What is Todd Blanche still hiding about Epstein?

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider the nomination of Todd Blanche to be the next U.S. Attorney General. Blanche, President Trump’s former personal attorney who has been serving in an acting capacity since April, faces a number of obstacles to his confirmation.

One of the biggest is Jeffrey Epstein.

Blanche stands accused of failing to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the public disclosure of most Department of Justice (DOJ) files associated with the late sex criminal. On April 27, journalist Katie Phang sued Blanche in federal court, alleging he had “either retracted, or failed to produce entirely, documents that should have been produced” under the law.

The most explosive of Phang’s allegations is that Blanche has “withheld notes from FBI interviews with a victim who has alleged that in the 1980s, when she was about 13 years old, Epstein introduced her to Trump, who in turn assaulted her.”

In March, the DOJ belatedly released redacted typed summaries of three interviews with the woman discussing her interactions with Trump, including the alleged sexual assault. Those summaries were initially excluded from the DOJ’s primary release of Epstein files in January and disclosed only after their exclusion received media attention.

Phang sued to force Blanche to release the FBI’s handwritten notes from the interviews with the woman, which were also referenced in the Maxwell case. According to Phang, the disclosure of these notes was required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

In response to Phang, Blanche did not address the substance of Phang’s argument. Instead, he argued that the Epstein Files Transparency Act did not create a private right of action and, therefore, Phang did not have standing to sue. He also argued that, even if Phang had standing, she did not suffer any injury from his refusal to disclose the interview notes and other documents.

Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected all of Blanche’s arguments. He ruled that Phang did have standing and that Blanche’s failure to fully disclose the Epstein files created real harm to Phang as a journalist. Sullivan also found that, in not addressing the substance of Phang’s arguments, Blanche “conceded that he is in violation of the Act.” Sullivan ordered Blanche to produce the documents Phang was seeking by July 2 or “show cause” as to why they should not be produced.

Blanche did not produce the documents sought by Phang on July 2. Instead he filed a response to Sullivan’s order to show cause. Blanche said he had cause not to release the interview notes “because, by their nature, the underlying notes are substantially similar to the ultimate reports, and have accordingly been deemed duplicative.” Blanche also said the fact that the notes were handwritten “further complicates the redaction process and increases the risk of inadvertent disclosure” of the victim’s identity.

In a response to Blanche filed July 13, Phang said that Blanche was openly defying the court and the law. Blanche “makes clear that whatever the federal statute requires him to do, he will not comply,” Phang argues.

Phang notes that Blanche claims “that FBI handwritten interview notes are similar to subsequent FD-302s [interview summaries] as a general matter.” But “he has not argued—let alone provided any evidence—that the specific handwritten notes at issue here are substantially similar to the FD-302s that have been produced.” Further, “[t]he Epstein Act does not exempt from production documents that are ‘substantially similar’ to those that have been produced.” This amounts to an attempt by Blanche “to write exceptions into the Epstein Act that don’t exist.”

Phang is now asking the court to fine Blanche $1,000 per day until he complies with the judge’s order.

Blanche has until July 20 to respond to Phang. But he will almost certainly have to address his handling of the Epstein files during today’s committee hearing.

So you read this newsletter, but you haven’t purchased a paid subscription. There are two possibilities:

1. You just can’t afford the price of a subscription ($50/year or $6/month) right now. If that is the case, we get it! That’s exactly why Popular Information does not have a paywall. We want everyone to have access to our work, regardless of their financial resources.

2. You value independent accountability journalism and understand why it is critical to preserving and protecting democracy. You have thought about supporting Popular Information, but you just haven’t gotten around to it. That’s how it goes — life is busy.

But maybe today is the day! It takes a minute, and paid subscribers are the entire reason this newsletter exists. To maintain our independence, Popular Information has no advertisers and no corporate owners. We count on readers like you.

Upgrade to paid

Other documents Blanche refuses to release

Along with the interview notes, Phang has highlighted four other categories of information she says Blanche has illegally withheld. Sullivan sided with Phang in each instance.

First, Phang notes that Blanche has redacted the identity of the senders or recipients of at least eight damning emails. These messages, some of which were sent to Epstein, include “Thank you for a fun night… Your littlest girl was a little naughty” and “the key are the 14 to 15 year old girls—i am a sexual pervert because i say they are now of a reproductive age?” In his latest filing, Blanche claims that the senders of some of these messages are “victims.” But even in two instances where Blanche concedes the sender is not a victim, Blanche has refused to unredact the emails, citing generalized concerns about “personal privacy.”

Second, Phang seeks to unredact the identity of four names listed as “co-conspirators” on two documents. Blanche argues that three of the four individuals are also “victims.” The fourth is Lesley Groff, Epstein’s former assistant who has not “asserted victim status.”

Third, Phang notes that Blanche has not released any material in the files that was written in a language other than English. Blanche’s response is that a review of documents written in other languages is “not practical.” In this case, the court order did not give Blanche the option to “show cause” in lieu of complying with the order. Blanche decided not to take action anyway. Phang argues Blanche has “obviously and arrogantly ignored this Court’s order here.”

Finally, Phang seeks a log of all redactions from the Epstein files, along with an accompanying justification, as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Blanche acknowledges the DOJ has not produced such a log but claims there is no deadline for the DOJ to do so. This directly contradicts both Sullivan’s order and any reasonable interpretation of the law.