible 13 year old accuser who accuser, excuse me, who at 13 years of age alleges that she had a trafficking incident or multiple incidents involving Donald Trump. And we also know that there have been FBI interviews, we know that there's notes, we know that there are documents that are relevant to her Allegations. And I can't tell you through my own investigation or my further research anything more other than what they have put up, taken down and only limitedly put back up again. So I know that there is material that is being withheld. There's also a bucket of things just got screwed up. Right. Like so there's duplicative documents in the rollout and I use this as an example. In one document you'll see the name of the person, but their email address will be blocked out. And that name of that person is clearly like it'll be Glenn Maxwell. She doesn't have the beneficiary area of being like a redacted email. And then in the same piece of paper, just in a different form, her email address will be blacked out, but her name will appear. I mean it's just bizarre. And that is why I have no trust that this DOJ has done right by this law in any way. Which is why the special master that I am seeking in this litigation is so important. The special master is the person who will look at the unredacted document. Let's just use this one for example. And the DOJ will say, oh look, these are all the identities of victims. But because the special master is looking at the unredacted document, that special master could say, Katie, I've looked at the Epstein files Transparency Act, I've looked at the unredacted document and these are appropriate redactions under the law. But absent that, how am I supposed to know I'm supposed to trust them? Is that a joke?
- [11:52]
B
Trust me, Brian.
- [11:53]
C
I'm just trust they've done right. I mean you and I have covered here on your channel how they've really screwed this up. And so I think that I have more than a fighting chance on the standing issue because what are they going to tell me you're not damaged by this? Is that a joke? I mean I cover a lot about Epstein on my channel. That is a huge part of what I cover. I have gone and done stuff in person on this. Like this is not just a hobby. Like this is my job now. Like this is what I do for a living.
- [12:28]
B
Yeah. And you know, you mentioned duplicates. I think that's also something really important because that 13 year old accuser, accuser that and survivor that you're talking about, all of those documents that were kind of released as a little bundle were duplicates. They actually came from Ghislaine Maxwell's. They were bait stamped with Ghislaine Maxwell case numbers, not original FBI files. So we know that they didn't even give us the originals. They're giving us duplicates from somebody who's trying to get a pardon, which is interesting, but that's, you know, that's a different show. But, you know, I spoke to a survivor who was in that. Do you remember the anonymous tip summary pages that they released and then pulled back down and then put back up?
- [13:13]
C
Yes. After an outcry, they had to put it back up.
- [13:16]
B
I spoke to one of the people who made one of those anonymous tips to the FBI, and, you know, she showed me voicemails and phone calls with the FBI where they had first initial contact, and then they had proper, like three or four proper FBI interviews. But those 302s were nowhere to be found. We saw the Maria Farmer, One of her 302s was released, but not the other ones that she knows. She sat for interviews with that discussed Trump. And so we have got duplicates. We don't have the originals we've got. And it's just a big, giant mess. And so you, as a journalist who needs to be able to do a proper analysis on what is in the Epstein files, are completely unable to do your job because you don't know what's in there. And so I think that, you know, one of the things you've asked for is a special master. But going back to. I want to talk about that in a minute. But going back to what you need to do to have standing and bring a lawsuit, besides showing harm there, there needs to be no other way to get these documents besides the way that you're asking. And so what, you know, because, you know, when, when I wanted to get the. And I still am doing this to, to get the training videos that trained FBI analysts on how to redact Trump's name and how to keep a log of it, I went through Freedom of Information act requests. So do you think that the judge here in this case might say, katie, there are other avenues to get these documents that are available to you. What would you say to that?
