Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Epstein Survivors Fight DOJ Effort to Block Todd Blanche's Deposition (11/6/26)

Transcript

Epstein Survivors Fight DOJ Effort to Block Todd Blanche's Deposition (11/6/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're going to take a
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: look at the plaintiff's response to Todd Blanche's motion to
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: quash the subpoena. And how this has to do with
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: the lawsuit that was filed by the plaintiffs against the
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: United States of America. Case number 925-CV-80880 Jane Doe 1
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: et al. plaintiffs versus the United States of America, the defendant.
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: Plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to quash subpoena for Todd
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Blanch with supporting memorandum of law. Plaintiffs, through the undersigned counsel,
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: opposed defendants' motion to quash the subpoena to testify at
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: a deposition in a civil action, the subpoena directed to
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: Attorney General Todd Blanch, and seeking a protective order. Plaintiffs
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: subpoenaed Blanch because he is the only defendant employee that's
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: made statements that are precisely on point with the matter
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: at issue for jurisdictional discovery, which is whether defendants' failure
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: to comply with its policies is discretionary or not. Specifically,
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: there's no dispute that the FBI received complaints that Jeffrey
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: Epstein was sexually abusing children and had CSAM. The only
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: dispute is, did the FBI have discretion to ignore those complaints?
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: According to Todd Blanche, United States Attorney General, the answer
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: is no. On July 16th, 2026, Blanche told a room
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: full of survivors of Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking twice that
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: the FBI failed to properly investigate Epstein before 2007. Since
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: the FBI failed to properly investigate, this indicates that the
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: FBI did not have discretion. Since Blanche is the only
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: employee of defendant that made the statement, the defense objections,
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: based on there being other resources, of this information are
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: not relevant here. Defendant's arguments to quash this subpoena are
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: based on the fact that plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that the
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: Attorney General has any unique information. That is plainly untrue,
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: and establishes that this deposition should proceed. Moreover, mere moments
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: before defendant filed the instant motion to quash, its counsel
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: asked what was the basis for Blanche's deposition. They were
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: told that Blanche made these statements admitting that the FBI
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: failed to properly investigate and as such, these decisions were
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: not discretionary. Despite that, defendants decided not to address any
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: of this information in its motion. Quashing this subpoena would
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: again allow the government to avert accountability and transparency at
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: the expense of the victims. Relevant facts and procedure for
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: this motion. The parties are supposed to be conducting jurisdictional
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: discovery as to whether the FBI had discretion to ignore
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: complaints of child sex abuse and child pornography in violation
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: of their policies and procedures. However, the government has continued
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: to obstruct and conceal and have not produced a single
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: piece of paper or witness. On October 15, 2026, counsel
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: for the government said in an email that they were
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: still attempting to locate a 30B6 witness with knowledge of
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: all the topics listed in the notice. Plaintiff's counsel requested
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: that the 30B6 witnesses be produced as soon as possible,
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: given the short timeline to complete jurisdictional discovery, and there
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: was no response. To date, the government has not offered
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: any 30B6 witnesses or furnished any responses to plaintiff's jurisdictional
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: discovery demands. Plaintiff also have subpoenaed Blanche, which is at
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: issue for the current motion. As per the attached declaration
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: of Jennifer C. Plotkin, Esquire Jordan K. Merson, Esquire, and
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: two survivor plaintiffs, on July 16, 2026, survivors and their
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: attorneys attended a meeting with Blanche in D.C. During that meeting,
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: Blanche admitted twice that the FBI case against Epstein was mishandled.
