Loading summary

Transcript48 lines

[00:00]
A
Hello, Martin Sheen here and I have a question for you. What do you do on Sunday to relax and unwind? Sleep in, read the paper, eat stuff? You shouldn't binge watch the shows on your My Stuff list. Okay, all good and fine, but I think this routine could be a bit better. Let me offer something to make your me time really special. My podcast. And I think once you hear it, you'll realize it is the perfect addition to your Sunday. Or whenever you're looking for a chance to unwind. Tune in as I share the stories of my life along with some poetry and an occasional personal reflection in a way that will have you saying that was time well spent and I didn't even have to get out of my pajamas. Season four of the Martin Sheen Podcast with yours truly, Martin Sheen, of course is underway with 10 brand new episodes. I know our lives can be very busy and demanding these days. Whose or not? So join me on a storytelling journey that you can enjoy from the comfort of your favorite easy chair and a chance to relax and be in the moment. So check out the Martin Sheen Podcast Season four underway right now and make it part of your self care routine. And as always, thank you for listening. Hey.
[01:16]
B
Hello everybody. Happy Sunday. Welcome to the Breakdown on the Midas Touch Network. Thanks to Midas for hosting my show. I'm Allison Gill. I'm the host of the Daily Beans Podcast and and something extraordinary happened this past Thursday. Todd Blanche submitted a handful of unredacted Epstein files to Judge Emmett Sullivan for an in camera review. And he did that pursuant to a July 25 court order in the lawsuit brought by our friend Katie Fang. Now, in camera means behind closed doors in chambers for the judge alone to review unless the judge stipulates other people can be there. Now, many thought Todd Blanche would never hand these over, but he did. And he also included reasons for each of the redactions. And he did it on the day the Judiciary Committee was supposed to vote on his nomination to be the Attorney General of the United States. But as you probably know by now, Senator Cornyn, joined by Senator Tillis, postponed the vote. But not because of the egregious disregard for the Epstein Files Transparency act or trampling over the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And not because he sat down Todd Blanche with Ghislaine Maxwell and then moved her to a low security facility after waiving her sex offender status or having someone do it. Not because of that, but because they hadn't received a written recision of the anti weaponization slush fund and Trump's tax immunity, which is also a big deal. And that came after Blanche, Trump and the IRS colluded to perpetrate a fraud on the court as found by a judge through a bullshit lawsuit where he sued himself, basically resulting in what Blanche called a settlement. And Cornyn and Tillis and the Justice Department are still trying to work out a resolution here. And it seems they on the 29th got Blanche to rescind the slush fund but not the tax immunity. And so that's kind of the sticking point here. And these two senators are now seemingly blaming Trump and and not Blanche for the stonewalling. But all of that is wild to me because as I said, Blanche shouldn't be confirmed for a million reasons. Top of the list. He is, as we speak, as I said, in violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And the documents he submitted to Judge Sullivan Thursday seem to prove that point. Why Tillis and Cornyn or any other Republican for that matter, aren't withholding their vote based on that is beyond me. And that all 100 senators last week passed a non binding resolution condemning any pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. They're simultaneously considering confirming the guy who met with her and moved her to a low security facility as the top cop in the United States. That is so insane to me. But let's get back to Katie's lawsuit and the in camera review of the handful of unredacted Epstein files because the tricks that Todd Blanche is using to circumvent the law, the Epstein Files Transparency act so that he can keep the names of Epstein co conspirators and other purp perpetrators blacked out. It becomes more evident with each passing brief that Blanche files in Katie Fang's case. So I'm going to talk about those tricks with Katie Feng on today's episode of the Breakdown. Hey everybody, welcome. Thank you for being here, this community. By the way, all of you watching this, everyone who subscribes to Katie Fang's channel, you all such an important part of this fight for justice for the Epstein victims. So thank you for watching and sharing. Thank you for continuing to call your senators and tell them to vote no to confirm Todd Blanche. And please welcome Katie Feng. Katie Fang da da da da da da. Katie Fang da da da da da da. My friend Katie, how are you?
[04:59]
C
I can't forget. Wasn't there like some accompanying hand thing with that though? Was it this? Was it this? I can't remember. Anyway. Hi. Hi. Hey H. It's been a week. It's been A week.
[05:12]
B
It's been a good week for chipping away at this, a really good week. And I have so many questions for you. So on Thursday, Todd Blanche, via Stanley Woodward, filed their notice of compliance with Judge Emmett Sullivan. In your case, a notice of compliance is basically a note to the court saying, hey, remember that order? You told me where I had to turn in all this stuff? We did it. And then he also, you know, he says, we've hand delivered the unredacted documents for your review. And here's a little explanation for each thing about why we redacted what we redacted. And I've read this notice from doj. You sent it to me Thursday. And the very first thing that jumped out to me is that Todd Blanche has redefined, seemingly, and expanded the definition of what it means to be a victim in this case for redaction purposes. So the Epstein Files Transparency act says Blanche has to redact victims names. Oh, but also, Todd Blanche says we have a new definition of what it means to be a victim. And it's this notice of compliance that they cite in. In their court notice. It cites a memorandum that explains all of this. What, like what to redact? And it says the following. I'll put it up here for you. While the above description summarizes the changes against Epstein and Max, the charges against Epstein and Maxwell note that the department is not limiting its redactions to victims of these offenses. For purposes of this review and relevant redactions, victims include individuals identified as victims or potential victims through the department's prior prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell, as well as all individuals who have, either directly or through counsel, self identified to the department as being potential victims of state or federal offenses or other claims of sexual exploitation or misconduct by Epstein or Maxwell. Katie, why is that definition important and how does it pertain to this handful of unredacted documents that the judge is reviewing?
[07:10]
C
It's important because it does two things. One, it creates a very slippery slope in terms of how we are viewing who we are now defining as victims. It's never an easy thing to define a victim, especially in a trafficking scenario and in a trafficking situation. But my concern is not so much about the. My concern is the expansive nature that Blanche is taking on this definition only because my fear is he's now gonna use that as an excuse to not investigate, as an excuse not to prosecute. We know that there are people and individuals that were brought into the Epstein orbit and were, according to them, they were abused, groomed and abused, recruited by Epstein Maxwell and others to be able to come into that orbit and that they themselves were tasked to go out and recruit and to bring in new victims, almost like in this very perverse Ponzi scheme, this grotesque Ponzi scheme, almost. But we know that that has been the case and that's been alleged. And you know, I want to underscore something, Allison, and I appreciate you giving me this opportunity to do so. The desire in this lawsuit by me is not to out anybody. In fact, the desire by me is actually to make sure that the DOJ doesn't do that. Because the Epstein Files Transparency act explicitly says that victims are not to be identified and that they're private and personal, you know, identifying information remains private, personal and confidential. But if Todd Blanch allows people that were co conspirators with Epstein, Maxwell and others that were facilitators, enablers to be able to self identify as victims and in doing so protects and shields their names from possible investigation, litigation, pursuit of the truth, we have a problem. We have a serious problem. Because now Blanche will say nothing to look at here because everybody will say that they were victims. And so that's where we get into this weird place too where Blanche said that there's no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked anyone to anyone else. Is that because they've now all self identified as victims? I mean, again, I'm not trying to be glib about it, Allison, but I do think it's worthwhile to, to have a conversation about it because I think it really opens a new Pandora's box when it comes to achieving transparency around these files.
[09:54]
A
Right?
[09:54]
B
And you didn't ask the court to pull all the redaction boxes off of anyone who's not considered just a straight up victim of Maxwell and Epstein. And you know, I mean, if you think about the spectrum on here, right, of the expanded universe of what a victim is and where those lines are drawn. For example, if you're a 14 year old girl who has been abused by Maxwell and then you go refer one of your 15 year old friends to Maxwell, that friend, and you are still victims, right? But like let's say you're a modeling agency who's sending models into the Epstein world, Is that a victim? Because they were perpetrated upon by Epstein to get models like you were. Just what did you think you were sending the models there to do? Then we could have like Ghislaine Maxwell was groomed and abused and then became a perpetrator. So Donald Trump and his modeling agency may have provided some of These underage women to Epstein. And so at what point do you draw the line? And Katie, you're not saying I get to draw the line. You're simply asking the court to look at who's behind these and make a determination about where that line is.
[11:14]
C
