Transcription
This is Democracy Watch. Mark, we have a major update as far as the redactions in the Epstein files are concerned. So, I'm going to throw to you a clip right now of Trump's uh Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch speaking this weekend on air.
>> Is any information about President Trump redacted in any of the files that have or will be released?
>> No. Not unless it's supposed to be redacted under the law, which means victim information or any sort of privilege like attorney client privilege. I have no reason to believe that the lawyers that were working on this case were talking about President Trump because he had nothing to do with the Epstein files. He had nothing to do with the horrific crimes that Mr. Epstein committed. And so I don't expect there will be anything redacted. But the short answer is we are not redacting information around President Trump, around any other individual involved with um with Mr. Epstein. And and that narrative which is not based on fact at all is completely false.
So again, that was Donald Trump's deputy attorney general saying that any redactions are only going to take place if things are related to victims, which of course we all know, but then have some attorney client privilege. So first and foremost, can you explain what he's talking about here? This new standard where uh information can be redacted if it has attorney client privilege.
>> I have no idea what he's talking about. In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd say that this was like an AI generated uh piece of content in which just like a large language model was just predicting the next word to come out of the mouth of someone who is a lawyer. Todd Blanch knows better. I mean, let's let's just like set this let's just set aside the here. Todd Blanch is a lawyer. He has practiced law for a long time. He's a former federal prosecutor, as I recall. He knows full well that there is no attorney client privilege that would be applicable in this case. First of all, attorney client privilege is when an attorney is asked advice by their client and they provide legal advice. So just like let's just start with the basics. Donald Trump is not the client of the Department of Justice. when he was in private practice, he I'm sorry, when he was in the private sector rather, he would not have had any attorney client relationship with anyone who worked in any US attorney's office. So there'd be no attorney client privilege there. To the extent Donald Trump was talking to his own lawyer, if that information was then turned over to the government, that broke the privilege because by sharing attorney client privilege with someone else, there the attorney client privilege disappears. So this is just like him spewing words at the end of a sentence. That also is not true. I mean, we could talk at nauseium about whether or not, you know, any of us really believe that Donald Trump is not being protected by the redactions.
I'm sorry, what?
>> Yeah, it's worth asking, too. Wasn't the law like the plain text of this law simply that it had to only protect victims and minors and that even if there were political figures um who might you know suffer some some exposure or embarrassment that that the law expressly states that those people are not to be protected that it's again only the victims and minors.
>> Yeah, I think it had some other things like national security classified information, although I as I recall the law also then said that the department should seek to declassify that information. But anyway, no one here is talking about classified information and I'm not sure any of that would exist. You're exactly right. The the the law was very very clear uh in both its intent and its words. And what it says is that the the Epstein files are to be released and the victim's identities are to be protected, but that the identities or the information around public figures, whether they are governmental effect governmental figures or political figures, should not be protected. And it's actually interesting because the statute specifically calls that out, right? It it kind of like on the one hand says all this information be released then it says what should be not be released and then it goes out of its way to reiterate and by the way this means do not protect the men who might be politicians or in government from being uh exposed. But what we know from the reporting on Fox News Digital is that there were redactions applied to protect politically exposed uh uh officials or politicians. I forget exactly the term that they used. And that's no that's like not a surprise if you looked at the records, right? There are all these redactions of names. And we know we we're not speculating here. We know that some of those names were Donald Trump because we saw the records that were released and then pulled out of the out of the uh the release and put back under redaction.
Is there a world where with Todd Blanch saying stuff like this that he shoulders some legal exposure in the future? And I ask this because I interviewed Roana uh just a couple of days ago and Roana came out and said that, you know, this will still fall under the statute of limitations after this administration is out of office and anybody looking to defy this law or help perpetuate the defiance of this law still shoulders some legal liability here. And so having Todd Blanch come on air and and say first and foremost that you know that that he's abiding by some new standard that he created out of whole cloth is bad enough unto itself. But if he's acting on this new standard that doesn't exist in the law, isn't he isn't he setting himself up for failure uh in the future if there if there is some legal action taken against folks who are looking to defy this law?