- [15:00]
C
If we'll stick with the example that I pulled for today's conversation, I can't serve a FOIA on this law firm. How am I supposed to get information from this law firm? Via foia, Right. I can't even serve a subpoena. Under what concept am I serving a subpoena? How would I ever get this information from the law firm? What if settlement amounts is not just victims? What if they settled to keep somebody silent who was an employee of Jeffrey Epstein? That had relevant knowledge as to his conduct. I don't know. Right. There is no other person within reason. There may be some entities or some people that have care, custody, control, possession of documents right now that maybe are originals, maybe duplicates of what the DOJ has. But again, the law itself imposes the burden on the Department of Justice and no one else. The law doesn't say the Department of Justice, comma, and any other entity, individual business, whatever, that may have this information as well. The onus, the burden is exclusively on the DOJ to produce this to the public, not produce it to themselves for further redaction, but to produce it to the public. And it's everything under the sun. It is an incredibly generously expansive, comprehensive list of things that are supposed to be turned over. And what we've seen thus far, it's not. I'll give you another example. The follow the money is really important. Right. Financial, bank statements, etc have been blacked out in whole. What? How is that possible? Why don't we have that information? That doesn't protect the identity of a victim and a survivor. That is not national security concerns, which we know Blanche has already said there are no national security concerns. I don't have the opportunity to access the information from anybody other than the Department of Justice. If you want to sit there and carve out a few places, sure. But even with a foia, what happens then? Right? Like what happens with the foia. And so this lawsuit, I will tell anybody and will admit it's a novel, it's a novel approach. It's the first one being brought. And you know, we've really vetted this to see how this thing will roll out and we're pretty confident we'll survive the standing challenge. But we're ready to do this and we're ready to do it on a pretty quick basis. We know delay is only going to help them and so we don't want to drag this one out. Yeah.
- [17:29]
B
And I also think it gets to a very important question about the Freedom of Information Act. If you're trying to get documents from a government that is corrupt and doing wrong things and you have to ask the government to give them to you, that's like a non adversarial situation. Right. And we see these all the time now with Donald Trump in office. Like back in the day when they wanted to get rid of the Flynn case, there was no opposing party, so they appointed a, an amicus to come in and be the adversary. Trump suing his own IRS for $10 billion. Trump trying to vacate the seditious conspiracy charges against the Oath Keepers. There's no argument. There's no adversary. Without that adversarial system of law, there's no jurisdiction to do that. And so I'm really interested to see how the court parses out when you want to do a Freedom of Information act request, for example, if they say you got to do a foia, first of, to the people who are hiding things from me, that's who I'm supposed to do a Freedom of Information act request to.
- [18:30]
C
It's absurd. And that. And that's why I believe that the admissions made by Blanche and Bondi, because they have both admitted to the botched rollout of these files.
- [18:41]
B
Yeah.
- [18:43]
C
And you want to know another really good example that's kind of very newsy and relevant for this conversation right now? Alison, how about this alleged suicide note? What?
- [18:51]
B
I know. I saw that.
- [18:53]
C
So I don't put any credence into it. Whatever. But here's the thing. Was that suicide note turned over in the Epstein files roll out from the doj? No, I haven't heard anybody tell me that they came across it. And it's not just me. It's others that have been sleuthing on this. And so let me get this straight, Todd. Blanche has announced emphatically that there is literally nothing left to turn over. How are you telling us that you have complied with the law if the suicide note. The alleged suicide note of Jeffrey Epstein hasn't been turned over?
- [19:29]
B
Yeah, it's tangled up in litigation with Tartaglione. Right. The cellmate who found it in a comic book.
- [19:36]
C
The guy who's serving four consecutive life sentences for four homicides. Yes, right. That guy.
- [19:41]
B
Yeah.
- [19:42]
C
The guy who was the roommate. The cellmate of Epstein, when Epstein was first found looking like somebody tried to strangle him, and he pointed it to his cellmate and then later on retracted it. Come on. I mean, just. The point is, I don't trust them to police themselves, to do right by us. And that is the reason why I am saying to the court, look, the Special Master is the win, is it not? That Special Master could answer that question of whether or not they have complied with the law.
- [20:15]
B
Right. And then they, you know, they might bring up other things, too.
- [20:18]
C
Like.
- [20:19]
B
Well, there's currently an inspect. An Office of Inspector General investigation into the files, which is, again, us policing ourselves. But then there's also a congressional government, The GAO is. Is also investigating the rollout of the files.
