← The Tara Palmeri Show
The Tara Palmeri Show
Inside Blanche’s Power Play: Epstein Lawsuit & Comey Indictment w/ Katie Phang
00:38:20
Loading summary
Transcript67 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, guys. Lately I've been more intentional about what I wear day to day. I lean into pieces that feel effortless and comfortable, but I still need to look put together. After all, I am running a media company and that's why Quint has become my go to. It just makes getting dressed simpler because the fabrics are elevated, the fits are flattering, and everything just works without having to overthink it. I have been wearing the 100% washable silk skin slip dress all the time. I have it in navy and I plan to buy it in champagne. It just looks elevated and you can wear it with a blazer or jean jacket however you want to wear it. Flats or high heels. It's just sort of a staple in my wardrobe and I can't get enough of it really. It is such high quality silk. And the best part is you don't have to drop it off at the dry cleaner afterwards. Refresh your everyday with luxury you'll actually use. Head to Quince.com Tara for free shipping on your order and 365 days of returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Quince. Q-U I N C E.com Tara for free shipping and 365 days of returns. Quints.com Tara and of course, when they ask you how you found out about us, please say you heard about it here. Hi, welcome to the Tara Palmeri show meets Katie Fang and the Red Letter. Guys, this is such a treat to have Katie on the show. Katie, thanks for joining so much news.
- [01:33]
B
I am thrilled to be here. And yeah, it's never a slow day lately, but I feel like things are just barreling along out of control these days.
- [01:43]
A
Yeah, but you made some serious news on Monday when you filed a lawsuit against Todd Blanche and the Justice Department. This was something that I'm surprised didn't happen sooner, to be frank. But I guess it takes a lot of work to do this, to put together a really strong lawsuit. And so I totally respect you for doing it and for spending the time. And I love that you did it on behalf of other journalists as well, because you're right. Like we need to get the Epstein files and they have been withholding them and violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
- [02:19]
B
I think one of the reasons why a path has not always and was not more immediately clear for this type of litigation is that the Epstein Files Transparency Act. I think it was. You know, and this is partially from having conversations with Ro Khanna about it, one of the original drafters of it with Tom Massie. I mean, the purpose behind it was to be just intentionally clear and simple. Right. The DOJ has this obligation to turn over a lot of information. And I actually think that I have almost shortchanged how much information should be turned over. Because if you go back as I've done and I've gone back and looked at the language of the statute, Tara, I mean it's really broad. Right. And I think part of the problem is the law didn't provide for private causes of action, meaning the law did not say this group of people or these kind of people or whatever can bring a lawsuit. And then we find out later that Ro Khanna said that Republicans intentionally didn't really want to put that in there. Right. They did not want all of these lawsuits. They did not want enforcement mechanisms on it. And that was part of the reason why it wasn't included because then it wouldn't have been bipartisan. So I am great. And I told K this yesterday, Congressman Khan, I'm like, look, I'm happy we have this law. I know it could have probably been tweaked a little bit more. But in the immediate sense we needed to have something on the literal books to force this along. And yet ironically, since we've had it, all we've had are violations by the doj. And so if I, if there's anything I'm pleased about, we have now re centered in the discourse, the Epstein files. Again, we're now pushing it along. Like I felt like we were in the sense of stasis where Tara, like nothing was happening on it. So now I feel like we've got some forward moving action on it.
- [04:15]
A
It's always the last question I always get, are we ever going to see the files? You know, and I, I say, oh, whistleblowers, journalists, and now it's the truth is lawsuits. But it's interesting, like why give a law no teeth? I mean you need to be able to, to sue. You need to be able to, at least for these poor victims that have had, you know, their faces, their names, their bodies exposed in these files, I mean they should have some recourse as well, right?