Agreed. It is not my call. It is the judge's call. And I also want to point out that when Judge Sullivan on July 25th ordered Blanche to show up in chambers with these unredacted documents, he also ordered him to bring with him, quote, documentation supporting defendants, defendant being Todd Blanche, representation, that the names that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victim victims. I have an open ended question. Did Todd Blanche come with unredacted emails and documents and some accompanying documentation or. The way I read his notice of compliance, he just says, hey, submitted documents show that the justification cited in the briefing on this issue support each redaction. I don't know what was submitted because it was in camera, it was in chambers, and I was not allowed to be there when it happened. But I am hoping that whatever Judge Sullivan is looking at and considering it is some type of objective evidence that really substantiates and corroborates Blanche's representations that these are victims. Now, Blanche does say in his notice of compliance that such and such person not identified by name or this person who is redacted on this bait stamped document is represented by counsel, and they have asked that that person be identified as a victim. But again, this is the slippery slope. And that is why, yes, in the judge's wisdom, he gets to decide. But remember, this is a tiny subset of millions of documents. And that is why this analysis, I think, is so important. It's almost like a litmus test to see whether, number one, Blanche is credible. But number two, is there a way to draw a line to make that determination on whose name remains redacted or not?
[13:10]
B
Right. And Todd Blanche has a history, a documented history of when being asked by the court, by a court to prove something, he will say, because I said so.
[13:20]
C
Yeah, he's the trust me bro guy. Trust me bro.
[13:23]
B
So these documents that you've submitted to the court, Todd Blanche, to prove the nature of the victimhood of some of these folks that are behind redaction bars. Did you provide the letters or the cases or the testimony and that kind of documentation, or did you just provide your memo that says what you think a victim is and use that as your reasoning to justify keeping those redaction bars up there? And again, we're not asking them to just blow these redaction bars off. We just want somebody to a court of law to look at them and make a determination based on documentation that these are names that should be redacted to protect the identity of victims under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Because that's the goal, is to protect the victims. Because if I recall correctly, Todd Blanche released all sorts of photos and names and even addresses of some of these victims.
[14:23]
C
Yeah, listen, I always say, Allison, he wants to use the victims as a sword and a shield. Right. And yet he wants to come in like he's the knight in shining armor on the white horse to save them. And yet he's been at the helm of the day to day of this. As Pam Bondi said, this was his thing. He was the guy in charge of this. And we have seen some really egregious, egregious failures here to redact the private information of victims and survivors. You know, I want to bring up one specific example, Alison, if you don't mind. It's EFTA 01930501 and it's an email dated March 11, 2014. And so in the chronology of the world, this is post non prosecution agreement, sweetheart plea deal. Remember that was 2008. Right. So this is six years later. And it's a email sent from a redacted person to Jeffrey Epstein. And it's very short. It says, thank you for a fun night. Your littlest girl was a little naughty. According to Todd Blanche, the person whose name is redacted the from that is a victim. Todd says that's a victim represented by counsel. And that's the reason why they're disclosing this person's identity. Yeah.
[15:44]
B
And in that memo. Yeah, yeah, I know, I know.
[15:48]
C
This is what I don't understand. Like this is the stuff that I struggle with. Right. Because again, I don't want to out victims, but I am struggling with this because remember, some of these people ended up getting a part of which was another one of the documents I asked for that Blanche says are all victims. Some of these people ended up being co defendants on a proposed indictment. They were not, they were not identified as victims. They weren't even identified as co conspirators anymore. They made it actually to the big leagues of being a co defendant in a proposed indictment to be presented to a grand jury. And so there is, there is a jump in liability, there is a jump in criminal liability here. And the failure of, I think fundamentally the failure of the FBI and The DOJ to investigate this person to see if they legitimately are a victim in this case is really the biggest problem here. More so than just allowing for a liberal redaction. It's what have you done to ensure that the littlest girl, who clearly had something happen to her as a child, actually had some justice at the hands of whoever this person is? And I have problems with it. I really do. Yeah.
[16:56]
B
And in the memorandum for how to redact victim stuff, which is again cited in this notice, something else he's claiming is that email addresses have to be redacted. You can see that here. I'll put it up in the memo under victim identifying information. It says email addresses. It says, though victims emails addresses, not co conspirator email addresses. And one of the documents, just as you pointed out, were those co conspirators, co defendants, who. Whose names were redacted. But also there are several emails that you are asking the judge to review what's behind the redaction bar. Not just to remove it to see whose names are behind there, but for Todd Blanche to say only victims emails, but not perpetrators emails or co defendants email address, email addresses. So I think that's an interesting and important distinction.
[17:54]
C
Yeah, yeah, there's some. And listen, I want to make sure everybody understands, Allison, this DOJ memorandum that you. That you speak of, that you've put up, dated January 4, 2026, this is entitled Attorney Review Protocol for Epstein Files. This is not something that was an exhibit to the Epstein Files Transparency Act. This is something that the DOJ took upon itself to do, which again, I appreciate guidance that was given, but it really went beyond what the Epstein Files Transparency act was allowing for in terms of redactions. And so I'm like. I'm like, in my mind, you know, me beseeching Judge Sullivan, you got to reign this in. You have to rein this in. Because this has now either been on one end of the spectrum, full outing of people's identification that never should have happened. And then at the other of the spectrum, like over, you know, redaction of things and never the twain shall meet. So let's just go by what the law says here. And the law doesn't allow for you to protect perpetrators and enablers and co conspirators. It just doesn't.
[18:56]
B
Yeah. And I want to point something out that you just mentioned. The date that that was written, January 2026. That was 16 days after the Epstein files were due to be released. 16 days after. Okay. And we know from some of the other Work that I've done and that you've done on this story that the FBI Epstein files redaction party that happened where they locked a thousand people in a building happened a year before that memorandum.
[19:23]
C
That's right.
[19:23]
B
Was written. And that. And so, you know, because this seems
[19:30]
C
like a prophylactic move, this is like, we know what we've done and this is how we give it cover. This is how we cover up. The COVID up. Right. The COVID up of the COVID up is this attorney Review protocol memorandum. Because then it's like, hey, I'm going to protect the name of Sultan bin Sulayam because I'm going to create. I just. What? Oh, yeah, I can just Google it because I'm just a dumb plaintiff who doesn't know how to use Google. I mean, that's what Blanche thinks about me. Yeah.
[19:57]
B
And the thing that, you know, I'm suing to get the original training videos from a year ago. That right there is a training document on how to redact the Epstein files. What I'm seeking in my FOIA lawsuit, in my Epstein lawsuit are training materials for how to redact the Epstein files. I'm looking for the ones that weren't written after the fact. I'm looking for the ones that were sent out before the fact. And as you know, and if you've pointed out, when they set up those four terminals for members of Congress to look at files and they could click on the redaction boxes to remove them, the ones that the FBI did a year ago wouldn't come off.
[20:35]
C
Nope.
[20:35]
B
And those were pursuant to those early training videos and not pursuant to that memorandum that you have in your hand right there and that.
[20:43]
C
And if everything goes on the up and up, why are they not giving you the training videos? If everything's on the up and up here, just like they're able to prophylactically do this one and release this one. Why are we not seeing the training videos that you successfully had them admit in a filing in a federal case that exists? Why are they not giving it to you, Alison? That's what I want to know.
[21:02]
B
Right. And they've released that training document on how to redact the Epstein files. How's that different from the training materials that I want? Why. Why are those exempt under.
[21:14]
C
Because. Because yours are heavily militating towards protecting Donald Trump.
[21:18]
B
Do you think. Do you think that's possibly why? So along with, I'm going to be asking for a little in camera review of these training videos. But that's the ultimate goal here. I Feel like, because they also did this thing where they said in that document, in that memo, in the training redaction training memo, that AUSA is in law enforcement must be redacted after the fact.
[21:43]
C
This section is wild. Privacy act redactions. That's what they called this section. I'm like, oh, that's amazing. The Privacy act does not trump the Epstein files Transparency Act. What are you talking about? And yet we can conveniently drop that in there to protect everybody else.
[21:58]
B
Yeah. And speaking about stuff after the fact, in this notice, they admitted, and this is just a bombshell to me, and you brought this up on your channel and I really recommend everybody go watch that video. I think it came out on Friday. You mentioned that Todd Blanche and Stanley Woodward admit in this handful of documents that you have that they inadvertently redacted Epstein's name. And I looked back and I could not find reference to this inadvertent redaction throughout your case from the doj. So like in their first response to your lawsuit or your or your preliminary injunction, they never said we did inadvertently redact. They only admitted it when they were forced to hand them over for in camera review unredacted.
[22:48]
C
