Todd Blanche Archives

Posts

LaMonica McIver Prepares to Hoist Todd Blanche with His Own Petard

August 16, 2025/51 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

For months, I’ve been anticipating the possibility that Trump’s politicized prosecutions will backfire, both by empowering the political martyrs they create and by exposing their own corruption.

I’m interested in this for two reasons: first, the possibility that these prosecutions will backfire, not just by creating sympathetic political martyrs, but also by further exposing Bondi and her top aides as liars violating legal ethics.

A package of filings from Congresswoman LaMonica McIver submitted last night suggests that may soon happen.

She has filed four motions:

A motion to dismiss based on Congressional immunity
A motion to compel discovery on the broader circumstances of her visit to Delaney Hall on May 9
A motion to dismiss for selective and vindictive prosecution based on a comparison with January 6 defendants
A motion to require DHS to withdraw false prejudicial claims about McIver

Two crucial details lie behind all of them.

First, according to Body Cam footage provided in discovery (and available to Judge Jamel Semper), after Newark Mayor Ras Baraka left the Delaney Hall facility in response to Ricky Patel’s order to do so, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States instructed Patel (listed as V-1 in all the filings) to arrest the Mayor.

Allegation: After the Mayor complied with HSI’s instructions to “leave the secured area,” agents placed him under arrest “in the unsecured area.” Indictment at 2-3.

Evidence: After a phone call, [Ricky Patel] announced a decision to arrest Mayor Baraka: “I am arresting the mayor . . . even though he stepped out, I am going to put him in cuffs . . . per the Deputy Attorney General of the United States.” Ex. B at 1:16:27-1:17:35. Meanwhile, the Members— who were still being prevented from entering the facility—returned to the entrance gate where they learned that the agents were changing course and renewing their plan to arrest the Mayor on baseless charges. Ex. A at 1:26:40-1:26:50; Ex. H, JR Axon Body Camera Arrest.mp4, at 00:30-00:40.

And, according to DOJ’s discovery response to McIver’s initial discovery request, Todd Blanche is signing off on correspondence in this case (possibly because Alina Habba is not a proper US Attorney).

Congressional immunity

Start with the immunity filing. After laying out her election last year (which she notes was a landslide, so let’s hope Trump sees this), McIver describes how starting on her third day in office, she prioritized oversight of immigration matters, with a town hall, a visit to a different detention facility, a letter to Kristi Noem, and a meeting with ICE. She then describes how the video produced in discovery captured her (and Rob Menendez — whose father’s earlier prosecution is the standard for Speech and Debate immunity in the Third Circuit — and Bonnie Watson Coleman) repeatedly describing their visit as congressional oversight.

Body Cam video captured them identifying theirs as a congressional oversight visit when they entered the facility. (This declaration describes the source of each video.)

Allegation: Count One alleges that on May 9, 2025, Congresswoman McIver and her congressional delegation “arrived at Delaney Hall allegedly to conduct a congressional oversight inspection.” Indictment at 1.

Evidence: Representatives McIver, Watson Coleman, and Menendez identified themselves as Members of Congress, explained they were there to conduct congressionally authorized oversight, and asserted their “right to look at the facility” and inspect its “safety, health, [and] services.” See Ex. B, CD Axon Body Camera Pre and Arrest.mp4, at 1:34-2:08.

Other video captured them questioning GEO employees as part of that oversight, while they were made to wait for an hour.

Allegation: The congressional delegation “entered the secured area and proceeded to an interior reception area.” Indictment at 2.

Evidence: The Members were told to remain in that small space for about an hour, during which they were denied access to the facility despite their repeated assertions of statutory authority. Nevertheless, the Members spent that hour pursuing their oversight mission, in part by questioning employees about the facility and its operations. During this time, unbeknownst to the Members, ICE was mobilizing its forces: high-level officials of ICE and Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) reported to the facility; munitions-filled vehicles took formation in its secured parking lot, and approximately 15 armed agents assembled just inside the gates. Ex. B at 6:40-13:30, 16:30-17:23, 20:09-35:14; Ex. A, NEPTZ.avi, at 23:00-23:15, 29:40-29:50, 40:50-41:05; Ex C, Axon_Body_4_Video_2025-05- 09_1418_D01AA954X.mp4, at 00:30-00:44; Ex D, Axon_Body_4_Video_2025-05- 09_1418_D01AA942W.mp4, at 00:37

More video captured McIver citing the law permitting members of Congress to conduct such oversight as ICE started its attack on Baraka.

Allegation: The “Congressional Delegation overheard this conversation and [] protest[ed].” Indictment at 3.