- [04:44]
B
Yeah. And I think people always thought that any original lawsuit pursuant to the to the Epstein Files Transparency act would have been brought by a victim or survivor for a myriad reasons, one of which being the improper and illegal disclosure. Right. Because if you think about it, Tara, if you're a victim or survivor and your name was disclosed in the public rollout pursuant to the law, when the law itself explicitly said that the DOJ was not allowed to do it on its face. The DOJ violated the law. You, as a victim or survivor were damaged. And so that would, logically you would think be, that would be the first lawsuit. I just think, and I, and I reinforce this all the time. I think it was never, and it will never be fair to expect these victims and survivors to continue to take the laboring or to towards transparency on this. So in some ways, I'm glad that I've done this. It's the first lawsuit and my standing as a journalist is as, you know, if you don't actually have the ability to read it, to see it, to hear it, to watch it, I mean, remember, this also included videos, photographs, et cetera. Right. It wasn't just the pieces of paper, of the FBI, interviews, et cetera, or the notes. If you're not able to do it, you can't report on it. And then you can't pull on threads. I can't investigate more. I can't, you know, be able to discern what's next. I can't be able to do my job if I don't have the ability to access the information. And because the DOJ had the legal obligation to do it and they didn't do it, they violated the law.
- [06:23]
A
I want to talk to you too, just like about this, like, abuse of power that we're seeing from the Justice Department. You know, this morning all woke up to the news that James Comey would likely be turning himself in after being indicted for seashells.
- [06:38]
B
Seashells.
- [06:40]
A
What's going on with that?
- [06:42]
B
I think it's, I think it is because Todd Blanch a few weeks ago when he had one of his very first big press conferences right after taking over after Pammy Joe got fired, if you'll recall, Tara, he said, you know, if, if the president decides that I'm the person that I'll do it. If he doesn't, I won't do it. But no matter what, you know, I love you. It's pretty much what he said. I've never heard a federal prosecutor pigeon tell the President that I love you.
- [07:08]
A
I mean, former personal attorney to the
- [07:10]
B
President, as they all are him, Alina Lindsay, Emil Bovey, Stan Woodward. I mean, the list goes on and
- [07:18]
A
on right by him.
- [07:20]
B
Yeah. And so, you know, it's interesting because I do believe that despite his nonchalant attitude, he does want to be the Attorney General of the United States. And I, and from what I have heard through chatter, you know, his name was intentionally not selected. And they intentionally went with Pam Bondi over Todd Blanche. And so because of that, I do think he really, really wants this job. And I think that he knew that part of the reason why Band Bondi got canned is because she did such a piss poor job of going after Trump's political enemies. Right. And so I feel like he now realizes, well, remember, Bondi couldn't get Comey successfully indicted because Lindsey Halligan dropped that ball. And so he's like, look at me, I'm able to get Comey indicted. The fact, though, and this always kind of deals with the Epstein files, the fact that I have to sue to make the DOJ pretty much do its job, and yet they can spend a year investigating Comey to bring a very thin indictment on seashells just goes to show the lack of priorities of the largest law firm in the world, which is what I always call the Department of Justice. It's the largest and most powerful resourced law firm in the world. And yet this is how they've chosen to deploy those resources, which is to indict the former FBI director for seashells.
- [08:41]
A
Just to be clear, for everyone who may not be aware of what Those seashells spelled. 8447. Correct.
- [08:47]
B
No, 8647.
- [08:49]
A
Oh, 8647. 47. Sorry.
- [08:51]
B
Which, listen, Tara, that's fine. Because you know what? Who gives a. I mean, it could be, it could be 43, 47. I mean, whatever. But the funny thing is not haha, but ridiculous and hip and hypocritical is a slew of people during the Biden presidency said 8,646. Right. And they never got indicted. And because nobody reasonably believes that the intent behind that is to. Is to kill the President of the United states.
- [09:19]
A
You know, 86 is, to me, it means to remove and in some cases to kill. I think that Matt Gates was using it at one time against Kevin McCarthy. You know.