What does that tell you according to the notice of compliance? Quote, upon closer evaluation of this document, I'm like, I don't know how much closer you need to do because this specific document, if people are following along, it's EFTA 1187999. This is the one that has the Mademoiselle Model Agency email thing. They're like, upon closer evaluation of this document, it was also discovered there was an inadvertent redaction to Epstein's email address, which has since been lifted. End quote. This is huge because it shows one, despite the Epstein Files Transparency act having the name Epstein in it, despite that law stating you cannot redact the name Epstein or his email addresses or whatever, they still did. And number two, it shows how materially flawed this redaction process has been. It's not like we needed more evidence because we know. And even Blanche had to admit it, so did Bondi, that they fucked up this rollout. But like, we know they messed this up because they clearly showed victim's personal identification information that they never were supposed to do pursuant to the law, but the fact that they were like, oh yeah, by the way, inadvertent email address redaction. I feel in my gut that Judge Sullivan should look at that and say, timeout, time out. Putting aside perpetrators emails and all this other stuff not being Redacted. People who say, am I a sexual pervert? Because I think 14 and 15 year old girls are of sexual reproduction age and it's okay to have putting aside not releasing that person's name. The fact that you redacted Jeffrey Epstein's email address has me concerned. And I think a special master should sit down and go through these documents. I mean, it just, it says to me that this is why this lawsuit shows that there was either gross negligence on the part of them to do the redactions or intentional things that they've now tried to, you know, justify by way of things like attorney review protocols. But if you look at their attorney review protocol, they made it clear to the, quote, attorneys doing the review that Epstein's name was not to be redacted. And yet his name and EDML address are redacted.
[25:09]
B
Yeah, and I think that that's the nail in the coffin here. I think that that's at least beyond everything else that you, that you are seeing in just this small batch of documents is, is reason enough to have to look at all of them. And, and that's what you're asking for, special master, to review all of these files to ensure that victims names are properly redacted and people who should not be considered victims are not. But I think it was a brilliant move from you and your amazing legal team to do a separate motion for a smaller batch of documents. Because for Todd Blanche and Stanley Woodward to say, upon closer review of these 10 things, we're not even asking you to closely review 6 million documents. Let's pull these aside. And for them to not admit that they inadvertently redacted Epstein's name until they were first forced to hand over the unredacted documents to a judge for in camera review, I think speaks to consciousness of guilt.
[26:08]
C
Oh yes. And you know, I, I, I, I, I, I have to remind people, because I, I have seen the naysayers on, on social media and the Internet. They're like big whoopee. Do 10 documents or what? I'm like, listen, you go and sue top blanch. Look, this is, this was a strategic move. It was a preliminary injunction. My lawsuit for all of the Epstein files remains alive and well. It's still going. This was just, I like to say a, a just a battle as a part of the war. And this subset was truly a litmus test to see what could Todd Blanche do to justify these redactions, knowing that he could never credibly say that all of those redactions were legal. We have redactions of the names of law enforcement personnel and an assistant U.S. aTT attorney. There is no way, regardless of him trying to invoke the Privacy act, that that makes sense under the Epstein Files Transparency act to redact their names. That may not be some huge smoking gun revelation to you naysayer out there, but it's important because it shows that there was bad faith on the part of the Department of Justice and given the chance to cure it like they did with the inadvertent Epstein email address situation here, good faith on the part of Todd Blanche would have been, you know what, redacting the names of law enforcement personnel and the Assistant U.S. attorney and the guy who said I love torture videos and the guy who said am I a sexual pervert because I think 14 and 15 year old girls can have sex are bad. You know what are bad? In the, in the interest of us being the people that are the top law enforcement in the country, this is unredacted. Now what would you have lost if you are Todd Blanche and the Trump DOJ in doing that? You would have lost nothing. You might have pissed off the two men whose names remain redacted right now under those two specific emails. Maybe you don't want to piss off those people, but the Epstein Files Transparency act explicitly states that you cannot spare somebody public humiliation, shame and embarrassment or political shame because their names appear in the Epstein files. Ro Khanna and Tom Massie, flawed as people may think they are, still knew that that was a main motivation behind Trump DOJ to protect. And that is the reason why that law was passed without explicit language. And so right now I am hoping that Judge Sullivan manages to get through these unredacted things and that he also enters an order that addresses my missing handwritten interview notes by the FBI about Donald Trump's 13 year old accuser. My foreign language documents that I need especially as I pursue, you know, the international modeling component of this in countries like France and otherwise. And the redaction law because if I had had the redaction log from the get go, Allison, you and I could not sit there and wonder, I wonder what is happening behind this redaction. It's ironic. They're like, judge, we're getting a pat on the back for complying with your order because we have now explained each of the redactions. Well, buddy, you were supposed to do that shit back in December of 2025. And that is the stuff that I'm hoping Judge Sullivan kind of cobbles all together and kind of puts a bow on it and says, here you go, Todd, so let's see what happens.
[29:30]
B
Yeah. And I mean, honestly, the reason why Todd Blanche didn't say, you know what, you're right, these shouldn't be redacted. The reason he didn't do that is because he would be admitting that the redaction process was riddled with errors and deserves a review. And he doesn't want that review because if he could say, oh, it was inadvertent, but you know, oh, wow, we have a really unrelenting number of inappropriate redactions here. It has to have been in bad faith. And he's working very, very hard to make sure he can protect certain people and continues to do that to this day. But the fact that they were like, oh, you made us take the redaction bars off. You were right, we inadvertently redacted Epstein's name. But that's just a one off thing. It didn't ever happen anywhere else in the 6 million documents that we have.
[30:22]
C
But look, I mean, the thing that we need to focus on always are the wins. And this is a win. This is the first time that Blanche has had to turn over unredacted documents. And I know it's to a federal judge, but guess what? Who else would have been better to get this right? Like, that's my point. And you know, my lawsuit's still going, you know, and, and, and look, Blanche is going to try to run interference, you know, that he's going to appeal the shit out of all this stuff. Right? But really, at the end of the day, look how far we've made in just a short period of time. And so that is what gives me hope. And I have heard from the survivor community and they are so grateful for me fighting this fight. It's for me as a journalist to do, but I know that the natural result of this is helping the survivor community. And so I am just. It hit me. It hit me when I was driving my car just a few days ago. I'm like, damn, like, we've done something with this. Right? And we're going to continue to fight this. And that's what we're doing.
[31:18]
B
Yeah. And that was the genius of the small batch of documents, because you could have just gone, well, we know there's mistakes. Go look at everything. But what you did is you pulled out a small subset and said, just look at these.
[31:29]
C
And based on that issue, we forced the issue sooner. Can you imagine if we had to wait till the end of this lawsuit?
[31:35]
B
Right? What?
[31:36]
C
So we forced it. We forced a lot of the issues, including the standing issue that you and I have covered nicely here. You know, we covered that issue. We made this judge make a decision on my standing very early on. Right. And so we, we, we forced this issue sooner versus later, which is kind of what you gotta do when you deal with these types of cases, I think.
[31:56]
B
Yeah. Well, congrats on this. On this win again, chipping away bit by bit, which is the best way to do it, in my opinion. And also, hats off to your legal team.
[32:08]
C
Just Brendan Ballou, Sam Ward Packard Public Integrity Project. Anytime I can talk about them, I cannot miss that opportunity. They are true fighters for justice. We're very fortunate, Allison, truly.
[32:21]
B
All right, well, thank you so much for joining me today, everybody. You definitely want to check out because Katie gets into on her channel on the Midas Touch Network. She brings out every single email, every single redaction, every single thing that's addressed here by Todd Blanche and Stanley Woodward. And it's. And you know, Katie, you do it in a way that makes it so easy to understand and really kind of draws out the issues here that I think Todd Blanche could be facing. And we'll see what Judge Sullivan has to say about it.
[32:50]
C
It with bated breath. I wait.
[32:53]
B
With bated breath. We wait. Everybody. Thank you so much for watching the Breakdown. You can check me out at the Daily Beans podcast. Thanks to Midas for hosting this show. I will see you back here next week for another episode of the Breakdown.
[33:36]
A
Breaking news right now.
[33:37]
C
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 and
[33:44]
A
but you can pre order your copy today.
[33:46]
C
Just scan the QR code or click the link in the description below.
[34:03]
A
Hello, Martin Sheen here and I have a question for you. What do you do on Sunday to relax and unwind? Sleep in, read the paper, eat stuff? You shouldn't binge watch the shows on your My Stuff list. Okay, all good and fine, but I think this routine could be a bit better. Let me offer something to make your me time really special. My podcast. And I think once you hear it, you'll realize it is the perfect addition to your Sunday or whenever you're looking for a chance to unwind. Tune in as I share the stories of my life along with some poetry and an occasional personal reflection in a way that will have you saying, that was time well spent and I didn't even have to get out of my pajamas. Season four of the Martin Sheen Podcast with Yours truly, Martin Sheen, of course is underway with 10 brand new episodes. I know our lives can be very busy and demanding these days whose are not. So join me on a storytelling journey that you can enjoy from the comfort of your favorite easy chair and a chance to relax and be in the moment. So check out the Martin Sheen Podcast Season four, underway right now and make it part of your self care routine. And as always, thank you for listening.