Evidence: Arriving by the Mayor’s side, Congresswomen McIver and Watson Coleman reprimanded the agents for “creating a problem” that did not exist. Congresswoman McIver reiterated that the agents had kept them waiting for “over an hour,” in blatant violation of federal law, and repeated, “We are here to do our oversight visit.” Congressman Menendez summed up the absurdity of the situation the agents had created: “You have an unarmed Mayor of the largest city in the state, and you have two dozen people out here and cars barricading us? This is an act of intimidation and you know it.” Ex. F at 4:32-5:58.

More video describes Patel — one of the purported victims — conceding the legality of the presence of the Members of Congress.

Allegation: An HSI agent, identified in the indictment as “V-1,” explained that “members of Congress had lawful authority to be in the secured area of Delaney Hall, but that” the Mayor “did not.” Indictment at 3.

Evidence: Although the indictment otherwise ignores the oversight context, V-1 verified the Members’ lawful authority, explaining, “congressmen are different, congresswomen are different.” Ex. F at 7:04-7:12.

Video captured the members identifying themselves as such when the melee ensued.

Allegation: As agents moved in to arrest the Mayor, Congresswoman McIver “hurried outside towards the agents” as someone “yelled ‘circle the mayor.’” Indictment at 3. Congresswoman McIver then “placed her arms around” the Mayor. Id.

Evidence: ICE agents, heavily armed and most of them masked, rushed out of the gate to arrest the Mayor where he was on public property surrounded by reporters, his staff, and members of the public. The Members walked through the gate at approximately the same time. Ex. A at 1:26:50-1:26:56. As a crush of over a dozen agents descended on the Mayor, a man called out to “circle the Mayor,” and the Members coalesced around him, holding one another’s arms to remain upright in the crowd. Ex. A at 1:26:50-1:27:08; Ex. I, AG Axon Body Camera Arrest.mp4, at 00:47-00:55. Agents and protestors alike pushed toward the Members, destabilizing the group. The Members repeatedly asserted their federal status and instructed the agents not to touch them. Ex. I at 1:00-1:20. Agents nevertheless pressed in on the Members as the crowd formed more tightly around them.

McIver has mapped this all onto the indictment to prove that to defend the case, McIver would have to submit her actions as a Member of Congress to the jury for scrutiny.

McIver then goes on to argue that she is therefore immune under both Speech and Debate and — citing Trump v. US — separation of powers.

The separation of powers accordingly confers an immunity on the official acts of legislators symmetrical with the immunity for the President’s official acts. The Speech or Debate Clause confers immunity on legislative acts, which represent legislators’ “core constitutional powers,” and are thus absolutely immune. Trump, 603 U.S. at 606. The separation of powers extends further, making clear that legislative immunity also covers official acts, which represent “the outer perimeter of [the legislator’s] official responsibility.” Id. at 596. But that broader scope comes with a caveat: these acts are only presumptively immune. Id. at 614. Immunity for this wider class of official conduct may be rebutted when “the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the” Legislative Branch. See Trump, 603 U.S. at 615 (cleaned up).17 The prosecution cannot do so here.

Motion to Compel

Virtually all of that narrative comes from Body Cam video provided in discovery. There’s one important exception: where an ICE agent shoved McIver so hard that she immediately said she was going to file a complaint.

Allegation: Count Two alleges that “[f]ollowing the arrest of” the Mayor, Congresswoman McIver “pushed past” another agent “using each of her forearms to forcibly strike” the agent “as she returned inside of the secured area of Delaney Hall.” Indictment at 5.

Evidence: After a few short moments, the Mayor made his way to V-1 to submit to arrest, and was promptly dragged back into the secured area and handcuffed. Congresswoman McIver followed, and an agent forcefully shoved her backward before she could reenter the secured area. NJ Spotlight News (@NJSpotlightNews), X (May 9, 2025 15:29 ET), https://x.com/NJSpotlightNews/status/1920926649777852742. Indeed, the agent’s use of force against Congresswoman McIver as she was reentering the facility was so egregious that—unlike the officers responding to the Congresswoman’s actions—she immediately informed an ICE official that she intended to file a complaint. Ex. I at 3:30-3:43. Congressman Menendez reentered with Congresswoman McIver, and Congresswoman Watson Coleman was escorted back through the gates with the help of agents. After the turmoil subsided, the Members were permitted to enter the building and complete their inspection.

That is one of the reasons she filed a motion to compel. She didn’t get Body Cam footage from at least two key ICE officers: the second guy she allegedly assaulted, and the guy who shoved her.