- [20:33]
C
But that's an audit. That is not. That is not compliance with the law. Right. And what Blanche did by declaring that he was done, that the Department of Justice had completed his investigation and that it had complied with the law, he declared final agency action by that statement. And in doing so, he then pretty much laid the table or set the table for me to bring my Administrative Procedure act claim. Right. Because it is a final agency action that has been taken and it is not in compliance with a duty that this agency has been required to do pursuant to the law. And as a result of that final agency action that is not in compliance with the law, and because I have been damaged or injured because of that non compliance, that's why I'm able to bring my claims. I mean, Blanche really stepped in it because what he should have done is said, I'm still producing on a rolling basis or we're still doing an investigation, et cetera. Right. Listen, I could say, I could see the DOJ saying the suicide note, the alleged suicide note is not in our possession. That's the reason why we have not been able to turn it over. That's fine. But how do you say in the same breath, though, there is nothing left to investigate about it.
- [21:48]
B
Right. Right. It doesn't make any sense at all. And I'm going to put up on the screen, here is your prayer for relief. This is what you're asking for. And number one, is to declare that the government has failed to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency act to enjoin the defendant's ongoing violation of the Epstein Files Transparency act. Meaning you have to stop breaking the law and specifically direct the defendant to A, remove all unlawful redactions, B, explain the bases for any remaining lawful redactions. Because they didn't do that pursuant to the law. They had 15 days after the final production and all they did was put out a paragraph saying this is it's it. This is it. We promise, reproduce all materials that were produced but then unlawfully redacted and D, produce all materials that have not been produced that by law should be. And number three, oversee defendants compliance with the law through the appointment of a special master. And how many special master appointments have we. We've lived through a few discussed over these. And it all seems to be retired Judge Barbara Jones.
- [22:51]
C
Maybe she's a badass. I would not complain if I got her. And hey, did you know who my judicial assignment is? I on this one.
- [22:57]
B
Yeah. Didn't you get. Who did you get?
- [22:59]
C
I got Emmett Sullivan.
- [23:01]
B
You got Emmett Sullivan? That. That's right. The guy who stood there in the courtroom and asked if Mike, if the. If the Mueller investigation looked at treason for Michael Flynn and called him a traitor to the country. I do remember Judge Sullivan.
- [23:18]
C
That's a senior judge. He's been on the bench for a long time. That guy doesn't suffer fools. You know, he also was the presiding judge in Trump term 1.0 for the Blumenthal vs Trump lawsuit on the violation of the emoluments clause. Now, he found standing, and the D.C. circuit reversed it on that issue. But Blumenthal as a member of Congress is different than me as a journalist under this law. And I interviewed Ro Khanna the other day, one of the co drafters of this original bill or this original law with Tom Massie. And he's like, look, Katie, we envisioned two different pathways on enforcement. One was obstruction of justice charges from people that are not complying with this law. He goes, two is your lawsuit. Your lawsuit saying that your inability to do something or the violation of the law by the government is creating harm to you. So he was like, look, he's like, you know, God, Godspeed, good luck and Godspeed, right? And I'm like, yeah, because listen, I got the idea for the special master from those guys. Those guys went to get one in front of Glenn Maxwell's judge. And I believed that Judge Engelmer was incredibly sympathetic to what Massie and Connor were trying to accomplish because it's so brazenly obvious to DOJ has not complied. But Ingelmeyer said, look, I only had continuing jurisdiction over Ghislaine's case because of this discovery order, this protective discovery order. And all I'm supposed to be doing right now is making sure that I amend that discovery protective order to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And so the irony is the federal judge made sure that there was compliance with this law, and yet the DOJ itself has not made sure that it complies with this law. Right.
- [24:55]
B
And then Ghislaine Maxwell filed a habeas petition without a lawyer in order to make sure that her documents weren't read.
- [25:02]
C
Right. I mean, David Marcus is still her lawyer of record, but she's jailhouse lowering it right now with her amended habeas. And she just filed another thing the other day, which was also interesting because Jay Clayton filed something with the court in her case that said, we've received a thumb drive with this motion with all of these exhibits that don't correspond with the cited exhibits in the motion itself, blah, blah, blah. And I'm like, well, let's see those Exhibits? What are those? Exhibits?
- [25:30]
B
No, no, no, no.
- [25:31]
C
Are we getting them from where?