- [09:30]
B
Yeah. So Bic. Yeah. There's a whole bunch of people in MAGA land that have used that and, you know, it. Just listen, the timing also, Tara, I'm sure doesn't escape your notice that this is coming three or four days after the White House Correspondents Dinner was, you know, you know, rudely interrupted by Cole Allen attempting allegedly to assassinate the President of the United States. And the timing of it also being that Trump desperately, desperately wants the lawsuit to go away that's blocking his ballroom. So there are no coincidences. They are not subtle. They don't pretend to even be subtle. They're very much in your face. They want it all to be about protecting the President so he can get his 90,000 square foot, $400 million ballroom that now Lindsey Graham wants all of us to pay for.
- [10:19]
A
It's insane when they put that forward because it was supposed to be privately
- [10:23]
B
funded, which in and of itself was problematic. I mean, private donors, anonymity in amount and name. I mean, it kind of smacks of grift, right. It's a pay to play thing. And you're like, okay, so let me get this straight. The law as proposed by Graham, as I looked at the bill last night, says that whatever's in the coffers of that account that was created for purposes of raising money for this ballroom that it is, can still be used, but then he's tacking on 400 million of American taxpayer money. So I'm like, okay, well shit, that's a lot of money. So if it only costs 400 million, but let's just say for argument's sake, there's a 300 million, the coffers, if this law gets enacted, where does the 300 million go? Oh, I bet you Trump figures out a way to use it for himself.
- [11:11]
A
Yeah, this is the same administration that was doging everyone, just slashing and doging
- [11:16]
B
with their broad waste, abuse. Yeah.
- [11:19]
A
Very small. For programs with very small amounts of money, some of them towards cures for diseases that we could all benefit from. I mean, I spoke to one doctor on the show who was at Harvard working on, in the trial phase for a specialized drug that would help with, with what could cure like blood clotting issues. So it's like these are the kind of clinical trials that are being tabled without government grants and we're getting a ballroom. So. Yeah. Exciting.
- [11:54]
B
Just no words. Well, and, and listen, I, I, and all kidding aside, though, I do think because we are in some measure unable to stop this type of trained from moving along because we're not in the majority, right. To be able. There's a, it's, I call it a power trifecta. You have Republican executive, you've got Republican House and Senate, and you pretty much have a Republican judiciary at this point, the way it's stacked at scotus. But, but what I like to say is these are all cell phones. Right. So none of what is happening right now benefits Americans. There's a select group of people that are, you know, the billionaire kind of class or the Epstein elite, as we call them. Right. That are the benefic of all of this, either inaction or dysfunction. But Otherwise, otherwise it's a cell phone. And I do think that's the reason why. Although I hate polls, Tara, I will say I like, I like looking at polls when we detect trends and consistent trends and the consistent trend for Trump in approval is going down, down, down, down. And so if there is any benefit that can be gleaned from this, it's the fact that the self owns continue, continue to put more and more egg on Trump and the Republicans faces.
- [13:08]
A
The only, the other thing though is that as much as these Republicans self own right and you know, Congress obviously always has a low approval rating but as President Trump's is, you know, below 40 Democrats, their popularity isn't increasing. And, and do you think it's because there's a feeling that they're not, they're ineffectual, they're not doing enough or people don't seem to understand that they don't have subpoena power, they're not able to do it. Do you think that will change if they win back the House? I mean ultimately they're not going to be able to sign laws because to pass laws because Trump won't sign them. But there is sort of a feeling that the party doesn't have teeth right now.
- [13:48]
B
Yeah, I mean, listen, that's a pretty commonplace criticism I've heard. I will say this and I do think maybe, maybe like my lawsuit's also an example, sometimes when, when you are kind of going in with one arm tied behind your back, you got to start thinking outside the box. And I do think we have seen some examples of Democrats that have really stepped up and figured out a way of end running all of the obstacles that have been put in our place in our way. I will say this too though. I have seen again polls and they're trending, so there's a consistency in them of Democrats pulling farther and farther away in terms of having an advantage in the upcoming November midterms. But I look at today's date and it's months away. I don't care how soon it is. It's also still months away. And so I am also not a complacent person. I do think complacency has been historically a problem for Democrats. I do think there's also been a desire, so there's a legitimate, genuine desire for good and for change. But there's also this complacency of, well, you shrug your shoulders because you really don't have the majority or you don't have the numbers. But I am all for the fight.