Second, there were as many as 15 uniformed law enforcement officers or agents with BWCs on site; several, however, apparently made no recordings. The lack of videos from those who were wearing BWCs appears to be inconsistent with applicable ICE policy and instructions at the scene from a supervisory agent. Indeed, at least two critical individuals have no BWC footage: the law enforcement agent identified in the Indictment as V-2, who is the alleged victim in Count 2; and another agent who appeared to violently shove Congresswoman McIver in the chest as she attempted to return inside the Delaney Hall gate. A government agent’s deliberate failure to activate a BWC contrary to policy and instructions clearly is relevant to the preparation of the defense. In addition, there were other agents who had no BWC at all.

In the guise of proving the full context of her visit that day, McIver has also asked for other video from the facility (which might provide more proof of the calls to people like Todd Blanche or might explain why a bunch of ICE vehicles arrived while the members of Congress were waiting).

To that end, the defense’s discovery letter requested that the government provide “all interior and exterior surveillance footage of any events on May 9, beginning at least 10 minutes before Congresswoman McIver’s arrival at Delaney Hall through at least 4:00 p.m., which is after she departed the facility’s secured perimeter.” Ex. K, Req. I.A. The government’s response was inconsistent. On one hand, the government indicated that it would attempt to locate and produce “footage of the Representatives’ tour of the Delaney Hall facility after the arrest of Mayor Baraka had taken place,” though it disclaimed the relevance of such footage. On the other hand, the government claimed that it received these two surveillance videos from GEO Group (the private company that ICE has retained to operate Delaney Hall). However, the government claims that other GEO Group materials are not in the government’s possession and suggests that the government has no other surveillance videos from stationary or fixed cameras. The government did not otherwise respond to Congresswoman McIver’s request for more complete surveillance videos, apparently taking the position that this material is not relevant. Ex. M at 1 (“To the extent this letter does not provide the requested materials, it is the position of the Government that those materials do not fall within the ambit of Rule 16”).

She’s also seeking the communications of everyone present pertaining to whether they were assaulted or not.

Although Congresswoman McIver may seek further relief from the Court to require production of those communications as this case progresses, the Court should at least order the government to disclose now:

VII.A. All contemporaneous text, voice, instant, chat or email messages – sent via either Telegram, Signal, or any other communications method, application, or medium – to, from, between, or among anyone present at Delaney Hall on May 9, 2025 and anyone else affiliated or associated with the GEO Group, DOJ, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, ICE, HSI, or DHS describing, reflecting, or implying that any government employee present on May 9 at Delaney Hall did not experience or report harm, injury, danger, or fear as a result of Congresswoman McIver’s actions.

VII.B. All written, verbal, or other reports or statements – whether or not memorialized – by any government official, individual affiliated with GEO, member of the public, or anyone else that is inconsistent with the charge that Congresswoman McIver knowingly, intentionally, or forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with federal officials on May 9.

These requests concern statements that show a lack of harm, injury, or fear by the alleged victims of the Congresswoman’s charged conduct.

Again, there’s a very sound reason to demand these communications based on the charges. But the video and the communications might also explain the involvement of Todd Blanche, Alina Habba, and Kristi Noem.

Selective Prosecution

Which brings us to the selective prosecution filing. As I said a million times when covering Hunter Biden’s selective prosecution bid (which I think might have survived if he had had money to appeal), these are almost impossible to win because you have to prove that someone similarly situated was not charged.

But McIver does that one better. She compares how DOJ dismissed all the January 6 assaults, even while charging her.

Just months ago, the Department of Justice dismissed cases against hundreds of defendants involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Among these dismissals were over 160 prosecutions charging the defendants with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 111 stemming from their assault of federal law enforcement officials who were protecting the Capitol and the Members of Congress and their staff. Video footage showed these defendants throwing explosives, beating federal officers with baseball bats and riot shields, and spraying them with pepper spray, all in an effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The Justice Department not only walked away from those charges, but it has since fired career prosecutors, agents, and support staff for their mere participation in the investigations and prosecutions. This case charges Congresswoman LaMonica McIver, a sitting Democratic Member of Congress, with violating the same federal assault statute. But the similarity ends there. As the government concedes in the indictment, Congresswoman McIver was exercising her statutory and constitutional oversight responsibilities when she visited Delaney Hall—a privately run immigration detention facility that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently reopened in her District. Unlike the January 6 rioters, Congresswoman McIver had every right to be on those premises. Indeed, she was there to do her job.

There is also a palpable difference between the actions of those at the Capitol on January 6 and Congresswoman McIver’s conduct. Footage that the government has provided in discovery shows that federal officials made a series of manipulative, irresponsible, and dangerous decisions that placed dozens of bystanders, as well as three Members of Congress, at risk of physical harm. In fact, the video recorded almost two dozen armed agents and officers of ICE and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) surging into a crowd in a public space to arrest the Mayor of Newark for supposedly trespassing on federal land. The government, of course, has since dismissed that ill-conceived and unfounded charge against the Mayor. But during that episode, it was those heavily armed law enforcement personnel who precipitated and were responsible for creating several minutes of physical chaos. In the end, as the indictment implicitly concedes, no federal agent experienced any injury whatsoever.

