Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Katie Phang Presses DOJ Over Epstein Records and FBI Interview Notes (9/4/26)

Transcript

Katie Phang Presses DOJ Over Epstein Records and FBI Interview Notes (9/4/26) · 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. Over the past couple of months, we've been
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: talking about the Katie Fang lawsuit that was filed against
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Todd Blanche. And that battle is ongoing and Katie Fang
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: is really taking Blanche out behind the woodshed. And in
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: this latest response, absolutely lights Todd Blanche up. So with
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: that said, let's take a look at the document. Katie Fang, plaintiff. v.
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: Todd Blanch. Case number 26-1417, EGS. Reply on proposed order.
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: The defendant Attorney General Todd Blanch objects yet again to
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: complying with this court's orders. On June 25, 2026, this
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: court issued a prelim injunction directing the defendant to, among
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: other things, 1. Produce the FBI interview notes underlying several FD-302s,
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: that reference President Donald J. Trump, or show cause why
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: he could not, and 2. Publish the redaction log required
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: by Section 2C2 of the Epstein File Transparency Act, the
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: Epstein Act or Act, or show cause as why he
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: could not. The defendant refused to comply, forcing this court
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: to hold a hearing on the matter. Their counsel for
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: the defendant repeated unsupported and unpersuasive arguments as to why
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: it could not timely produce evidence the FBI notes, or
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: redaction log. The court, the defendant, was directed to show
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: cause why it, the FBI notes, should not be produced.
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: What's the answer? Mr. Block, the answer, Your Honor, is
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: that they are duplicative documents. The court, well, that's what
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: the defendant says. The court doesn't know that. Mr. Block, again,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: Your Honor, it, the redaction log, is forthcoming. I don't
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: have anything to say to the court beyond I know
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: it's in the process. The court, I mean, Christmas is forthcoming,
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: let's be realistic. The court ultimately directed plaintiff to draft
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: a proposed order on the FBI notes and redaction log,
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: which plaintiff did, ECF number 32. Plaintiff also submitted a
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: notice demonstrating that despite defendant's assertions otherwise, defendant has produced
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: numerous handwritten FBI interview notes underlying other FD-302 reports, ECF
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: number 33. The defendant ignores the notice and opposes the
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: proposed order, reiterating once again his general objection to producing
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: the handwritten notes, but adding a twist. He now claims
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: to have published the required redaction log in the Federal Register.
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: The arguments on the FBI notes are unpersuasive, and the
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: claim redaction log utterly fails to comply with the Epstein Act.
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: This court should direct the defendant to submit, for in-camera review,
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: the handwritten notes so the court can determine whether whether
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: the defendant's objections are well-founded, as they clearly are not,
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: and direct the defendant to produce a redaction log that
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: actually complies with the law. 2. FBI Interview Notes This court,
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: in its preliminary injunction order, direct a defendant to either produce,
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: to the public, the underlying FBI interview notes that form
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: the basis for the FD-302 interview, reports Bearing Bates number,
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: EFTA 012-45620-0202, EFTA 028-58481, EFTA 028-58491, and EFTA 028-58495. With
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: appropriate redactions to protect victims' information or show cause, why
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: the notes should not be produced. ECF number 15 at 2.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: The defendant failed to comply, instead asserting that he did
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: not need to produce notes, first because they were substantially similar,
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: to the FD302s that were already produced, and second, because
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: reviewing handwritten notes was unduly burdensome and might inadvertently reveal
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: victim information. The Epstein Act does not list substantial similarity
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: as one of the bases for refusing to produce documents.
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: See Epstein Act, Section 2A1 and 9. As the court
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: has repeatedly observed, it's not sufficient for the defendant to
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: merely assert without evidence that documents are substantially similar. E.g.
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: August 13th, 2026 hearing. Transcript at 10. Mr. Block, the
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: department had to determine that these documents were duplicative, so
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: they fell outside. The court? The department may well be correct,
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: but the court needs to be in a position to
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: say that the court either agrees with the department or disagrees.
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: Something more is required to comply with the court's order.
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: The defendant's second argument that handwritten documents cannot be reviewed
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: for risk of accidental disclosure of victim information, is similarly unpersuasive.
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: At oral argument, counsel for the defendant incorrectly asserted that
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: no handwritten notes for the FBI reports had been produced.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: August 13, 2026 hearing, transcript at 8. But in fact,
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: as plaintiff noted, the defendant has produced nearly 100 handwritten notes,
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: including notes that formed the basis for other FBI FD-302 reports,
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: ECF No. 33. In his opposition, defendant does not even
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: try to argue that the handwritten notes mentioning the president
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: at issue here are somehow more difficult to review than
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: the hundreds of pages of handwritten notes defendant already produced,
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: nor can he. The typed FD-302s for which plaintiff seeks
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: the underlying notes are, in total, just 25 pages. The
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: handwritten notes are presumably not much longer, if at all.
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: The attorney general commands perhaps the largest law firm in
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: America to and can find a way to reliably review
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: approximately 25 pages to ensure victim information is not revealed.
