Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Todd Blanche’s DOJ Forced to Turn Over Epstein Interview Notes (10/19/26)

Transcript

Todd Blanche’s DOJ Forced to Turn Over Epstein Interview Notes (10/19/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. So Todd Blanche finally turned over the documents
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: that were required to be turned over by Judge Sullivan.
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: And according to the reporting, they handed over a binder
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: that had the FBI agent's handwritten notes about the allegations
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: made by Jang Do-4 against Donald Trump. So today, we
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: have an article that was published by Raw Story and
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: the headlines. Contempt threat pries loose FBI notes on Trump's
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: sex abuse allegation DOJ fought to withhold. This article was
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: authored by David Edwards. Attorney General Todd Blanche's Justice Department
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: turned over to a federal judge FBI notes in which
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: a woman says President Donald Trump sexually abused her as
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: a child after sex offender Jeffrey Epstein introduced them, under
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: threat of sanctions. Now this has been a battle that's
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: been going on for quite some time now. And this
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: has to do with the Katie Fang lawsuit that was
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: filed against the DOJ and Todd Blanch. The Justice Department
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: said in a court filing Friday that it had delivered
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: a binder of the notes to the chamber of U.S.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: District Judge Emmett Sullivan shortly before 11 a.m. ahead of
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: the noon deadline he set in an October 9th order.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: The binder contains FBI agents' handwritten notes from three interviews
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: marked for redactions for Sullivan to review privately, the filing said.
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: And this is certainly a good step in the right direction, right?
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: The more transparency, the better. And if a judge is
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: legally ordering you to turn stuff over, the DOJ should
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: be complying with that order. Even if they don't agree
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: with it, right? You're not going to always agree with
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: the law. What, you think I agree if I get
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: a speeding ticket? But my ass still has to pay it, right?
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: So it should be no different here. If the judge
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: orders the DOJ to turn this information over, they should
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: turn it over. Especially if it's just going into the
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: judge for in-camera review. It's not like the judge is
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: going to be sharing it on social media. Journalist Katie
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: Fang is suing Blanche under the Epstein Files Transparency Act,
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: a 2025 law requiring the government to release its Epstein Files.
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: according to Sullivan's June ruling. The woman alleged that the
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: introduction came in the 1980s, when she was about 13,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: and that Trump in turn assaulted her, Fang's lawyers wrote
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: in papers quoted in the ruling. Now look, we don't
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: know the truth of that. We have no idea the
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: veracity of that allegation. And that's because the FBI never
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: really investigated it. And that goes directly to the heart
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: of the overall problem. That all of this shit should
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: have been investigated years ago. She told agents she bit
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: him and that he struck her and said words to
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: the effect of get this little bitch the hell out
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: of here. And look, I'm not saying that that's true
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: or not. I don't know. What I do know, though,
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: is a real investigation never occurred. So unless we have
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: a real investigation, how do we know what's what? Completely
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: baseless accusations backed by zero credible evidence, White House Press
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: Secretary Caroline Leavitt said in March, according to CNN, which
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: call the allegations unverified. Levitt also pointed to the woman's
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: criminal record, and Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing tied to Epstein.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: And look, it's legitimate to point out somebody's criminal record, right? Okay, cool,
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: you're giving us an idea who the person is. Does
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: that mean somebody with a criminal record can't be telling
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: the truth? And if that's the case, how do you
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: explain the president or the people around them? I mean,
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: come on, let's be serious here. Just because somebody commits
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: a crime doesn't mean they can't be a victim of
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: a crime themselves. So we need to really look at
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: what happened. We need to see all the evidence. And
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: in my opinion, we need a special investigator. You got
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: a special counsel involved and then that kills a lot
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: of the BS, right? But you bring somebody from the
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: outside in. One of these high-powered lawyers, whatever. Not somebody
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: from the State Department or not one of these insiders
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: from D.C., You go and get somebody like Agnifilo or
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: Tenny Garagos, and you pay them to investigate the fucking government.
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: Notice neither side's calling for that? I wonder why. Redacted
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: versions of the notes did not exist when the department
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: gave Sullivan unredacted copies on September 24th. The filing said
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: because the department had concluded the notes were duplicative of
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: the type reports. The underlying handwritten notes are not duplicates
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: of the FD302 interview reports Sullivan wrote in a September
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: 16th order using the FBI's name for the type summaries.
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: Imagine trying to weasel your way out of this order
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: and not turn over what Judge Sullivan wanted you to
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: turn over. I thought you were the most transparent administration
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: in the history of transparent administrations. In fact, we created transparency.
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: This should not be taken as a representative sample of
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: what could be done or what would happen if the
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: department were required to redact and produce handwritten notes on
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: a larger scale. The department wrote Friday, The department also
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: asked Sullivan to pause any order to release the notes
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: so it could consider an appeal, arguing that otherwise it
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: would not have a chance to seek meaningful appellate review.
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: If they're duplicative and they mean nothing, why are you
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: appealing them? If it's just a bunch of trash that
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: nobody should care about, Then you should want it out there, right?