Summary6 min read

The Daily Beans – The Breakdown | Trump DOJ makes Stunning Epstein Admission in Court

Date: August 3, 2026
Host: Allison Gill (B)
Guest: Katie Fang (C)
Network: MSW Media / Midas Touch Network

Episode Overview

In this episode of "The Breakdown," Allison Gill and legal expert Katie Fang dive into explosive developments surrounding the Trump DOJ’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files—especially a bombshell court admission that DOJ lawyers inadvertently redacted Epstein's own name from records. They break down DOJ maneuvers, the controversy over who counts as a "victim" (vs. facilitator/co-conspirator), the legal battle for file transparency, and what these tricky legal filings reveal about DOJ attempts to shield individuals implicated in the Epstein scandal. With characteristic snark and sharp legal analysis, Gill and Fang walk listeners through jaw-dropping details and the wider implications for justice and accountability.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Context and Recent Legal Moves

Todd Blanche, Trump's Attorney General nominee, submitted unredacted Epstein files for a secret ("in camera") review by Judge Emmett Sullivan, per a court order connected to Katie Fang’s lawsuit (01:15).
The Senate Judiciary Committee delayed a vote on Blanche’s nomination—not over the Epstein files scandal, but for other Trump-related issues (e.g., anti-weaponization slush fund, tax immunity) (02:50).
Despite bipartisan condemnation of any pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell, the Senate is still considering confirming Blanche, who previously moved Maxwell to a low-security facility (03:20).
Gill underscores the irony: "They’re simultaneously considering confirming the guy who met with [Maxwell] ... as the top cop in the United States. That is so insane to me." (03:38)

2. Manipulating the Definition of 'Victim' (05:11–11:13)

Blanche submitted memos expanding the term "victim" to include not only those prosecuted as victims, but anyone self-identifying as a potential victim—even possible facilitators or enablers (06:44).
Fang: "My concern is the expansive nature that Blanche is taking on this definition ... he's now gonna use that as an excuse to not investigate, as an excuse not to prosecute." (07:20)
The expanded definition opens a "Pandora's box"—potentially letting co-conspirators shield themselves by self-identifying as victims (08:00).

3. The Risks and Ethics of Redaction

Gill distinguishes complicated scenarios: ages, roles, degrees of involvement (09:53). She asks, "At what point do you draw the line?" in deciding who gets redacted (10:35).
Fang: "It is not my call. It is the judge’s call ... I am hoping ... some type of objective evidence ... substantiates and corroborates Blanche’s representations that these are victims." (11:13)
Fang highlights the lack of transparency over what documentation Blanche actually gave the judge, stressing the need for objective review.

4. Pattern of DOJ/Blanche Evading Accountability

Gill: "Todd Blanche has a history, a documented history, of when being asked ... to prove something, he will say: 'because I said so'" (13:09)
Fang: “He’s the ‘trust me bro’ guy. Trust me bro.” (13:19)
Victims' data has already been both inappropriately exposed and over-redacted by Blanche’s team—using victims as "a sword and a shield" (14:23).

Notable Example from the Files

Fang details a 2014 email (“EFTA 01930501”) that Blanche insists is a victim. But, as Fang says, “Some of these people ended up being codefendants on a proposed indictment ... There is a jump in criminal liability here ... The failure ... to investigate this person ... is really the biggest problem here." (15:47)

5. The DOJ’s Redaction Rules — Written After the Fact

DOJ's January 2026 "Attorney Review Protocol for Epstein Files" memo (17:53) was created 16 days after the files were legally required to be released (18:55).
Fang: “This is how we cover up. The cover-up of the cover-up is this attorney review protocol memorandum.” (19:29)
Gill: "I'm suing to get the original training videos from a year ago ... I want the ones that were sent out before the fact." (19:56)
The FBI's redaction protocol, made a year earlier, is not being disclosed—presumably because it might be incriminating (21:14).