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: All parties share the objective of not releasing genuine victim information. Accordingly,
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: the court should direct the defendant to produce, within five days,
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: the unredacted, underlying handwritten notes for the in-camera review. The
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: court can then decide whether and how to publish these documents. 3.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: Redaction Log The court, in its preliminary injunction order, directed
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: the defendant to either publish the Federal Register, the redaction
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: log required under the Epstein Transparency Act, Section 2C2, and
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: update it concurrently with each future release of redacted material,
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: or show cause why he cannot do so, ECF No. 15,
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: Act 2. After much foot-dragging, the defendant claims to have
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: now complied with this direction, publishing to in the Federal
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: Register in six-page letter it produced to Congress, more than
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: six months ago, ECF No. 37, citing 91 Federal Regulation 55-35-6.
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: This belatedly published letter is also offensively insufficient to comply
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: with the defendant's obligation under 2C2. The Epstein Act has
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: two relevant disclosure obligations. Section 3 requires the Attorney General,
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: within 15 days of otherwise complying with the Act, to
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: submit to Congress a report describing the categories of records
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: released and withheld, the government officials and other politically exposed
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: persons mentioned in the materials, and a summary of redactions made. Separately,
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: Section 2C2 of the Act requires the defendant to explain
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: each individual redaction, directing that all redactions must be accompanied
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: by a written justification published in the Federal Register and
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: submitted to Congress. In its filing, the defendant tries to
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: pass off It's high-level letter required under Section 3 as
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: the detailed redaction log required under Section 2C2. It's obvious
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: that the letter responds to Section 3, not to Section 2C2,
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: because the defendant himself says so. The first sentence of
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: the letter begins, Section 3 of the Epstein Files Transparency Act,
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: the Act, requires the Department of Justice, within 15 days
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: of completing the release required under the Act, to submit
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary Report,
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: 91 Federal Regulation 55-357. It continues, Consistent with Section 3
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: of the Act, the Department provides the following information, and
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: proceeds to purport to provide the information called for by
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: Section 3 of the Act. The defendant's apparent argument is
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: that its reporting obligations under Section 2C2 and Section 3
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: are the same. They are not. The cardinal rule of
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: statutory interpretation is that no provision should be construed to
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: be entirely redundant. Cunges vs. U.S. 485 U.S. 1988 Plurality
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: of Opinion Section 2C2 requires an explanation for each individual redaction,
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: while Section 3 requires only a summary of all the redactions. Specifically,
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: Section 2C2 directs that all redactions be accompanied by a
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: written justification. while Section 3 directs defendants simply to produce
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: a summary of those redactions. Where Congress includes particular language
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: in one section of a statute, but omits it in
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: another section of the same act, it's generally presumed that
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion,
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: Rusello v. U.S. 464, 1983. Congress could have used the
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: word summary in Section 2C2 as it did in Section 3,
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: but conspicuously chose not to. The Attorney General has merely
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: republished a summary he already made public to purportedly satisfy
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: the requirements of Section 2C2 and this Court's order. This
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: is painfully insufficient, and this Court should direct the Attorney
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: General to publish within 10 days the written justification. for
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: all redactions made, as is required by the Epstein Act. 4.
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Request for Stay. Finally, the defendant once again argues that
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: the proceedings should be stayed pending the appeal. Previously, he
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: argued that he could not appeal the case. ECF 19.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: The government views the court's order as more in the
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: nature of of an unappealable show cause order. His position
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: appears to have now changed, and he has filed what
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: he describes as a protective notice of appeal, ECF number 35.
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: But the defendant has not actually filed any motion to
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: stay this court's prelim injunction or the current proceedings or
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: made any substantive argument why these proceedings should be stayed.
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: The defendant's argument can be dismissed on that basis alone. Nevertheless,
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: even if the defendant made these arguments in a motion
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: they would be losing ones. In the D.C. Circuit Court,
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: a court assesses four factors when considering a motion to
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: stay an injunction pending appeal. One, the moving party's likelihood
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: of success on the merits of its appeal. Two, whether
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: the moving party will suffer irreparable injury. Three, whether issuance
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: of the stay would substantially harm other parties in the proceeding.
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: And four, the public interest. In granting a motion for
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: prelim injunction, The court has already resolved factors 1, 3,
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: and 4 in Katie Fang's favor. On the remaining factor,
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: irreparable harm to defendant, the defendant cannot circumvent well-established jurisprudence
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: recognizing the administrative burdens and staffing limitations fail to constitute
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: irreparable harms in this manner. Center for Biological Diversity, First U.S.
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, D.C., 2026. the
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: Attorney General of the United States must spend time and
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: effort to follow the law. But that is not a harm,
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: let alone an irreparable one. Conclusion 5. To compel the
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: defendant to follow the Epstein Files Transparency Act, as well
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: as this court's orders, the court should direct an in-camera
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: review of the FBI interview notes and direct defendant to
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: produce a complete redaction log. Respectfully submitted by Brendan Ballew,
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: dated September 2nd, 2026, and when we have a response
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: from Mr. Blanche, we'll get that added to the catalog
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: as well. All the information that goes with this episode
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.