Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Blanche Under Fire as Federal Judge Calls Out His Conduct and Another Weighs Contempt

Episode Date: July 14, 2026

In breaking news, Popok reports on fellow independent journalist and commentator Katie Phang requesting that Judge Sullivan find AG Nominee Todd Blanche in Contempt of Court and fine him $1,000 a day for violating court orders requiring the production of certain Epstein Files. Popok reports that in the last 18 hours, Blanche, up for confirmation as AG, has lost his shepherd and protector in the process, Sen. Lindsey Graham, got branded a fraudster by a federal judge and referred for bar discipline, and now is on the likely receiving end of contempt findings by another federal judge. Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Become a member of Legal AF YouTube community: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgZJZZbnLFPr5GJdCuIwpA/join Become a member of the Legal AF Substack: https://michaelpopok.substack.com/20off Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 Subscribe to the Intersection with Michael Popok podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-intersection-with-michael-popok/id1818863274 Subscribe to Unprecedented with Michael Popok and Dina Doll podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unprecedented-by-legal-af/id1867023089 Subscribe to Court of History with Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-court-of-history/id1867022920 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Growing businesses deal with the same problem. Too many tools, too much back and forth, and not enough time. O-DU helps bring it all together. It's an all-in-one business management platform, fully integrated from sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, so your team can spend less time chasing information and focus on growth. Whether you're in retail, manufacturing, or service, O-D-U gives you one place to manage your business. Visit O-D-com to book a demo. It's O-D-O-O-O-O-O-O-com. This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. Last year, I went through many different life changes. I needed to take a pause and examine how I was feeling in the inside to better show up for the ones who need me to be my best version of myself.

When you're navigating life's changes, Talkspace can help. Talkspace is the number one rated online therapy, bringing you professional support from licensed therapists and psychiatry providers that you can access anytime, anywhere. Living a busy life, navigating a long-distance relationship, becoming a first stepfather, Talkspace made all of those journeys possible. I could speak with my therapist in the office. I could speak of my therapist in the comfort of my home. I was never alone.

Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0. No insurance, no problem. Now get $80 off your first month with promo code Space 80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com. Save $80 with code space 80 at Talkspace.com. Forget Chris Nolan's movie The Odyssey. Todd Blanche, the nominee for Attorney General's living his own version, his life went from bad to worse just the last 24 hours.

First, the person who was going to shepherd his nomination through the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham died. Then a federal judge in Miami sanctioned him and found effectively that he committed. fraud on the court and sent him for a bar grievance. And then three hours later, the had a filing by Katie Fang, our friend and fellow colleague here on Midas Touch, her lawyers, led by Brendan Ballou, filed a response to a court order and motion to enforce demanding that Todd Blanche be found in contempt of court,

fined $1,000 a day for his continued failure to flout court orders. the Epstein Transparency Act and turn over the documents that have been ordered to be produced. They also want a special master, or at least an in-camera review of those documents to be performed by the judge. And this is all what I just went over is less than 20 for hours.

Oh, it brings to mind a great song. Anyway, you're on Legal A.F. And this is the kickoff to Tuesday morning with the Katie Fang versus Todd Blanche case. The scandal, child sex trafficking scandal, that just won't seem to go away for Donald Trump and his administration, and especially Todd Blanche. How do we get here? Judge Emmett Sullivan granted a couple of weeks ago Katie Fang's motion for preliminary injunction, finding it was more likely than not that Todd Blanche had violated the Epstein Transparency Act,

that Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice had done nothing to oppose or to defend themselves about the violation of the Epstein Transparency Act, and therefore had effectively conceded the point because all they wanted to argue is, Katie Fang can't bring a case. She's a journalist. Yeah, that misses the point about who under the Administrative Procedures Act has standing to bring a case. The judge quickly knocked aside that argument and said, where is your defense to the substantive arguments about five major categories of Epstein documents? Seeing none, I'm going to grant the preliminary injunction. The categories include unredacting certain documents, including about a sex torture video to translate foreign language documents. Yes, foreign language documents out of

millions of pages of documents in a child sex trafficking ring that span the globe. Yeah, that's got to be done. He also ordered that the redaction log, 200,000 pages of documents had big black lines all over it. Those come off, or at least a log as required by the Epstein of file transparency act be produced. And none of that happened. And he gave them until July the 2nd to tell the court to answer the order to show cause. Because the judge says either do all of these things. Translate the foreign language documents.

Take off the names related to the torture video. Produce the handwritten notes about an Epstein Survivor's interview in which he claimed that Donald Trump sexually abused her, produce that, translate, and give us a redaction log, or show cause why you can't. Well, instead of showing cause, they just refuse to do anything.