- [14:52]
C
Right.
- [14:53]
B
And So I do think that Americans are appreciating that Democrats are standing their ground when it comes to fighting back against the big bullshit bill, fighting back against the Affordable Care act, tax subsidies being cut, fighting back against not funding dhs. I do think these again, series of significant cell phones by the Republicans are helping the Democrats. But I do appreciate your point. There is one thing to be buoyed by, people screwing up and tripping over themselves a la Trump when he was, you know, trying to get off the stage at the White House Correspondents Dinner. But like there is another difference of actually lifting yourself up and very of affirmative ways and proactive ways.
- [15:29]
A
Yeah, I mean, we always sort of pay attention to these double haters, right? People who hate both parties and how they break ahead of midterms, if they even go out to vote during the midterms and what moves them. But like, you know, in the 2022 election when both parties were viewed pretty negatively, double haters broke in Republicans favor. And you know, in right now, though, according to a CNN poll, a quarter of the public holds a negative view of both parties. They're double hater. And voters in that group prefer the Democrats in the upcoming midterms by 31 points. So it shows that even though they may not be happy with the party, they're probably still going to break with the party in the midterms if they go out to vote.
- [16:12]
B
Take the exit, turn right into the drive through. Nope, I'm making dinner tonight. You don't have time. Josh has practice. Oh, that's right. I'll just get a salad and fries. No, just the salad. But salad cancels. Fries. Salad only.
- [16:26]
A
Fries. Salad fries.
- [16:28]
B
Food noise isn't fair, but Mochi Health is the affordable glp one source that puts you on the road to successful weight loss.
- [16:34]
A
Hey, can I get the fries?
- [16:36]
B
Salad? Sorry. Learn more@joinmochi.com Mochi members have access to licensed physicians and nutritionists. Results may vary, I think. I think, and I have no problem saying this, if the economy was better, you wouldn't see approval ratings as low as they are for Trump. Even if we are in a war, even if we are in, you know, going through everything we're going through right now. That's why I'm concerned that if something happens in terms of an upswing in the economy as we get closer to the midterms, that some people will forget. And that is why we have to continue with reinforcing the point that the weaponization of the DOJ is terrible, that all of the immigration stuff that people don't even talk about anymore was always terrible. I mean, it's like. And that is why what we do, you and me and others, especially in independent media, why it's so important that we continue to juggle the balls. Because I do think that people sometimes have to be reminded, albeit not so gently, that there are all of these atrocities that have occurred and continue to occur. They just may not be front and center. And because of the whole distraction of them flooding the zone with bullshit to distract you from all the other bad shit that they're doing. Right. I mean, you can talk about the Voting Rights act being just destroyed today, Right. But what did we not talk about yesterday? We didn't talk about the war in Iran. I made sure I talked about the price of oil and gas and I made sure I talked about the fact that the UAE withdrew from opec. Right. I mean, these are the things, though, that I think we need to continuously be doing. And it's exhausting, but it's important so many people, like, focus on one thing, you know?
- [18:15]
D
Yeah.
- [18:15]
A
So many things. It's so, you know, you need, like, your bullet points out. Don't forget this. Although I don't think people forget the price of gas, and they probably are blaming, you know, the person who started the war. So just to go back to the idea of how Americans feel about the parties, just 28% of Americans hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party. 32% have a. This is from the CNN poll. Have a favorable view of the Republican Party. But that's because Republicans have a more positive view of their own party than Democrats do, which is interesting.
- [18:51]
B
I mean, were they answering questions tarot To. To. To log these.