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: He first stated that the FBI case against Epstein was
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: handled improperly before 2007. Also, during that same meeting, Blanche
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: stated to survivors, you got screwed over by the FBI,
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: but I cannot fix the FBI's lack of investigation. If
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: the FBI had discretion, then there could not be a
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: failure to properly investigate. As part of the jurisdictional discovery,
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs subpoenaed Blanche, the only witness with personal knowledge of
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: the statements, and the meaning behind the statements he made,
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: on July 16, 2026. Berther, as United States Attorney General,
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: He is particularly situated to comment on the mandatory or
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: discretionary nature of government actions, including those of the FBI. Moreover,
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: as of today, defendant has failed to identify any other
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: knowledgeable witnesses on any subject, let alone Blanche's admission to
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: the Epstein sex trafficking ring survivors. Defendant now opposes the
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: subpoena of Blanche without justification. Argument. the Attorney General's testimony
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: goes directly to the jurisdictional question. This court permitted jurisdictional
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: discovery as to the existence and content of any mandatory
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: established policy, protocol, and procedure, whether written or otherwise. Governing
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: the FBI's conduct in assessing or handling tips, reports, and
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: complaints of sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, and or CSAM material,
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: and allowed parties to engage in this limited jurisdictional discovery
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: for 90 days. To date, the government has not provided
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: a response to plaintiff's 30B6 demands and continues to fail
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: to produce a 30B6 witness. By the most generous interpretation,
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: this would indicate that the government has been unable to
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: find any witnesses with relevant knowledge. Blanche's statement that the
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: FBI case against Epstein was handled improperly before 2007 is
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: and that I cannot fix the FBI's lack of investigation,
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: goes directly towards the jurisdictional discovery allowed to be conducted.
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: Blanche's statements demonstrate that he has relevant and personal knowledge
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: regarding whether investigation was mandatory or discretionary. The government is
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: wrong that the plaintiffs cannot meet Rule 26B1' s relevance requirement,
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: and it's quite the opposite. Blanche's direct statements demonstrate his
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: relevant knowledge of the FBI policy and his conclusions that
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: the FBI failed to comply with them. This is not
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: an open-ended subpoena, but rather a direct and streamlined effort
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: to obtain the jurisdictional discovery which the defendant has continually fought, delayed, blocked,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: and prevented. Plaintiffs are entitled to ask Blanche how the
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: FBI violated its own policies and procedures, and what he
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: relied on in concluding that the FBI failed to meet
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: its obligation to investigate. Moreover... Blanche's prior statements on the
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: subject as United States Attorney General demonstrate that he has
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: the relevant knowledge to respond. Indeed, he already admitted that
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: the FBI failed to meet its obligations to a room
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: full of people. His deposition is now necessary to better
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: understand his statement and understanding of the FBI's obligations via
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: testimony made under oath. 2. The Apex Doctrine establishes that
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: Blanche should comply with plaintiff's subpoena. A. The Morgan Doctrine
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: is not an absolute bar. First and foremost, the Morgan
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: Doctrine does not prohibit deposing high-ranking officials. It simply limits
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: such depositions to exceptional circumstances, rather than impose a categorical ban.
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: In U.S. v. Kessler, the court noted that the practice
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: of calling high officials as witnesses should be discouraged. In support,
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: it cited the D.C. Circuit's holding that top executive officials
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: should not be called to testify about their reasons for
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: official action, absent extraordinary circumstances. Yet, a rule discouraging a
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: practice is not the same as a rule forbidding it.
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: And such a rule merely confirms that the testimony is
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: appropriate at times, including here. The 11th Circuit has consistently
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: framed the doctrine as a strong presumption rather than a
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: categorical rule. Courts within the 11th Circuit have compelled depositions
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: of high government officials and See Gray v. Cole, April 21, 2008.
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: In Gray, the court held that given the strong likelihood
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: that an executive leader, like Sheriff Roth, would have personal
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: knowledge concerning the matters, prevents the court from finding a
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: good cause to issue a protective order, banning Sheriff Roth's deposition.