>> Look, they've already defied the law. I mean, let's let's just be clear. We don't have to say if they're looking to divide the law or even with respect to the privilege like >> they were given a date certain to produce the records and they did not meet that date period. They didn't ask Congress for an extension which by the way is what you or I would have to do if we were under a legal obligation. We'd have to send a letter and say this is the reason why we need an extension. Is that okay? We'd have to we'd have to you know we'd have to cooperate with them about how we were producing this in what order we'd produce rolling records. The the Department of Justice didn't do any of that. They just ignored the deadline and said, "We will produce a fraction of the records and we'll produce the rest when we get used to it." That's that's number one. Number two, they are supposed to have minimal numbers of redactions. And again, we saw reduction upon reduction upon redaction all over the place. And in fact, we even saw redactions added after they had released records. We saw photos taken out. We then saw them put back in. I mean, the Department of Justice has a lot of exposure at a lot of levels, including uh uh Todd Blanch, but not only Todd Blanch. And in terms of the statute of limitations, it's not just that there's a five-year statute of limitations. So that would bring you, as you say, into uh you know 20 20 uh 2030, right? So not just into a new term, but well into the next presidential term. But that statute of limitations hasn't started to run. What do I mean by that? They are continuing every day to be in defiance. They are continuing every day to take steps that violate the statute. The statute hasn't even begun to to start to crime.
>> We're we're in the midst of the crime. It's happening today and it's happening tomorrow.
>> That's exactly right. And that's really well put, Brian. I mean, that's a thousand% right. We are in the midst of the crime. And so like every you know I and it's why I found I have found the legacy media's laziness around this so perplexing and frankly infuriating because this is going on as we sit here and the legacy media is treating it as if you know the department of justice is doing us some big favor by releasing the fraction of the fraction of what they're supposed to release rather than holding them to account and saying what's going on. But I have to give credit though to Tom Massie, congressman from Kentucky, and Ro Kana, congressman from California, because from what I can tell, they are not just talking about, you know, a future statute of limitations like in a future world. They're talking about congressional action now, uh, you know, and and oversight and enforcement now. And that's exactly what we need. I think it's worth highlighting right here too that you have been doing excellent coverage of all of this and especially in light of the fact that legacy media is just treating this as if it's some you know regular news story. It's not. This is the federal government. This is the Department of Justice. The people who are there to enforce the law openly flagrantly violating the law and you have been doing excellent coverage as I mentioned on Democracy Docket which is the news outlet you found that focus on everything voting and elections. I'm going to put the link to Democracy Docket right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. highly recommend for everybody who's watching right now, if you're looking for for fearless independent journalism to support as we head into 2026, there is no better outlet than Democracy Docket. It's what I use on a daily basis. So, if you're not yet signed up, do yourself a favor and sign up right now.
>> You know, Brian, I got to add one thing. You know, everyone needs to make sure they are subscribed to Brian's channel. And here's why. Because these stories connect up to one another. Okay, so here we're talking about the Epstein files and we're talking about uh what what is going on with Todd Blanch's defiance there. But this is not the only story that involves Todd Blanch or involves his defiance or involves the Department of Justice's, you know, contemptuous behavior or Donald Trump's, you know, being the target, the the the object of protection. And the thing about your channel, Brian, and for everyone watching, the reason why you need to subscribe is that you don't just cover this, you cover all of these pieces. And so you can see how Todd Blanch's involvement in what representations were made to federal judges in cases, for example, involving immigration, how those tie to the tweets or social media posts that Donald Trump puts out to Pam Bondi to get these crazy unqualified prosecutors to indict uh people like Tess James. And your channel is one of the few places where you actually get that full context. And so I wanted to make sure people know that because otherwise they might think, well, there's this guy Todd Blanch. He's just doing this one terrible thing in this one instance. But actually, as someone who watches your videos, it is much bigger than that.
>> I appreciate that. And I'm going to put the link to this channel right here on the screen as well. So if you're not yet subscribed, please go ahead and subscribe. Mark, it's worth asking here in light of all of this criminality that we're witnessing play out in real time. I mean, as as we spoke about, this is a crime happening in front of our faces uh today, tomorrow, and and moving on until we get the full release of these files. You know, there is always the threat looming that Donald Trump is just going to issue his pardon because he's got this, you know, get out of jail free card that he's been perfectly content, perfectly free to be able to wield for all of his political allies. And so to what extent um can we see some accountability recognizing that Trump is going to abuse the pardon power, recognizing that the Supreme Court's already said that the pardon power is plenary and so you know instead of just having this looming over our heads, what options do we have to hold people that are defying the law to account?