- [18:55]
A
These answers? Like, I mean, I guess it's like the Democrats. I think that's what I mean. Like, they're, They're. I think a lot of people are frustrated with the party is what I'm sensing from these questions and what they're doing. And I think, you know, it's. It's hard to explain that. Like, they don't really have any power, but they want more. They feel like it's. I also think it's probably the fact that Hakeem Jeffries is not a very loud voice. I don't think he's the most effectual communicator right now. Neither is Schumer. They don't have a standard bearer for the party. Like, who is the Democratic standard bearer right now? Who is the, you know, if this was a. The British government, we would have a opposition Leader, we don't have that.
- [19:36]
C
Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why customers have enjoyed Progressive's name your price tool for years now. With the name your price tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit progressive.com find a rate that works for you with the name your price tool. Progressive Casualty Insurance company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law
- [20:08]
B
Well, I mean look, I do think that and I just want to take a second to stick on this poll thing because the thing about polls that bothers me is because if I don't really know, like, like for example, if you were to go up to somebody and you were doing a poll and you were to ask them how much is the price of gas where you live?
- [20:27]
A
Right.
- [20:27]
B
And as you say, most people know, right? Like I know, right. I know what the price is. I also know what the national average is, but I know what the price is where I am. And then if you ask them, well, who do you think is responsible for the price of your gas right now, which inevitably is going to be high? I'd be curious to see what they say. Right. Because I do think that that's a reflection of somebody's mindset about apportionment of blame and attribution of fault. And then I also think the follow up question would obviously be, I mean listen, when you polls you're not obviously supposed to be doing any that's skewed one way or another. But I do think the next question should be and, and who is the in who in which party is controlling the government right now? I mean I think part of it is just basic civics, part of it is just basic knowledge. But the reason why I bring that up to you, Tara is you know
- [21:10]
D
that thing where you get an amazing pair of shoes at a really great price and want to tell everyone about it?
- [21:16]
B
Yeah.
- [21:17]
D
So do we here at Designer Shoe Warehouse. We'll give you some something to brag about, like the latest styles from brands you love or the trends everyone's obsessing over or shoes that make you feel like, well you. So go ahead, show off a little. Buying shoes that get you and prices that get your budget. Head to your DSW store or dsw.com today. DSW. Let us surprise you.
- [21:40]
B
The answers to those types of questions I think should be Informative to how the Democrats should handle this. So how people like Jeffries and Schumer should handle it.
- [21:49]
A
It's not like they can do, like, we can't do anything. You know what I mean? Like, that's. That, like, that's like. Can't be their messaging of, like, we can't do anything right now. Just.
- [21:58]
B
Oh, yeah, I was gonna say. I hope that's not the. I hope that's not. Yeah, no, no, we can. I just think we need to be making it very. I just think that what we need to do is sometimes we need to be connecting the dots for people. We need to be letting them know that they're bitching about their gas prices, which I do day in and day out, which actually informed my decision on the car I just got right. I actually made a decision based upon gas is because, you know, of the Republicans. Because of a war that's costing us billions of dollars a day. Right. That is the connecting of the dots that we have to do. But I also think, simultaneously, it also means that we need to be putting pressure. And I do think there are Democrats that have really gotten so good about making sure that there's the repetition of that messaging so people understand. But I will say this. I don't know what the outreach has been to independence per se, and I do have a kind of big question mark about that because I do think some people have squarely entrenched themselves into their parties, But I think we have had defectors from the Republican Party because I do think they're just over all of it, you know?