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: You should want people to see how crazy it all
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: is and why it's such a big hoax. But instead,
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: the DOJ and fucking Todd Blanche, they sit on top
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: of this like smog, guarding its gold. And then they
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: wonder why people have questions about transparency and about what's
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: being hidden. Fang asks Sullivan to hold Blanche in contempt
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: and fine him $ 1, 000 a day until he complies. Sullivan
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: has not granted the request, but he suggested that he's
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: prepared to do so. At an August 13th hearing, Sullivan
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: told the department's lawyers about the last time he held
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: government attorneys in contempt and warned that such findings could
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: hurt their careers, CNN reported. Look, there's no doubt you
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: get held in contempt. Not exactly something you want on
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: your resume, right? And it's not something that these federal
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: judges really like to do. But when it comes to
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: a situation like this, if there's no compliance... If the
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: Department of Justice isn't going to do what they're supposed
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: to do, what is Judge Sullivan supposed to do? All
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: he has left to him is to hold these guys
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: in contempt. And that's always the last thing that the
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: judges want to do. So you have to really be
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: a screw-up to get held in contempt by a federal judge. Sullivan,
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: who has previously held Justice Department lawyers in contempt, has
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: kept the threat of sanctions alive. In his September order,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: he set a contempt finding over the department's handling of
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: of foreign language files at this juncture would be premature.
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: But he directed Blanche to seek clarification if he considered
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: any part of the order unclear. Well, of course it's
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: all unclear to Todd Blanche. The guy's a moron. Why
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: does Todd Blanche fight so hard to keep unredacted and
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: now even redacted handwritten interview notes from the American people?
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: Is it because they have to do with convicted felon
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump and allegations of his sexual and physical abuse
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: of a 13-year-old girl? Fang wrote on Blue Sky on Friday.
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: All right, so that's the article. Now, we'll read the
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: notice of compliance that was sent over by Todd Blanch.
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: Case number 126CV-01417. Katie Fang, Plaintiff. First Todd Blanch in
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States.
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: Defendant's Notice of Compliance with Court Order. Defended Todd Blanch
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: States through counsel. respectfully submits its notice of compliance with
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: the order of this court dated October 9, 2026, requiring
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: defendant to produce certain additional documentation to the court for
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: in-camera review. At 10.55 a.m. on Friday, October 16, 2026,
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: the defendant submitted, via hand delivery to the court's chambers,
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: a binder containing the following documents. Handwritten notes underlying the
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: typewritten FD-302 interview report Bates number EFTA-0124-5620, EFTA-028-58481, and EFTA-028-58491
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: are provided. In fully redacted and as marked, for redaction
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: at document stamped 3501.045-002, 3501.045-004, and 3501.045-006, respectively. On September 16, 2026,
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: the court ordered the government to produce the handwritten notes
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: that form the basis of the FD 302 reports identified above.
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: On September 24, 2026, the department produced unredacted copies of
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: said notes to the court. At the time, the redacted
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: copies as provided to the court today did not exist
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: because the government has articulated The EFTA does not require
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: the production of duplicative records. The United States has concluded
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: that the documents submitted unredacted on September 24th and again
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: today were duplicative and therefore had not been processed for
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: production to the public-facing Epstein Library. The government understands the
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: court's order of October 9th, 2026 to direct the United
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: States to add redactions to documents the United States had
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: previously determined were duplicative. Accordingly, the government has reviewed and
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: redacted the handwritten notes consistent with the department's January 4th,
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: 2013 report. 2026 Attorney Review Protocol for Epstein files, and
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: earlier today provided redacted marked for redaction copies of these
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: documents to the court. That said, this should not be
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: taken as a representative sample of what could be done
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: or what would happen. if the department were required to
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: redact and produce handwritten notes on a larger scale. The
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: existence of some handwritten notes on the public library does
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: not mean that all handwritten notes were similarly processed, reviewed,
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: and prepared for publication to the library. So the fact
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: that plaintiff has identified nearly 100 examples of redacted handwritten
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: interview notes does not undermine defendant's arguments. As the Attorney
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: General stated in his January 30, 2026 letter, Considering various
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: factors including the volume of documents reviewed, the presence of
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: duplicative and partially duplicative documents, and the number of attorneys
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: and reviewers involved, inconsistencies will likely exist in our reviewers'
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: applied redactions. The multiple-layered review process, including quality control check
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: and design to minimize inconsistencies, but variations are inevitable given
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: the volume of material reviewed, the necessity for manual review,
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: the importance of redacting victim information, and the nature of
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: various elements of the protocol. Finally, to the extent that
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: the court is considering ordering the department to publish these
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: handwritten interview notes submitted today for the court's in-camera review,
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: the government would respectfully request the court to stay any
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: order requiring their production to allow the government time to
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: consider seeking appellate review. As this court recognized if a
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: party is not satisfied with the judge's order, they ought
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: to appeal it. if there are legitimate bases to do so.
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: But any order of the court to produce these documents,
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: either to plaintiff or the public without a stay, means
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: that the government would not have a chance to seek
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: meaningful appellate review. Dated October 16th, 2026 and signed by
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: Andrew J. Block. All the information that goes with this
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.