6. Bombshell: DOJ Inadvertently Redacted Epstein's Name

In court, DOJ admitted only after in camera review that Epstein's own email address had been redacted, despite explicit law forbidding this (22:48).
Fang: "Despite the Epstein Files Transparency Act having the name Epstein in it ... they still did [redact his name] ... it shows how materially flawed this redaction process has been.'' (24:03)
"The fact that you redacted Jeffrey Epstein's email address has me concerned. And I think a special master should sit down and go through these documents." (24:13)

7. Calls for a Special Master and Further Oversight

This "nail in the coffin" (25:09) is strong justification for a special master—a neutral third party—to review all files for proper redactions, not just this small batch.
Fang explains the strategy: pursuing a small subset as a “litmus test” to demonstrate DOJ’s lack of credibility—and to force the issue of wider review. This approach, she says, “forced a lot of the issues, including the standing issue ... earlier on.” (31:36)

8. Wider Implications and Hope

Gill: "The reason [Blanche] didn't do that is because he would be admitting that the redaction process was riddled with errors and deserves a review." (29:30)
Fang: "This is a win. This is the first time that Blanche has had to turn over unredacted documents ... The survivor community ... are so grateful for me fighting this fight ... we've done something with this." (30:22)
Gill and Fang see these developments as incrementally securing accountability, even as DOJ continues to resist transparency.

Memorable Quotes & Moments

"Blanche is using [victims] as a sword and a shield ... he wants to come in like he's the knight in shining armor ... and yet he's been at the helm of the day-to-day of this ... We have seen some really egregious, egregious failures here to redact the private information of victims and survivors."
— Katie Fang (14:23)
"He’s the ‘trust me bro’ guy." (13:19)
"The cover-up of the cover-up is this attorney review protocol memorandum."
— Katie Fang (19:29)
"This is a win. This is the first time that Blanche has had to turn over unredacted documents. ... We've done something with this. Right? And we’re going to continue to fight this. And that's what we’re doing."
— Katie Fang (30:22)
"Despite the Epstein Files Transparency Act having the name Epstein in it ... They still did [redact his name] ... it shows how materially flawed this redaction process has been."
— Katie Fang (24:03)

Timestamps for Key Segments

01:15 — Setting the scene: DOJ submits unredacted files; Senate delays vote on Blanche
05:11–11:13 — Redefining 'victim': Legal maneuvering to shield names
13:09–14:23 — "Trust me bro": Blanche's history dodging court demands for evidence
15:44 — Specific example: 2014 email, redacted names, codefendant revelations
17:53–19:29 — DOJ’s post-facto redaction rules, the "cover-up of the cover-up"
22:48–25:09 — Bombshell admission: Epstein’s own info redacted, process called “materially flawed”
25:09–31:55 — Push for a special master and Fang's legal wins as incremental progress
32:08 — Fang credits her legal team and discusses the survivor community’s gratitude

Conclusion

This episode offers an in-depth and at times jaw-dropping look at the Trump DOJ's legal strategies around the Epstein files—with strong evidence of attempts to use overbroad "victim" definitions to shield key names and a documented botch of mandated transparency. Gill and Fang’s analysis—laced with snark but deeply knowledgeable—provides essential context for anyone tracking the Epstein case, government accountability, or the law’s use (and misuse) as a tool for justice.

For further analysis and document breakdowns, check out Katie Fang’s content on the Midas Touch Network.