- [23:05]
A
Yeah. Yeah. And it's hard to pull those people. Right. Excuse me. I do want to talk a little bit more about Blanche. I had quite the weekend. I saw him at a party, and, you know, something that's really been bothering me for a while, and I think I was kind of riled up before I left the house. It was one of these, like, insider Washington, French Embassy, French ambassadors, residence parties. I don't know if you've ever been to his. His home before. Yeah. So it's kind of like this glitzy, regular, you know, confab. Everyone's in their. Their tuxedos and their gowns. They do it every year. It's called the Amethyst Ball. And I was with my friend, and we were watching cnn, and she was like. And the CNN package said that, you know, victims have named in the Epstein files at least 15 men as. As. As potential co conspirators to Jeffrey Epstein as people who sexually abused them. And, you know, I was like, duh. You know, that was my take on. It was like, that's what they've been saying all along, that it wasn't just Jeffrey Epstein and Galen Maxwell. There were other men involved. And so it was kind of fascinating to me that, like, this package was running, you know, months and months, years later, frankly, many years later. And, you know, I said to my friend, I was like, what really bothers me is that they're not actually. I feel like they're not prosecuting these cases. And they mentioned Leon Black, and there was obviously video footage of him. And I was like, it bothers me so much that they're not prosecuting his cases. And I said, you know, Jay Clayton, who's the U.S. attorney in this other district in New York, who is actually, you know, in charge of handing over files for the Epstein Transparency act and should be pursuing this prosecution if he's doing what he should be doing, this investigation. And I was like, he was appointed by Leon Black to replace him when he was pushed out of Apollo, the firm that he founded. And when he left Apollo, Clayton had over $1.5 million in holdings, according to his financial disclosures. So he's, like, very much involved in a man who has been accused by multiple women and has been named in, you know, FBI presentations a possible co conspirator. And they have, like, a financial bond. And to me, it's just like, how can he not recuse himself for this? Or how does he not disclose this? Why has it not been a bigger story? I mean, he is a part of the same class. I mean, he worked at Sullivan and Cromwell as well, where there's been some issue with Epstein. There's just like. It's just such a flagrant conflict of interest to me. And so when I saw Blanche at the party, I just wanted to talk to him about it. And I was like, you know, I walked up to him and I. I said I was a journalist. And I told him, I asked him, I was like, you know, are you concerned about this conflict of interest between Jay Clayton and. And Leon Black? And he just said, what are you talking about? There is no conflict of interest. Or he said. I said, because Clayton. I'm paraphrasing right now. But I took extemporaneous notes right after, and I wrote a whole piece about it you can find on the Red Letter. And that's it. You know, Tara palmeria.com for everyone who's watching on YouTube. But, you know, I took notes, but he just said, no, you're wrong. It was a different thing. And I was like, no, he literally appointed him to chairman when he was pushed out. And then I was like, he made a public statement about it. He's like, no, no, no. Like just gaslighting me in almost that kind of way that Pam Bondi was. And I said. And he was like, what files are you referring to? Because I mentioned that Leon Black is mentioned in the files, including an FBI investigation. What files? You don't know the files? He's like, I've seen the files. You haven't. I was like, they're public. Everyone has seen the files. And so then his wife jumps in and tells me, you ruined a beautiful night. And suddenly his security guard, his security, security detail, who's paid for by the US Taxpayers, by the way, jumps in between us and tells me that if I don't step away, I'll be removed for trespassing. And I was just asking a question. We were both guests there. We were on French soil, by the way, not US soil. So I don't know how I was trespassing. But, you know, the party was like Chatham House rule and. Which means you can talk about what happened, but you shouldn't identify the source. But I feel like he broke the rule when he got his security guard involved. And at some point you have to, you know, this is. This is someone with the top cop using his policing power to try to stop any sort of inquiry from a journalist. I'm thinking just from. I want to ask you about many layers. First, about the Clayton and Leon Black conflict. Would that be a. Can be considered a conflict of interest in prior justice departments?