- [25:32]
B
You know, that's the benefit of going pro se. You can mail your stuff to an office at the DOJ with. On a thumb drive, and they get to go through it and redact it before it gets up on the docket, so. Oh, that's interesting that you just did this without a lawyer before I let you go. Talk about the Special Master a little bit, because like I said, we've seen a lot of Special masters in our time. Is it specials Master? What's the plural? We've seen a lot of special masters in our time, and it's always very fascinating. Now in the Mueller redaction stuff, because it was a foia, there wasn't a Special Master. The judge reviewed the entire Mueller report unredacted in camera. That's what, 600 pages, something like that. We're talking about 3.2 million pages here. How can a Special Master go through all of that? Do they. Do they have a team, maybe?
- [26:22]
C
How did the DOJ go through all of that?
- [26:24]
B
They didn't. Katie.
- [26:26]
C
That's my point. That's my point. And I. And then I would. I would add an asterisk to what you just said. They claim it's 3.2 million. But Blanche also said there was more. He said we're not turning over the other stuff. The other few million that they have. He claims. Blanche claims they're either, quote, non responsive to the DOJ's obligations pursuant to the law, or it's, quote, duplicative. I'm sorry, I've seen a lot of duplicative in this production so far on the DOJ website. That didn't stop you before. And you're not supposed to sit there and say, I can withhold duplicate. Duplicate copies. The law. The law is right here. It don't say that. Right? No. And so that is why a Special Master. I'm. This is probably a great engagement for a Special Master, because this has to be done piecemeal. And I think probably what you would do is you would go through the rollout that's currently in existence and go through that, frankly, and then just do it one by one. Remember how they dropped it in different tranches? Right. I think that would probably be the way to do it. But listen, I don't care what the mechanism or the machinations are behind this, as long as it's just done. Because there's no federal judge that's gonna have time to go through these docs like they did Like a Mueller and any other. Like, remember, Michael Cohen had a special master, too, in his case. We've had special masters. We've had a lot of them. And they have spectacular, you know, experience and, and smarts. And they're. And they work there. I mean, they work for the court. They report to the court. But I like to say they work for the American people because they're not. They're not indebted to the doj, they're not indebted to me. They're working for the court, and they're indebted to transparency. And that's pretty much what we want to see. Yeah.
- [28:10]
B
And the rule of law. And, you know, I think it's, hey, Todd, you might be telling the truth, maybe you're telling the truth. Then you wouldn't be afraid of having a special master go through everything and verify that all of the withheld documents are either duplicative, that all of your redactions are appropriate under the law, and that the rest of the stuff isn't. What did you say? It's not responsive.
- [28:35]
C
Non responsive.
- [28:36]
B
Non responsive. Okay, well, let us check it out. Let us independent third party check it out and, you know, we'll come back and give you a grade.
- [28:46]
C
Well, so. So I just interviewed a victim survivor this afternoon, and she said that the victims and survivors, her. Her sister, her survivor sisters said they have a name for Todd. They call them Todd. Do your job, Todd. Doj. They said they call them Todd, do your job. And it's because they know that this Epstein Files Transparency act has been violated. They know that this is not the full disclosure. And, and listen, I'm doing this because I am legitimately, in good faith, damaged by these redacted files. But I'm also doing it because those victims and survivors deserve transparency and they shouldn't have to do it themselves. Like, there is so much wrong with this system and they shouldn't have to demand this. And so whatever help and lift I can give towards that justice, then let it be.
- [29:45]
B
Yeah, 100%. And Todd Blanche in the hot seat where he deserves to be. Because while Pam Bondi, I'm sure, was part of this, I feel like Blanche has been driving this car the whole time.
- [29:57]
C
I think that he was as the, as the then Deputy AG under Pammy Joe, I really think that he was the one who was handling the day to day on this. I don't think then Attorney General Pam Bondi was handling the day to day on this. It was just too much. I feel like she delegated it to Him. And think about it, you probably couldn't delegate it to just anybody, Right? You had to delegate it to somebody that you knew was going to protect. Protect the king, right?
- [30:20]
B
Yeah. Yeah. And that's why we had videos training a thousand FBI agents who were locked in a building for 48 hour shifts to find Donald Trump's name and log them on an Excel spreadsheet and for. For redaction. So.