Loading summary

Transcript48 lines

[00:00]
A
Hello, Martin Sheen here and I have a question for you. What do you do on Sunday to relax and unwind? Sleep in, read the paper, eat stuff? You shouldn't binge watch the shows on your My Stuff list. Okay, all good and fine, but I think this routine could be a bit better. Let me offer something to make your me time really special. My podcast. And I think once you hear it, you'll realize it is the perfect addition to your Sunday. Or whenever you're looking for a chance to unwind. Tune in as I share the stories of my life along with some poetry and an occasional personal reflection in a way that will have you saying that was time well spent and I didn't even have to get out of my pajamas. Season four of the Martin Sheen Podcast with yours truly, Martin Sheen, of course is underway with 10 brand new episodes. I know our lives can be very busy and demanding these days. Whose or not? So join me on a storytelling journey that you can enjoy from the comfort of your favorite easy chair and a chance to relax and be in the moment. So check out the Martin Sheen Podcast Season four underway right now and make it part of your self care routine. And as always, thank you for listening. Hey.
[01:16]
B
Hello everybody. Happy Sunday. Welcome to the Breakdown on the Midas Touch Network. Thanks to Midas for hosting my show. I'm Allison Gill. I'm the host of the Daily Beans Podcast and and something extraordinary happened this past Thursday. Todd Blanche submitted a handful of unredacted Epstein files to Judge Emmett Sullivan for an in camera review. And he did that pursuant to a July 25 court order in the lawsuit brought by our friend Katie Fang. Now, in camera means behind closed doors in chambers for the judge alone to review unless the judge stipulates other people can be there. Now, many thought Todd Blanche would never hand these over, but he did. And he also included reasons for each of the redactions. And he did it on the day the Judiciary Committee was supposed to vote on his nomination to be the Attorney General of the United States. But as you probably know by now, Senator Cornyn, joined by Senator Tillis, postponed the vote. But not because of the egregious disregard for the Epstein Files Transparency act or trampling over the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And not because he sat down Todd Blanche with Ghislaine Maxwell and then moved her to a low security facility after waiving her sex offender status or having someone do it. Not because of that, but because they hadn't received a written recision of the anti weaponization slush fund and Trump's tax immunity, which is also a big deal. And that came after Blanche, Trump and the IRS colluded to perpetrate a fraud on the court as found by a judge through a bullshit lawsuit where he sued himself, basically resulting in what Blanche called a settlement. And Cornyn and Tillis and the Justice Department are still trying to work out a resolution here. And it seems they on the 29th got Blanche to rescind the slush fund but not the tax immunity. And so that's kind of the sticking point here. And these two senators are now seemingly blaming Trump and and not Blanche for the stonewalling. But all of that is wild to me because as I said, Blanche shouldn't be confirmed for a million reasons. Top of the list. He is, as we speak, as I said, in violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And the documents he submitted to Judge Sullivan Thursday seem to prove that point. Why Tillis and Cornyn or any other Republican for that matter, aren't withholding their vote based on that is beyond me. And that all 100 senators last week passed a non binding resolution condemning any pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. They're simultaneously considering confirming the guy who met with her and moved her to a low security facility as the top cop in the United States. That is so insane to me. But let's get back to Katie's lawsuit and the in camera review of the handful of unredacted Epstein files because the tricks that Todd Blanche is using to circumvent the law, the Epstein Files Transparency act so that he can keep the names of Epstein co conspirators and other purp perpetrators blacked out. It becomes more evident with each passing brief that Blanche files in Katie Fang's case. So I'm going to talk about those tricks with Katie Feng on today's episode of the Breakdown. Hey everybody, welcome. Thank you for being here, this community. By the way, all of you watching this, everyone who subscribes to Katie Fang's channel, you all such an important part of this fight for justice for the Epstein victims. So thank you for watching and sharing. Thank you for continuing to call your senators and tell them to vote no to confirm Todd Blanche. And please welcome Katie Feng. Katie Fang da da da da da da. Katie Fang da da da da da da. My friend Katie, how are you?
[04:59]
C
I can't forget. Wasn't there like some accompanying hand thing with that though? Was it this? Was it this? I can't remember. Anyway. Hi. Hi. Hey H. It's been a week. It's been A week.
[05:12]
B
It's been a good week for chipping away at this, a really good week. And I have so many questions for you. So on Thursday, Todd Blanche, via Stanley Woodward, filed their notice of compliance with Judge Emmett Sullivan. In your case, a notice of compliance is basically a note to the court saying, hey, remember that order? You told me where I had to turn in all this stuff? We did it. And then he also, you know, he says, we've hand delivered the unredacted documents for your review. And here's a little explanation for each thing about why we redacted what we redacted. And I've read this notice from doj. You sent it to me Thursday. And the very first thing that jumped out to me is that Todd Blanche has redefined, seemingly, and expanded the definition of what it means to be a victim in this case for redaction purposes. So the Epstein Files Transparency act says Blanche has to redact victims names. Oh, but also, Todd Blanche says we have a new definition of what it means to be a victim. And it's this notice of compliance that they cite in. In their court notice. It cites a memorandum that explains all of this. What, like what to redact? And it says the following. I'll put it up here for you. While the above description summarizes the changes against Epstein and Max, the charges against Epstein and Maxwell note that the department is not limiting its redactions to victims of these offenses. For purposes of this review and relevant redactions, victims include individuals identified as victims or potential victims through the department's prior prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell, as well as all individuals who have, either directly or through counsel, self identified to the department as being potential victims of state or federal offenses or other claims of sexual exploitation or misconduct by Epstein or Maxwell. Katie, why is that definition important and how does it pertain to this handful of unredacted documents that the judge is reviewing?
[07:10]
C
It's important because it does two things. One, it creates a very slippery slope in terms of how we are viewing who we are now defining as victims. It's never an easy thing to define a victim, especially in a trafficking scenario and in a trafficking situation. But my concern is not so much about the. My concern is the expansive nature that Blanche is taking on this definition only because my fear is he's now gonna use that as an excuse to not investigate, as an excuse not to prosecute. We know that there are people and individuals that were brought into the Epstein orbit and were, according to them, they were abused, groomed and abused, recruited by Epstein Maxwell and others to be able to come into that orbit and that they themselves were tasked to go out and recruit and to bring in new victims, almost like in this very perverse Ponzi scheme, this grotesque Ponzi scheme, almost. But we know that that has been the case and that's been alleged. And you know, I want to underscore something, Allison, and I appreciate you giving me this opportunity to do so. The desire in this lawsuit by me is not to out anybody. In fact, the desire by me is actually to make sure that the DOJ doesn't do that. Because the Epstein Files Transparency act explicitly says that victims are not to be identified and that they're private and personal, you know, identifying information remains private, personal and confidential. But if Todd Blanch allows people that were co conspirators with Epstein, Maxwell and others that were facilitators, enablers to be able to self identify as victims and in doing so protects and shields their names from possible investigation, litigation, pursuit of the truth, we have a problem. We have a serious problem. Because now Blanche will say nothing to look at here because everybody will say that they were victims. And so that's where we get into this weird place too where Blanche said that there's no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked anyone to anyone else. Is that because they've now all self identified as victims? I mean, again, I'm not trying to be glib about it, Allison, but I do think it's worthwhile to, to have a conversation about it because I think it really opens a new Pandora's box when it comes to achieving transparency around these files.
[09:54]
A
Right?
[09:54]
B
And you didn't ask the court to pull all the redaction boxes off of anyone who's not considered just a straight up victim of Maxwell and Epstein. And you know, I mean, if you think about the spectrum on here, right, of the expanded universe of what a victim is and where those lines are drawn. For example, if you're a 14 year old girl who has been abused by Maxwell and then you go refer one of your 15 year old friends to Maxwell, that friend, and you are still victims, right? But like let's say you're a modeling agency who's sending models into the Epstein world, Is that a victim? Because they were perpetrated upon by Epstein to get models like you were. Just what did you think you were sending the models there to do? Then we could have like Ghislaine Maxwell was groomed and abused and then became a perpetrator. So Donald Trump and his modeling agency may have provided some of These underage women to Epstein. And so at what point do you draw the line? And Katie, you're not saying I get to draw the line. You're simply asking the court to look at who's behind these and make a determination about where that line is.
[11:14]
C