- [27:46]
B
Yeah. I mean, you don't even have to be a lawyer or somebody who's DOJ related to be able to find that, to just be on its face, a conflict of interest. Remember, there are two different ways to look at a conflict of interest. There can be an actual conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest. And these are legitimate purity tests that we have to apply to ourselves as lawyers. But more importantly, when you're a prosecutor. Pam Bonney bristled at this, but I will reinforce this. Prosecutors are held to much higher standards than, quote, regular lawyers. Prosecutors wield the ability to remove your liberty. They have the ability to direct criminal prosecutions where you could have your liberty eliminated. And because of that, they are held to, and often swear to oaths of office that are different than just a regular lawyer who perhaps is handling a breach of contract lawsuit. So an actual or perceived conflict of interest should not exist. And if it does, even if it's not on all fours legally, as an actual conflict of interest. But if there's the perception of one, you shouldn't touch it. Why invite the scrutiny? Why invite the criticism? Especially as a prosecutor, Right. You don't want to create grounds for somebody as a defendant to move to dismiss on the grounds of something. Right. And you don't want to draw any type of questioning over it. Just. Just recuse yourself, get another U.S. attorney to do it. I mean, that's what Blanche or Bondi could have done. But the Jay Clayton angle has always been suspect because, remember, he was put in at the SDNY just in general, which was always questionable, but then appointing him, Bondi, appointing him to be in charge of investigating Democrats only, Right? Like that, in and of itself. Colored, stained, skewed, whatever word you want to use, his role in the Epstein files, right? So he alone should only be looking at Democratic lawmakers or Democrats, whatever. And I don't even really know, I guess, what the party affiliation is for Leon Black. But Leon Black's existence in the files, standing alone, should be enough, regardless of party affiliation, to merit an independent investigation. So Blanche even responding to you, though, is such a red flag, right? Because if he didn't think there was something there, he probably would have just ignored you. But the fact that he was so defensive about it, I think, means that there's something there that he knows is just wrong. The one thing that anybody can say about Todd, Blanche, is this. No matter how obsequious and no matter how much of an ass kisser he is right now, most people never say that he was stupid or incompetent as a federal prosecutor. I was underwhelmed with his legal prowess when he was defending Donald Trump as private personal counsel. But I think, Tara, that was a direct reflection of the fact that those were some pretty bad cases. Okay? But putting that aside, nobody that ever practiced with, worked with Todd Blanche, ever said he was dumb. So I know this man knows that all of this stinks. It all stings. But he has chosen. He's chosen loyalty over his oath. His oath to the American people. That's what I mean. He has chosen to be loyal and show fealty to one person. And that's the reason why he has decided, like, in a very kind of, you know, efficient way, he's like, I am done. The rollout of the files are done. No more files, Period. Have a nice day. Right? Like, I've done what I needed to do, nothing more. And that's why the rest of us are like, yeah, no, what you've done is terrible. What you've done is prevented me and others from being able to chase information down and report on it. And we also know you're sitting on other stuff, so, no, you're wrong. You're not done.
- [31:41]
A
Right. Yeah. I mean, if I. Honestly, Katie, I didn't think it was that. Like, I felt like it was a fair question. And I didn't go in for the, how could you sit across a pedophile? How could you? You know, And I wanted to eventually, like, ask him that, but if you can't even get past, like, the most simple questions, it was, you know, he's. He was primed to defend himself because he certainly is auditioning for this role.
- [32:07]
B
Think about. Think about what his answer was to you when you asked him the question, Tara. His immediate answer to you was not, what the hell are you talking about? Or, I'm sorry, what his answer to you was. You don't know what you're talking about. Which means he has given thought to that connection, and in his mind, he has drawn a conclusion, right or wrong. Right, but in his mind, it has actually taken up real estate at some point in time of that relationship between Black and Clayton. That is why his answer to you was, you don't know what you're talking about. His answer was not, what or what are you talking about? I have no idea what you're talking about. So it's amazing. And then he tells you what you don't know. The files, meaning that he has either legitimately seen something that in his mind has led him to believe that there is either no conflict or there is something. I mean, the point is, he almost just. He almost inadvertently acknowledged that there's something there. It's just his judgment or his conclusion has been, it's not what you think it is. Okay, well, what is it? Right, so why don't you show us what everything is and let us make a decision on our own, as we are allowed to do, and let us chase down more and more information based upon what exists in the files.
