Katie Phang Presses DOJ Over Epstein Records and FBI Interview Notes (9/6/26)

0:00What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. Over the past couple of months we've been talking about the Ketie Fang lawsuit that was filed against Todd Blanche. And that battle is ongoing and Ketie Fang is really taking Blanche out behind the woodshed and in this latest response absolutely lights Todd Blanche up. So with that said, let's take a look at the document. Ketie Fang plaintiff vs. Todd Blanche. Case number 26-1417 EGS. Reply on proposed order. The defendant attorney general Todd Blanche objects yet again to complying with this court's orders. On June 25th, 2026 this court issued a pre-liminjunction directing the defendant to, among other things, one, produce the FBI interview notes underlying several FD-302s that reference president Donald J. Trump or show cause why he could not.

1:04And two, publish the Redaction Log required by section 2C2 of the Epstein File Transparency Act, the Epstein Act or show cause as why he could not. The defendant refused to comply, forcing this court to hold a hearing on the matter. Their counsel for the defendant repeated unsupported and on persuasive arguments as to why it could not timely produce the FBI notes or Redaction Log. The court, the defendant was directed to show cause why it the FBI notes should not be produced. What's the answer? Mr. Block the answer, Your Honor, is that they are duplicative documents. The court, well, that's what the defendant says. The court doesn't know that. Mr. Block again, Your Honor, it the Redaction Log is forthcoming. I don't have anything to say to the court beyond I know it's in the process. The court, I mean, Christmas is forthcoming. Let's be realistic. The court ultimately directed plaintiff to draft a proposed order on the

2:05FBI notes and Redaction Log, which plaintiff did, ECF number 32. Plaintiff also submitted a notice demonstrating that despite defendant assertions otherwise, defendant has produced numerous handwritten FBI interview notes underlying other FD-302 reports, ECF number 33. The defendant ignores the notice and opposes the proposed order, reiterating once again, his general objection to producing the handwritten notes, but adding a twist. He now claims to have published the required Redaction Log in the Federal Register. The arguments on the FBI notes are unpersuasive and the claim Redaction Log utterly fails to comply with the Epstein Act. This court should direct the defendant to submit for in-camera review the handwritten notes so the court can determine whether the defendant's objections are well-founded as they clearly are not and direct the defendant to produce a Redaction Log that actually complies with the two FBI interview notes. This court in its preliminary injunction order directed defendant either

3:12produce to the public the underlying FBI interview notes that form the basis for the FD-302 interview reports bearing baits number EFT-A-01245620 EFT-A-02858481 EFT-A-02858491 and EFT-A-02858495 with appropriate redactions to protect victims' information or show calls why the notes should not be produced, ECF number 15 at two. The defendant failed to comply, instead asserting that he did not need to produce notes first because they were substantially similar to the FD-302s that were already produced and second because reviewing handwritten notes was unduly burdensome and might inadvertently reveal victim information. The Epstein Act is not list substantial similarity as one of the basis for refusing to produce documents see Epstein

4:12Act Section 2A-1-9 as the court has repeatedly observed it's not sufficient for the defendant to merely assert without evidence that documents are substantially similar. EG August 13, 2026 hearing transcript at 10 Mr. Block the department had to determine that these documents were duplicative so they fell outside the court the department may well be correct but the court needs to be in a position to say that the court either agrees with the department or disagrees something more is required to comply with the court's order. The defendant's second argument that handwritten documents cannot be reviewed for a risk of accidental disclosure of victim information is similarly unpersuasive. At oral argument counsel for the defendant incorrectly asserted that no handwritten notes for the FBI reports had been produced. August 13, 2026 hearing transcript at 8 but in fact as plaintiff noted the defendant has produced

5:12nearly 100 handwritten notes including notes that formed the basis for other FBI FD-302 reports ECF-33 in his opposition defendant does not even try to argue that the handwritten notes mentioning the president at issue here are somehow more difficult to review than the hundreds of pages of handwritten notes defendant already produced nor can he. The typed FD-302s for which plaintiff seeks the underlying notes are in total just 25 pages the handwritten notes are presumably not much longer if at all. The attorney general commands perhaps the largest law firm in America and can find a way to reliably review approximately 25 pages to ensure victim information is not revealed. All parties share the objective of not releasing genuine victim information accordingly the court should direct the defendant to produce within five days the unredacted underlying handwritten notes for the in-camera review the court can then decide whether and how to publish these documents.