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: In Celentano v. Naco, the court allowed the deposition of
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: the sheriff because he was likely to have unique personal
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: knowledge concerning the matters into which plaintiff is entitled to inquire. Moreover,
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: whereas the government asserts that it's aware of no case
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: since Morgan decided in 1941, in which a high-ranking official
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: has been deposed in a civil litigation, plaintiffs face no
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: such difficulty finding such a case. For example, in 1980,
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: in the case of Carey v. Klutznik, Judge Worker ordered
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: the Commerce Secretary, Philip M. Klutznik, to come to New
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: York for a deposition after the government has been obstructive.
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: The question is therefore not whether such a deposition can
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: be ordered, but whether the case presents the circumstances that
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: justify one. For the foregoing reasons, Blanche should be compelled
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: to appear for a deposition given his unique personal knowledge. B.
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: The records show bad faith. which independently justifies inquiry, beyond
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: the official record. The Supreme Court has recognized an exception
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: to the general rule against ordering a deposition of sitting
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: high-ranking officials. Department of Commerce v. New York, 2019. On
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: a strong showing of a bad faith or improper behavior,
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: such inquiry may be warranted and may justify discovery beyond
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: the record the government offers. In Department of Commerce, the
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court ultimately did not foreclose deposing a cabinet official
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: on such a showing. Plaintiffs there challenged the reinstatement of
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: a citizenship question on a 2020 census questionnaire. Upon finding
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: evidence that the Secretary of Commerce lied about his rationale
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: for including the question, The District Court ordered his deposition
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: as well as other extra record discovery. On review, the
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court ordered his deposition as well as other extra
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: recorded discovery. On review, the Supreme Court stayed the Secretary's
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: deposition pending further review, but did not hold that it
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: was impermissible. On the merits, the Court reaffirmed the bad
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: faith exception and held that courts reviewing government action are
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: not required to be naive from which ordinary citizens are free.
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: Where the record contradicts or undercuts the government's account, a
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: court need not accept that account at face value. The
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: standard is met here. Blanche's acknowledgement of the FBI's failure,
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: the withholding of the FBI records, in this case, and
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: the releasing of the files, failing to redact victims' names
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: and redacting abusers' names, instead demonstrates another reason and the
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: need for this deposition. Blanche's statement as the United States
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: Attorney General goes to a contested element of the case.
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: The government contends that no mandatory directive governed by the
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: FBI's response and agents acted within their discretion. The head
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: of the department has said the exact opposite. That contradiction
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: is at the center of the jurisdictional dispute, and only
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: Blanche can explain it. See, Blanche has unique first-hand knowledge
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: of his own statement and conduct. Both Kessler and Jackson
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: turn on whether other witnesses can supply the information. Kessler,
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: 985 at 512. Jackson, 624 at 1372. Here, they cannot.
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: Any designee would have no knowledge of how and why
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: Blanche concluded that the FBI failed to properly investigate. The
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: only dispute here is did the FBI have discretion to
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: ignore complaints of child sex abuse and child pornography? According
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: to Blanche, the answer is no. Since Blanche is the
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: only employee of the defendant who's made these statements, he's
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: the one with unique and personal knowledge that the FBI
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: failed to properly investigate and that the FBI did not
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: have discretion. No questions will take place as to matters
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: of national security or matters not relevant to the proceedings
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: at law. But Blanche made these statements to Epstein victims
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: as to the heart of the matter, and they are
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: the central part of the case now. D. All alternatives
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: are exhausted. The government has not provided jurisdictional discovery requested
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: and has expressed an inability to locate a witness familiar
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: with the request. In addition as to Blanche's statements, there
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: are no alternatives in the deposition of Blanche's reasonable, relevant,
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: and permissible. This subpoena should not be quashed and Blanche's
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: deposition should be scheduled to be held in the next
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: 14 days. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: that the court deny the government's motion to quash. compel
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: compliance with the subpoena and order Blanche to appear for
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: a deposition within 14 days. This was signed by Jennifer
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: Plotkin and it was dated November 3rd, 2026. All the
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: the description box.