Agreed. It is not my call. It is the judge's call. And I also want to point out that when Judge Sullivan on July 25th ordered Blanche to show up in chambers with these unredacted documents, he also ordered him to bring with him, quote, documentation supporting defendants, defendant being Todd Blanche, representation, that the names that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victim victims. I have an open ended question. Did Todd Blanche come with unredacted emails and documents and some accompanying documentation or. The way I read his notice of compliance, he just says, hey, submitted documents show that the justification cited in the briefing on this issue support each redaction. I don't know what was submitted because it was in camera, it was in chambers, and I was not allowed to be there when it happened. But I am hoping that whatever Judge Sullivan is looking at and considering it is some type of objective evidence that really substantiates and corroborates Blanche's representations that these are victims. Now, Blanche does say in his notice of compliance that such and such person not identified by name or this person who is redacted on this bait stamped document is represented by counsel, and they have asked that that person be identified as a victim. But again, this is the slippery slope. And that is why, yes, in the judge's wisdom, he gets to decide. But remember, this is a tiny subset of millions of documents. And that is why this analysis, I think, is so important. It's almost like a litmus test to see whether, number one, Blanche is credible. But number two, is there a way to draw a line to make that determination on whose name remains redacted or not?
[13:10]
B
Right. And Todd Blanche has a history, a documented history of when being asked by the court, by a court to prove something, he will say, because I said so.
[13:20]
C
Yeah, he's the trust me bro guy. Trust me bro.
[13:23]
B
So these documents that you've submitted to the court, Todd Blanche, to prove the nature of the victimhood of some of these folks that are behind redaction bars. Did you provide the letters or the cases or the testimony and that kind of documentation, or did you just provide your memo that says what you think a victim is and use that as your reasoning to justify keeping those redaction bars up there? And again, we're not asking them to just blow these redaction bars off. We just want somebody to a court of law to look at them and make a determination based on documentation that these are names that should be redacted to protect the identity of victims under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Because that's the goal, is to protect the victims. Because if I recall correctly, Todd Blanche released all sorts of photos and names and even addresses of some of these victims.
[14:23]
C
Yeah, listen, I always say, Allison, he wants to use the victims as a sword and a shield. Right. And yet he wants to come in like he's the knight in shining armor on the white horse to save them. And yet he's been at the helm of the day to day of this. As Pam Bondi said, this was his thing. He was the guy in charge of this. And we have seen some really egregious, egregious failures here to redact the private information of victims and survivors. You know, I want to bring up one specific example, Alison, if you don't mind. It's EFTA 01930501 and it's an email dated March 11, 2014. And so in the chronology of the world, this is post non prosecution agreement, sweetheart plea deal. Remember that was 2008. Right. So this is six years later. And it's a email sent from a redacted person to Jeffrey Epstein. And it's very short. It says, thank you for a fun night. Your littlest girl was a little naughty. According to Todd Blanche, the person whose name is redacted the from that is a victim. Todd says that's a victim represented by counsel. And that's the reason why they're disclosing this person's identity. Yeah.
[15:44]
B
And in that memo. Yeah, yeah, I know, I know.
[15:48]
C
This is what I don't understand. Like this is the stuff that I struggle with. Right. Because again, I don't want to out victims, but I am struggling with this because remember, some of these people ended up getting a part of which was another one of the documents I asked for that Blanche says are all victims. Some of these people ended up being co defendants on a proposed indictment. They were not, they were not identified as victims. They weren't even identified as co conspirators anymore. They made it actually to the big leagues of being a co defendant in a proposed indictment to be presented to a grand jury. And so there is, there is a jump in liability, there is a jump in criminal liability here. And the failure of, I think fundamentally the failure of the FBI and The DOJ to investigate this person to see if they legitimately are a victim in this case is really the biggest problem here. More so than just allowing for a liberal redaction. It's what have you done to ensure that the littlest girl, who clearly had something happen to her as a child, actually had some justice at the hands of whoever this person is? And I have problems with it. I really do. Yeah.
[16:56]
B
And in the memorandum for how to redact victim stuff, which is again cited in this notice, something else he's claiming is that email addresses have to be redacted. You can see that here. I'll put it up in the memo under victim identifying information. It says email addresses. It says, though victims emails addresses, not co conspirator email addresses. And one of the documents, just as you pointed out, were those co conspirators, co defendants, who. Whose names were redacted. But also there are several emails that you are asking the judge to review what's behind the redaction bar. Not just to remove it to see whose names are behind there, but for Todd Blanche to say only victims emails, but not perpetrators emails or co defendants email address, email addresses. So I think that's an interesting and important distinction.
[17:54]
C
Yeah, yeah, there's some. And listen, I want to make sure everybody understands, Allison, this DOJ memorandum that you. That you speak of, that you've put up, dated January 4, 2026, this is entitled Attorney Review Protocol for Epstein Files. This is not something that was an exhibit to the Epstein Files Transparency Act. This is something that the DOJ took upon itself to do, which again, I appreciate guidance that was given, but it really went beyond what the Epstein Files Transparency act was allowing for in terms of redactions. And so I'm like. I'm like, in my mind, you know, me beseeching Judge Sullivan, you got to reign this in. You have to rein this in. Because this has now either been on one end of the spectrum, full outing of people's identification that never should have happened. And then at the other of the spectrum, like over, you know, redaction of things and never the twain shall meet. So let's just go by what the law says here. And the law doesn't allow for you to protect perpetrators and enablers and co conspirators. It just doesn't.
[18:56]
B
Yeah. And I want to point something out that you just mentioned. The date that that was written, January 2026. That was 16 days after the Epstein files were due to be released. 16 days after. Okay. And we know from some of the other Work that I've done and that you've done on this story that the FBI Epstein files redaction party that happened where they locked a thousand people in a building happened a year before that memorandum.
[19:23]
C
That's right.
[19:23]
B
Was written. And that. And so, you know, because this seems
[19:30]
C
like a prophylactic move, this is like, we know what we've done and this is how we give it cover. This is how we cover up. The COVID up. Right. The COVID up of the COVID up is this attorney Review protocol memorandum. Because then it's like, hey, I'm going to protect the name of Sultan bin Sulayam because I'm going to create. I just. What? Oh, yeah, I can just Google it because I'm just a dumb plaintiff who doesn't know how to use Google. I mean, that's what Blanche thinks about me. Yeah.
[19:57]
B
And the thing that, you know, I'm suing to get the original training videos from a year ago. That right there is a training document on how to redact the Epstein files. What I'm seeking in my FOIA lawsuit, in my Epstein lawsuit are training materials for how to redact the Epstein files. I'm looking for the ones that weren't written after the fact. I'm looking for the ones that were sent out before the fact. And as you know, and if you've pointed out, when they set up those four terminals for members of Congress to look at files and they could click on the redaction boxes to remove them, the ones that the FBI did a year ago wouldn't come off.
[20:35]
C
Nope.
[20:35]
B
And those were pursuant to those early training videos and not pursuant to that memorandum that you have in your hand right there and that.
[20:43]
C
And if everything goes on the up and up, why are they not giving you the training videos? If everything's on the up and up here, just like they're able to prophylactically do this one and release this one. Why are we not seeing the training videos that you successfully had them admit in a filing in a federal case that exists? Why are they not giving it to you, Alison? That's what I want to know.
[21:02]
B
Right. And they've released that training document on how to redact the Epstein files. How's that different from the training materials that I want? Why. Why are those exempt under.
[21:14]
C
Because. Because yours are heavily militating towards protecting Donald Trump.
[21:18]
B
Do you think. Do you think that's possibly why? So along with, I'm going to be asking for a little in camera review of these training videos. But that's the ultimate goal here. I Feel like, because they also did this thing where they said in that document, in that memo, in the training redaction training memo, that AUSA is in law enforcement must be redacted after the fact.
[21:43]
C
This section is wild. Privacy act redactions. That's what they called this section. I'm like, oh, that's amazing. The Privacy act does not trump the Epstein files Transparency Act. What are you talking about? And yet we can conveniently drop that in there to protect everybody else.
[21:58]
B
Yeah. And speaking about stuff after the fact, in this notice, they admitted, and this is just a bombshell to me, and you brought this up on your channel and I really recommend everybody go watch that video. I think it came out on Friday. You mentioned that Todd Blanche and Stanley Woodward admit in this handful of documents that you have that they inadvertently redacted Epstein's name. And I looked back and I could not find reference to this inadvertent redaction throughout your case from the doj. So like in their first response to your lawsuit or your or your preliminary injunction, they never said we did inadvertently redact. They only admitted it when they were forced to hand them over for in camera review unredacted.
[22:48]
C