6:183. Redaction Log The court in its preliminary injunction order directed the defendant either publish the federal register the redaction log required under the Epstein Transparency Act Section 2C2 and update it concurrently with each future release of redacted material or show cause why you cannot do so ECF 15 at 2 After much foot dragging the defendant claims to have now complied with this direction publishing to in the federal register in six-page letter it produced a Congress more than six months ago ECF number 37 citing 91 federal regulation 55 35 6 This belatedly published letter is also offensively insufficient to comply with the defendant's under 2C2 the Epstein Act has two relevant disclosure obligations section 3 requires the attorney general within 15 days of otherwise complying with the act to submit the Congress or report

7:18describing the categories of records released and withheld the government officials and other politically exposed persons mentioned in the materials and the summary of redactions made separately section 2C2 of the act requires the defendant to explain each individual redaction directing that all redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the federal register and submitted to Congress in its filing the defendant tries to pass off its high level letter required under section 3 as the detailed redaction log required under section 2C2 it's obvious that the letter responds to section 3 not to section 2C2 because the defendant himself says so the first sentence of the letter begins section 3 of the Epstein Files Transparency Act the act requires the Department of Justice within 15 days of completing the release required under the act to submit to the House and Senate committees on the judiciary or report 91 federal

8:19regulation 55 357 it continues consistent with section 3 of the act the Department provides the following information and proceeds to report to provide the information call for a bisection 3 of the act the defendant's apparent argument is that it's reporting obligations under section 2C2 and section 3 are the same they are not the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is that no provision should be construed to be entirely redundant congees vs us 485 us 1988 plurality of opinion section 2C2 requires an explanation for each individual redaction while section 3 requires only a summary of all the redactions specifically section 2C2 directs that all redactions be accompanied by a written justification while section 3 directs defendants simply to produce the summary of those redactions where congress includes particular

9:19language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same act it's generally presume that congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion resello vs us 464 1983 congress could have used the word summary in section 2C2 as it did in section 3 but can speak you as Lee shows not to the attorney general is merely a republished the summary he already made public to purportedly satisfy the requirements of section 2C2 and the squirt order this is painfully insufficient and this court should direct the attorney general to publish within 10 days the written justification for all redactions made as is required by the Epstein act 4. Request for stay finally the defendant once again argues that the proceedings should be stayed pending the appeal previously he argued that he could not appeal the case ECF number 19 the government views the court's order as more in the nature of an unappulable show cause order

10:23his position appears to have now changed and he has filed what he describes as a protective notice of appeal ECF number 35 but the defendant has not actually filed any motion to stay this court's prelimbed injunction or the current proceedings or made any substantive argument why these proceedings should be stayed the defendant's argument can be dismissed on that basis alone nevertheless even if the defendant made these arguments in a motion they would be losing once in the DC Circuit Court a court assesses for factors when considering a motion to stay an injunction pending appeal one the moving parties likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal to whether the moving party will suffer irreparable injury three whether issuance of the stay would substantially harm other parties in the proceeding and for the public interest in granting a motion for prelimbed injunction the court has already resolved factors one three and four in Katie Fang's favor on the remaining factor irreparable harm to defendant the defendant cannot

11:28circumvent while established jurisprudence recognizing the administrative burdens and staffing limitations fail the constitute irreparable harms in this manner center for biological diversity versus US office of surface mining reclamation and enforcement dc 2026 the attorney general of the United States must spend time and effort to follow the law but that is not a harm let alone an irreparable one conclusion five to compel the defendant to follow the Epstein files transparency act as well as this court's orders the court should direct an in-camera review of the FBI interview notes and direct defendant to produce a complete redaction log respectfully submitted by Brendan Ballu dated September 2nd 2026 and when we have a response from Mr. Blanche we'll get that added to the catalog as well all the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box