As to the Epstein documents that were in a foreign language, it's too hard. Well, that's not good enough. It's too hard. We don't have to do it. You have to do it because the court ordered you to do it. And the Epstein File Transparency Act

implicitly required it. As to the torture, well, everybody knows who that is. I don't think that's the fact that there's been some outing by some Congress people doing some sleuthing about who sent the email about Love the Torture Video. That's not the equivalent of you producing it, right? The redaction log, oh, we did some redactions and we let Congress know about it. No, you needed to do a full redaction log and publish it in the record.

we can't do the handwritten notes because it's hard. I don't care. It doesn't mean you can't do it. You do it, even if you have to redact handwritten notes. Then their argument, well, you want us to take the names off of some of these things, but some of these people are both victims and co-conspirators. There we are again, blaming the victims for co-conspiring in their own sexual trafficking. Ridiculous.

So here's what Brendan Ballou, the lawyer who I interviewed recently for Katie Fang, here's what he wrote. He said plaintiff, Katie Fang, an independent journalist who was reported on the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his network, brought this suit to compel acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to comply with the Epstein File Transparency Act. The court issued an order granting the preliminary injunction in full. A week later, the Attorney General filed what he styled as a response to the order to show cause. Notably in his response, Katie Fang's lawyers argue, the Attorney General makes clear. that whatever the federal statute requires him to do, he will not comply. He refuses to review foreign language documents. He refuses to produce an explanation for his redactions, and he refuses to produce documents. He concedes contain no victim information. And stated differently, the Attorney General refuses to provide the transparency that the Epstein Act demands. So here's what they want.

Because of the brazenness of defendant's repeated violations here on page two, of their filing. And because this brazeness fits a pattern of dishonesty, delay, and obfuscation in this matter, this court should fine the Attorney General $1,000 a day until he complies with this court's order, order and expedited production of the administrative record in this matter, and direct an in-camera review of the documents defendant claims contain victim information. They then go through things like, let's start with the foreign language documents. He was ordered to initiate review of the foreign language documents, and this was not an option. This was an aspirational. This was an order by Judge Sullivan and advised

the court that such review was underway. Instead, they ignored it and failed to comply. They made an incredible argument instead. He claimed that because the government told Congress on page two, that it was impracticable to comply with this part of the Epstein Act, and because Congress didn't do anything about it, the attorney general has no obligation to follow the law. The motion continues. This isn't how the law. Any law works. After Congress passed and President Trump signed the Epstein Act in the law, they were bound by the law, not their view of the law, and the violation of the law is utterly irrelevant to whether Congress objected to it or not. There's no provision in the constitution that authorizes the president to enact to amend or repeal statutes. In other words,

Blanche was bound by the statute and now by the court order. He says that production of the documents is not practicable without any facts to support it and arrogantly ignored this court's order while openly admitting that he has failed to comply with this provision of the act. Then let's turn to the redactions. 200,000 pages are blacked out in whole or in part. you're supposed to create a log line by line this is the page this is the redact this is the uh why we redacted why we redacted the the privilege or the concept that we're applying and the date and all of that you then submit the log and people can then use that to challenge the log let's go to you know Epstein file transparency act eFTA number zero zero zero six and we don't think that that's a

for purpose. So then you take the original, it's not redacted, you give it to somebody like a judge who reviews it in camera and says whether you're right or wrong. But it starts with the log. That's no surprise that there's no log here. When I interviewed Brendan Ballou, who just filed this motion and I'm asking to come back to legal AF. He said, I don't even think they have it. I think they basically never did it. And now they're scrambling to try to submit something much less than it. Play my clip of Brendan Ballou. Third, the Attorney General has violated the Epstein Act by withholding certain materials mentioning President Trump, specifically notes from an FBI interview with a victim who was alleged that, who alleged

that in the 1980s when she was about 13, Epstein introduced her to Trump who in turn assaulted her. Fourth, the Attorney General has violated the Epstein Act by not reviewing or producing any foreign language materials. And fifth, the Attorney General has violated the Epstein Act by failing to publish any redaction log, which is what you talked about. Here comes the favorite part. The Attorney General does not respond substantively to any of these arguments. Rather, he states that based on his jurisdictional arguments, Ms. Fang's APA claims fail as a matter of law.

By not responding substantively, the Attorney General has conceded Ms. Fang's merits arguments in the pending motion citing case law. Accordingly, she's likely to succeed on the merits of her APA claim. I mean, and this guy is trying to be confirmed as the top law enforcement officer to the head of the Department of Justice in the middle of July? It's a tough beat for them. And, you know, I think that they had a tough hand in that it was obvious that they were breaking the law. To the credit of the line level prosecutor, they didn't try to argue that they were.

But as you said, you know, generally in the law, if you don't make an argument, you can see it. And that's what Judge Sullivan is saying here. You know, for the different categories of information that we're seeking, I think one of the most extraordinary things was that fourth one that you mentioned, which is the foreign language documents, which is, as you said, this is an international investigation spanning multiple countries, multiple years, decades even. The Department of Justice just publicly said we categorically didn't review any documents that weren't in English. That wasn't permitted by statute. They just decided that. And so I think it sort of speaks to the impunity that the Department of Justice felt in complying with the law here. And I think when that impunity comes up against, you know, determine judicial opposition, this is the result that you get. All right. So you've got that going on as to here's what they say about the redaction log on top of page five.