- [33:20]
A
Yeah, no, you're right. I. I didn't even think about it that way. But you're a lawyer, so you know how to pick apart those words. I was just like, no, it's.
- [33:30]
B
And he's a lawyer, so he should know what he's saying, too.
- [33:32]
A
Yeah, you're right. You're. He's not a dumb guy. He understands exactly what he's saying and what he's doing. And we're hitting up the, the 30 minute mark. I am not feeling great today. Sorry if I have not been on my best behavior. But any, like, any last thoughts and words on what you're doing with the lawsuit, what the next steps are like? What can we all be looking out for?
- [33:56]
B
Well, so next steps are the government responding, Blanche responding to my lawsuit. We reasonably anticipate he's going to try to move to dismiss it. We're prepared for it. We obviously have vetted it and thought about it, and we're ready to handle it. So bring it. Or as James Comey said, let's go, let's go. And, you know, just, just the overwhelming response of support so far. Tara has meant so much. Right. You know, was. It was a conscious, very intentional decision to bring this lawsuit. And it's being brought in good faith, and it's being brought because I truly believe that, you know, I am unable to be able to report the way that I should. Should and that I can because of the fact that this government is not doing its job. And I do think that the, the, the, the response I have heard from victims and survivors has, for me been really the most meaningful and impactful kind of exchanges that I have had. Because it is our responsibility to take on as much as we can to help them achieve the transparency and accountability that they deserve, because they are ultimately supposed to be the beneficiaries of this information being out there. And so whatever I am doing through this litigation that does help them is so incredibly meaningful for me.
- [35:26]
A
Yeah, no, I really appreciate it. And also to be noted, when you fight for this, if you end up getting the rest of the files out there, it's not going to be for your reporting alone. It is going to be public to all journalists. You're doing this for all of us.
- [35:39]
B
Oh, yeah. And let me be clear. And I'm not doing it for money. Right? So it's not like I'm suing for money. I'm not saying, you know, I'm suing Todd Blanche, DOJ for a million dollars. That's not it. I'm suing for a court injunction that forces the doj. But also accompanied by a special master. It's not just me, Right. I want a special master who along the way is going to be ensuring the review of the documents themselves. A proper clean rollout. Because as we know, when we've looked at what has been provided, it's for cocktail. It's like all over the place and the base camps are all messed up and it's all messed up. And some things are redacted, some things are not. You have duplicates of some and some things have been redacted on some. I mean, it's nuts. And so, no, no, no, it's not for me to sit on at all. Remember, the law required a public disclosure, so I'm just getting it and putting it all out there. I just want to make sure it's out there in the proper way. Because there's been so much improper stuff done to it, Tara. It's made it. It's rendered it almost valueless in some respects. Right.
- [36:38]
A
How soon, like, how soon do you think this will go before a judge? What is, what is the process like for us?
- [36:44]
B
Well, there's a. There's a deadline by which they have to respond. And so once they respond, we will immediately get it going. We know that delay is only going to help them. It's not going to help us. Right. So we want to keep it going. And so we're going to keep on pushing as much as we can.
- [37:00]
A
Awesome. Thanks, Katie. Like, best of luck to you and really admire you and your gumption getting this, getting this out there, getting this into the public record because we don't this the story. We don't even know the full story. That is the crazy part about it.
- [37:17]
B
We don't. But thank you always, too, for everything that you're doing and feel better. Okay?
- [37:21]
A
Yeah. Thanks. Appreciate it. Bye.
- [37:24]
B
Alrighty. Bye, guys.
- [37:26]
E
Close your eyes. Focus. Listen to work getting done with Monday dot com. Relax as AI does the manual work while your teams are aligned on a single source of truth. Feel the sensation of an AI work platform so flexible and intuitive it feels like it was built just for you. Notice you're limitless, limitless, limitless. Now open your eyes. Go to Monday.com, start for free, and finally breathe.