>> Look, I think there are only two options. Number one is Congress. And that's why I singled out the bill sponsors because if members of Congress are serious about the law that they all voted for and which they all bragged on a bipartisan basis, they supported, right? This bill did not eek through Congress. It sailed through Congress after a lot of delay by by the speaker. It eventually had overwhelming support in the House and the Senate. Well, if those Republicans who claim that they care about the victims, who claim that they want to get to the bottom of Epstein, who claim that they supported this law, they need to now provide the votes to go after Todd Blanch and the others of the Department of Justice who are stonewalling. You know, there Congress can do hearings. Congress has subpoena power. Congress can sue. Congress can seek contempt. Congress has the inherent power to find contempt. Right? There are lots of things Congress could do. But the question is whether or not Republicans who were so quick to to to praise this law will support all of that. The second thing is private litigation. You know, you mentioned the criminal laws. As you point out, we're not going to see any criminal enforcement between now and when Donald Trump leaves office. He may very well issue a blanket pardon on the way out the door. Although, look, he didn't do it after his first term, and the guy's a selfish uh sob, so who the hell knows, maybe he'll stiff them again. But in any event, he uh you know there is still the ability to enforce this law in court and for judges to do the right thing. And so that is what we need to see between now and uh you know and the next few months.
>> Who has grounds who has standing to be able to bring a case like that? I mean, I I understand that judges can can can rule that the files have to be released, but look, Congress already ruled that the files have to be released. And if Pam Bondi is going to engage in shenanigans to suppress anything that would be embarrassing to Donald Trump, she's already shown that she's willing to do that, even if it's vi like flagrantly uh flouting, you know, a federal law that Trump himself signed. So, so I'm I'm especially curious like if there was private litigation, who has standing to bring that? Would it be the victims, for example? Would it be, you know, you and I as just Americans who have a right to be able to see this stuff in accordance with the law?
>> So for let's go in descending order of of uh strength of standing. Clearly Congress has standing. Either House or Senate would have standing. And so that's why I start there because either one of them could say, "Look, we passed this law and we are the beneficiaries of law, right? The records were to be delivered to us. Yeah. And therefore we have not gotten them." So they would clearly have standing. It is quite possible, I would say likely, but more challenging, that individual members of Congress would have standing, Democrats or Republicans. Now, that gets into a very complicated area of the law where it it is it's too much to go into in detail, but I would argue that in this instance where the the the records were to be delivered so that every member of the chamber could have access to them, I think that there is a good argument that they're standing there. Then you get into non- congressional actors. Now you're into victims, uh, news media organizations that might foyer these records, right? That might be one way to get at this is to say, "Look, these records are supposed to be released, which means they're subject to foyer. We made a foyer request. You didn't produce them." There may be a way that news organizations or or advocacy groups get at them. You already mentioned victims. That may be an option, but that's going to that that will be more hotly contested. Although, I think it's all worth trying. I think I wouldn't be surprised, by the way, if we saw, you know, Roana and Thomas Massie who who very much feel like dogs with a bone right now in terms of getting the full breadth of these files released. I wouldn't be surprised if we had some joint effort by the two co-sponsors of the Epson Transparency Act to try to push this forward.
>> That'd be great. And like I said, they'd be much higher on that on the the ease of standing. I'm not saying that the others don't have standing and I don't want anyone to misconstrue that. But it's, you know, in the in the easy cases of standing and the more challenging cases of standing, I would think the two of them would be excellent plaintiffs. And again, the question I would ask the Republicans in Congress is if Roana and Tom Massie are willing to bring that case, why aren't all of you, you know, all of you voted for this law? You all said you wanted the Epstein files released. who all said that you didn't want political uh protection rackets going for Donald Trump and his cronies or anyone or for that matter any Democratic politician like you just wanted their files released. So the question will be whether or not all the Republicans will join that or a number of them will and enough to actually have the House of Representatives itself be one of the plaintiffs.
We'll leave it there again for those who are watching right now as we head into the holidays. A great gift that you can give the fiercest fighter for democracy which is Mark and his team. And the greatest gift that you can give is to sign up for their newsletter. Sign up for demoxy docket. I'm going to put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Again, as we head into 2026, who you follow for your news is going to be a statement of your values. And there is no again greater fighter for democracy than Mark. So, I'm going to put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. If you've not yet signed up for Democracy Docket, please go ahead and sign up. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen.
I'm Mark Elias.
This is Democracy Watch.