What does that tell you according to the notice of compliance? Quote, upon closer evaluation of this document, I'm like, I don't know how much closer you need to do because this specific document, if people are following along, it's EFTA 1187999. This is the one that has the Mademoiselle Model Agency email thing. They're like, upon closer evaluation of this document, it was also discovered there was an inadvertent redaction to Epstein's email address, which has since been lifted. End quote. This is huge because it shows one, despite the Epstein Files Transparency act having the name Epstein in it, despite that law stating you cannot redact the name Epstein or his email addresses or whatever, they still did. And number two, it shows how materially flawed this redaction process has been. It's not like we needed more evidence because we know. And even Blanche had to admit it, so did Bondi, that they fucked up this rollout. But like, we know they messed this up because they clearly showed victim's personal identification information that they never were supposed to do pursuant to the law, but the fact that they were like, oh yeah, by the way, inadvertent email address redaction. I feel in my gut that Judge Sullivan should look at that and say, timeout, time out. Putting aside perpetrators emails and all this other stuff not being Redacted. People who say, am I a sexual pervert? Because I think 14 and 15 year old girls are of sexual reproduction age and it's okay to have putting aside not releasing that person's name. The fact that you redacted Jeffrey Epstein's email address has me concerned. And I think a special master should sit down and go through these documents. I mean, it just, it says to me that this is why this lawsuit shows that there was either gross negligence on the part of them to do the redactions or intentional things that they've now tried to, you know, justify by way of things like attorney review protocols. But if you look at their attorney review protocol, they made it clear to the, quote, attorneys doing the review that Epstein's name was not to be redacted. And yet his name and EDML address are redacted.
[25:09]
B
Yeah, and I think that that's the nail in the coffin here. I think that that's at least beyond everything else that you, that you are seeing in just this small batch of documents is, is reason enough to have to look at all of them. And, and that's what you're asking for, special master, to review all of these files to ensure that victims names are properly redacted and people who should not be considered victims are not. But I think it was a brilliant move from you and your amazing legal team to do a separate motion for a smaller batch of documents. Because for Todd Blanche and Stanley Woodward to say, upon closer review of these 10 things, we're not even asking you to closely review 6 million documents. Let's pull these aside. And for them to not admit that they inadvertently redacted Epstein's name until they were first forced to hand over the unredacted documents to a judge for in camera review, I think speaks to consciousness of guilt.
[26:08]
C
Oh yes. And you know, I, I, I, I, I, I have to remind people, because I, I have seen the naysayers on, on social media and the Internet. They're like big whoopee. Do 10 documents or what? I'm like, listen, you go and sue top blanch. Look, this is, this was a strategic move. It was a preliminary injunction. My lawsuit for all of the Epstein files remains alive and well. It's still going. This was just, I like to say a, a just a battle as a part of the war. And this subset was truly a litmus test to see what could Todd Blanche do to justify these redactions, knowing that he could never credibly say that all of those redactions were legal. We have redactions of the names of law enforcement personnel and an assistant U.S. aTT attorney. There is no way, regardless of him trying to invoke the Privacy act, that that makes sense under the Epstein Files Transparency act to redact their names. That may not be some huge smoking gun revelation to you naysayer out there, but it's important because it shows that there was bad faith on the part of the Department of Justice and given the chance to cure it like they did with the inadvertent Epstein email address situation here, good faith on the part of Todd Blanche would have been, you know what, redacting the names of law enforcement personnel and the Assistant U.S. attorney and the guy who said I love torture videos and the guy who said am I a sexual pervert because I think 14 and 15 year old girls can have sex are bad. You know what are bad? In the, in the interest of us being the people that are the top law enforcement in the country, this is unredacted. Now what would you have lost if you are Todd Blanche and the Trump DOJ in doing that? You would have lost nothing. You might have pissed off the two men whose names remain redacted right now under those two specific emails. Maybe you don't want to piss off those people, but the Epstein Files Transparency act explicitly states that you cannot spare somebody public humiliation, shame and embarrassment or political shame because their names appear in the Epstein files. Ro Khanna and Tom Massie, flawed as people may think they are, still knew that that was a main motivation behind Trump DOJ to protect. And that is the reason why that law was passed without explicit language. And so right now I am hoping that Judge Sullivan manages to get through these unredacted things and that he also enters an order that addresses my missing handwritten interview notes by the FBI about Donald Trump's 13 year old accuser. My foreign language documents that I need especially as I pursue, you know, the international modeling component of this in countries like France and otherwise. And the redaction law because if I had had the redaction log from the get go, Allison, you and I could not sit there and wonder, I wonder what is happening behind this redaction. It's ironic. They're like, judge, we're getting a pat on the back for complying with your order because we have now explained each of the redactions. Well, buddy, you were supposed to do that shit back in December of 2025. And that is the stuff that I'm hoping Judge Sullivan kind of cobbles all together and kind of puts a bow on it and says, here you go, Todd, so let's see what happens.
[29:30]
B
Yeah. And I mean, honestly, the reason why Todd Blanche didn't say, you know what, you're right, these shouldn't be redacted. The reason he didn't do that is because he would be admitting that the redaction process was riddled with errors and deserves a review. And he doesn't want that review because if he could say, oh, it was inadvertent, but you know, oh, wow, we have a really unrelenting number of inappropriate redactions here. It has to have been in bad faith. And he's working very, very hard to make sure he can protect certain people and continues to do that to this day. But the fact that they were like, oh, you made us take the redaction bars off. You were right, we inadvertently redacted Epstein's name. But that's just a one off thing. It didn't ever happen anywhere else in the 6 million documents that we have.
[30:22]
C
But look, I mean, the thing that we need to focus on always are the wins. And this is a win. This is the first time that Blanche has had to turn over unredacted documents. And I know it's to a federal judge, but guess what? Who else would have been better to get this right? Like, that's my point. And you know, my lawsuit's still going, you know, and, and, and look, Blanche is going to try to run interference, you know, that he's going to appeal the shit out of all this stuff. Right? But really, at the end of the day, look how far we've made in just a short period of time. And so that is what gives me hope. And I have heard from the survivor community and they are so grateful for me fighting this fight. It's for me as a journalist to do, but I know that the natural result of this is helping the survivor community. And so I am just. It hit me. It hit me when I was driving my car just a few days ago. I'm like, damn, like, we've done something with this. Right? And we're going to continue to fight this. And that's what we're doing.
[31:18]
B
Yeah. And that was the genius of the small batch of documents, because you could have just gone, well, we know there's mistakes. Go look at everything. But what you did is you pulled out a small subset and said, just look at these.
[31:29]
C
And based on that issue, we forced the issue sooner. Can you imagine if we had to wait till the end of this lawsuit?
[31:35]
B
Right? What?
[31:36]
C
So we forced it. We forced a lot of the issues, including the standing issue that you and I have covered nicely here. You know, we covered that issue. We made this judge make a decision on my standing very early on. Right. And so we, we, we forced this issue sooner versus later, which is kind of what you gotta do when you deal with these types of cases, I think.
[31:56]
B
Yeah. Well, congrats on this. On this win again, chipping away bit by bit, which is the best way to do it, in my opinion. And also, hats off to your legal team.
[32:08]
C
Just Brendan Ballou, Sam Ward Packard Public Integrity Project. Anytime I can talk about them, I cannot miss that opportunity. They are true fighters for justice. We're very fortunate, Allison, truly.
[32:21]
B
All right, well, thank you so much for joining me today, everybody. You definitely want to check out because Katie gets into on her channel on the Midas Touch Network. She brings out every single email, every single redaction, every single thing that's addressed here by Todd Blanche and Stanley Woodward. And it's. And you know, Katie, you do it in a way that makes it so easy to understand and really kind of draws out the issues here that I think Todd Blanche could be facing. And we'll see what Judge Sullivan has to say about it.
[32:50]
C
It with bated breath. I wait.
[32:53]
B
With bated breath. We wait. Everybody. Thank you so much for watching the Breakdown. You can check me out at the Daily Beans podcast. Thanks to Midas for hosting this show. I will see you back here next week for another episode of the Breakdown.
[33:36]
A
Breaking news right now.
[33:37]
C
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 and
[33:44]
A
but you can pre order your copy today.
[33:46]
C
Just scan the QR code or click the link in the description below.
[34:03]
A
Hello, Martin Sheen here and I have a question for you. What do you do on Sunday to relax and unwind? Sleep in, read the paper, eat stuff? You shouldn't binge watch the shows on your My Stuff list. Okay, all good and fine, but I think this routine could be a bit better. Let me offer something to make your me time really special. My podcast. And I think once you hear it, you'll realize it is the perfect addition to your Sunday or whenever you're looking for a chance to unwind. Tune in as I share the stories of my life along with some poetry and an occasional personal reflection in a way that will have you saying, that was time well spent and I didn't even have to get out of my pajamas. Season four of the Martin Sheen Podcast with Yours truly, Martin Sheen, of course is underway with 10 brand new episodes. I know our lives can be very busy and demanding these days whose are not. So join me on a storytelling journey that you can enjoy from the comfort of your favorite easy chair and a chance to relax and be in the moment. So check out the Martin Sheen Podcast Season four, underway right now and make it part of your self care routine. And as always, thank you for listening.