- [30:34]
C
Well, Alison, your. Your information on that was incredibly revealing and important. And. And your reporting on that was so important. And it also dovetails with what Congressman Khanna Garcia, you name it, have said to me, which is when they went to one of those four dinky little terminals at DOJ to go and look as members of Congress with their little truncated amount of time to look at millions of documents, they found double redactions. So Ro Khanna said the DoJ, if you swiped your mouse or hovered your mouse over something, right, it would unredact what the DOJ had redacted. But because the FBI had its run at it, like you had reported, the DOJ didn't un. Redact what the FBI had done. So Ro Khanna's telling me, I'm sitting here, I'm like, okay, but these are double redactions. And they're like, yeah, it's the FBI's redactions, but you're not allowed to do that as a doj. So, again, facial violations of the law right then and there, happening in real time. And it's just such an insult to the intelligence of the American people. We know that there's relevant information there that implicates people of many means and influence, as I like to say. And they're not supposed to be spared. The law explicitly says you are not spared the public humiliation and embarrassment of your name being disclosed because the law knew that that was something that they would try to do at the doj, or the drafters knew this, and that's why they put that in the law. But we all know that they're hiding it to protect people of the Epstein Elite.
- [32:11]
B
Enough.
- [32:11]
C
We're done. I want that so that I can start doing and reporting on that Epstein Elite even more. I want to know more names. I want to know more information. I want to know more money. I want to know more stuff. And I'm supposed to trust people are going to go and testify in front of House Oversight? Like that's supposed to answer my questions? I'm supposed to trust Darren Endyke and Richard Kahn, longtime attorney and accountant for Jeffrey Epstein. They're not trying to save their own asses. You know, I'm supposed to just trust that they're telling me the truth. How are you supposed to test the credibility of their sworn testimony unless you can corroborate or prove otherwise or impeach with documents themselves?
- [32:49]
B
Yeah, you can't.
- [32:50]
C
I can't.
- [32:51]
B
Which is why, you know, like I said, so many people were like, well, how do we get a special master onto this? I'm like, somebody's got to file a lawsuit. Somebody was standing and I was racking my brain on how, you know, who, who could have what could be standing. And here you are with this novel and amazing lawsuit. We're going to be following it very closely. Katie, tell everybody where they can follow and find your reporting on this.
- [33:13]
C
Well, I would love the support for the YouTube channel. Let me tell you why. My YouTube channel, Katie Fang News, is where on. On the daily. I am, you know, breaking things down and talking about things, especially the Epstein files. But if you look at the lawsuit I have filed, I cite explicitly to my YouTube channel as evidence of my ability to report on only certain things or my inability to report on most of the things. Right. So Support on my YouTube channel, which is a free subscriber thing, would be great. Katie Fang News. And I'm also using my substack Katie Fang to be able to write about it and to be able to report on that as well. And I'm at Katie Fang on all social media platforms. But look, just talking about this lawsuit in my mind does right by the victims and survivors because it's centers them in our public discourse. It keeps it alive because I don't know if you share the sentiment, Alison. I've been talking about it all week. I feel like we haven't been talking about Epstein as much as we should because there's obviously a war and there's a whole bunch of stuff going on. But look, you know, Ted Waite testified yesterday, the longtime boyfriend of Glenn Maxwell. That barely was a blip in the news. Right. But we know Pam Bondi is going to report on May 29 for her sworn dep in front of House Oversight right now. But even that didn't get as much attention as it should. We really need to keep the Epstein files front and center in these conversations.
- [34:36]
B
I agree. And that's how we center the conversation on the survivors and transparency and justice for them. Thank you, my friends, so much for joining us, everybody. Thanks for watching the breakdown. Thanks for Midas. Thanks to Midas for. For hosting this show here on the Midas Touch Network. I really appreciate it. I'll see you next week on the Breakdown.
- [34:57]
C
Sam.
- [35:26]
D
Love this video. Support independent media and unlock exclusive content, ad, free videos and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.
- [35:44]
E
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.
- [36:19]
B
MSW Media.