The law clearly requires more than a summary. It requires a written justification for each redaction made, which the Attorney General has neither done nor explain why he cannot do it. Instead, he's defying the court. Let's get to the handwritten notes of the interview of these 302 reports of the FBI for people, one person in particular accused Donald Trump of sexual abuse when she was 13 years old. It says on page five, in response, the Attorney General refused to produce the documents because the handwritten notes were substantially similar to other, the ultimate reports. Like, I'm not giving you the notes, the drafts, because you got the final report. But that's not an exception in the Epstein Transparency Act.

In fact, they say that while the Attorney General, on top of six, without evidence, asserts that the FBI's handwritten interview notes are similar as a matter, as a general matter, he has ignored, let alone provided no evidence that the specific written notes at issue here are substantially similar to the 302s produced. It does not exempt production of substantially similar things. And then they say in the bottom of the footnote one, the Attorney General stated concern about protecting victim identities rings somewhat hollow given that he disclosed documents revealing nearly 100 victims' identities.

As to the torture video, they say, oh, well, everybody knows who that is. No, we need to know it officially from the records that were ordered to be produced by both the Epstein Transparency Act and Judge Sullivan. That's the end of that. And in terms of them blaming the victims again. And then here's what they're asking for. The court should find the attorney general in contempt and order an in-camera inspection of the documents. as on page 10. The Attorney General has obviously failed to comply

with much of this court's order. Most blatantly, he failed to comply with the court's directives to produce foreign language documents, produce a redaction log, and produce the documents that do not have victim information. They cite to a case in Minnesota in which there was a daily fine of $500 against the government

in a case there related to a failure to comply with an order. And it says, nor given the Attorney General's determined delay, is it sufficient to permit defendant to simply announce that he'll begin reviewing the foreign language documents or eventually produce a log. To prevent delay, the plaintiff proposes

that the Attorney General be fined $1,000 a day to kind of incentivize him to actually do this work. And then, of course, the attempt to relitigate his jurisdictional arguments that Katie Fang doesn't have standing to bring this case should be denied. And they also asked that the court not grant to stay. Defendants asked the court for 60-day stay of any relief so that the solicitor general had time to consider whether they were going to take an appellate review.

For the same reason set forth, a stay is not warranted here. Defendant has yet again conceded that he's in violation of the act. The plaintiff is not requesting the immediate production of documents. We're talking about things that would take time anyway. So no, there shouldn't be a stay respectfully submitted Brendan Ballou. Now, here's what's going to happen next. First, I'm trying to get Katie Fang to join me later today, or at least tonight, on the Intersection podcast on Midas Touch. She and I go way back more than 20 years as friends and colleagues.

And I want to talk to her about this filing as I work on getting Brendan Ballou, who was on the matter. came and interviewed with me about the matter about two weeks ago. Trump's not going to like this. I think Judge Sullivan, this is the last paper that needs to be filed. And I think he moves quick. He gave Donald Trump until the end of one day two weeks ago to file a response. And hours later, he issued his preliminary injunction of about 45 pages. I would be shocked if Judge Sullivan doesn't issue his final order this week about the failure of departing.

of Justice and Todd Blanche to satisfy order to show cause. And I think he may even either hold an evidentiary hearing or go right to contempt proceedings. And then we're up at the D.C. Court of Appeals, see which three-judge panel is pulled. If there's not more than two Trumpers on it, I think Blanche is going to get sanctioned and found in contempt. And then it's going to be up to the United States Supreme Court to do what to do next. But all of this is yet another. shadow cast on Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing, which as of this recording is still set for Wednesday morning, which will have live if it happens up on LegalAF here under a live tab with streaming with me doing some commentary in the beginning. They may try to pull it off a week while Lindsay Graham,

you know, get some sort of, you know, state funeral because they need the time to find a replacement for Lindsay Graham on that panel, on that 25 person judiciary committee. 13 Republicans, 12 Democrats, Tom Blanche can't lose a vote, can't lose one vote. And he no longer has Lindsey Graham, the lion of the Republicans, his mentor who is going to shepherd him through this process and get him this job,

he no longer has Lindsey Graham to count on. So we'll follow those overlapping stories, one place, legal AF. Take a minute, hit the free subscribe button here. That helps. This intersection podcast that I do, if you can come over and download the audio for the intersection, that helps because that gives us more street cred, more algorithmic cred, and come over to Legal AF Substack, where you can read this response

by Katie Fang and Katie Fang's lawyers for yourself over on LegalAF Substack. So until my next report, this is Michael Popock. Can't get your fill of LegalAF. Me neither. That's why we form the LegalAF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, Come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it,

morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from LegalAF are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes

where legal A.F. On Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.