In that respect, too, January 6 was entirely different. That day, outnumbered Capitol Police officers stood their ground against hundreds—if not thousands—of rioters who were trying to overrun the Capitol to intimidate the legislators inside in hopes of overriding a national election. A substantial number of those brave officers were seriously injured. Yet, the Department of Justice has dropped the charges against over 160 individuals accused of that conduct.

Later in the filing, McIver cites three particularly egregious cases that were still pending when DOJ dismissed all these cases: Daniel Ball, Tim Boughner, and Jake Lang, all of whom were detained pretrial until Trump made their charges go away.

What, McIver ponders, led to the starkly different prosecutorial decisions? Well, there’s proof, in the form of a letter then Acting Deputy Attorney General and now Third Circuit Judge who might preside over any appeal, Emil Bove, sent ordering the firing of a bunch of FBI Agents who had been involved in January 6 investigations.

What explains the government’s insistence on prosecuting Congresswoman McIver, but not rioters charged with serious violence under the same statute? Senior federal officials have made ample public statements that point inexorably to the answer. In particular, the leadership of the Department of Justice, echoing the President’s official proclamation, has described the January 6 prosecutions as “a grave national injustice.”1

1 Mem. from Acting Dep. Att’y Gen. Emil Bove to Acting Dir., FBI (Jan. 31, 2025) (quoting Proc. No. 10887, 90 Fed. Reg. 8331, 8331 (Jan. 20, 2025)), https://perma.cc/C5NB-KV3V.

Motion to Restrain

In support of her selective prosecution bid, McIver also cites the statements that are the subject of her motion to restrain extrajudicial statements:

A press release accusing the Members of Congress of breaking into the Delaney Hall.
A Tweet disseminating a heavily edited picture of the alleged assault involving McIver.
Another press release purporting the debunk the “fake news” correcting prior false claims about the incident.
Yet another press release implicating McIver in an assault on an ICE officer that happened in California (which ICE was trying to blame on Salud Carbajal).
One more press release, one of the recurrent ones that claim wildly inflated numbers for ICE assaults, again implicating McIver in those assaults.

For each of the statements, McIver notes how the communications are misleading and how they prejudice her case.

When Kilmar Abrego tried to get DHS gagged, the judge said they weren’t parties to his criminal case. But here, DHS runs the facility where this happened and employs the men who claim to have been assaulted.

McIver is asking for an order that these statements be taken down and threatens to ask for her prosecution to be dismissed if DHS continues such statements.

So here’s how this will all play out: If DOJ wants to sustain this prosecution, they will need to first defend against the Congressional immunity claim — including a potential interlocutory appeal — and Todd Blanche and John Sauer will be held to claims they made last year to get Trump out of trouble. But even as that’s proceeding, Judge Semper may well order DOJ to provide more discovery, either on her normal discovery request or to support the selective prosecution claim. Because, yeah, it is pretty shady that two of the three most important witnesses to this alleged assault somehow don’t have any Body Cam footage, and yeah, it’s pretty shady that DOJ claims not to have access to prison footage that might capture additional calls to DOJ.

Meanwhile, Baraka’s malicious prosecution lawsuit has done nothing since June; perhaps DOJ is thinking twice about defending it? In that case, Ricky Patel made sworn statements to justify Baraka’s arrest that conflict with the evidence here. If he didn’t already know, Baraka has just learned that before Patel made those statements, Todd Blanche personally ordered him to arrest Baraka, even after Baraka complied with Patel’s order to leave the facility. And if this were to go to trial, Patel’s inconsistent statements would be a central focus of the case.

I don’t know how this case will end.

But it won’t end well for DOJ.

Update: There’s one more way this filing may prove useful: the Democratic members of Congress lawsuit against DHS for denying them access to detention facilities. DOJ got a delay in their response, but the MoCs could file an amended complaint.

Share this entry

In Rejecting Bid to Unseal Grand Jury Testimony, Judge Paul Engelmeyer Accuses Todd Blanche of “Diversion”

August 11, 2025/23 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

Judge Paul Engelmayer has rejected Todd Blanche’s bid to unseal Ghislaine Maxwell grand jury materials — but not for the reason I expected (Maxwell’s still-pending appeal).

Instead, he’s rejecting the request because Blanche was lying when he insinuated there’d be anything of substantial public interest. As Engelmayer laid out, anyone who followed the trial would be familiar with everything in the transcripts and exhibits.

A member of the public familiar with the Maxwell trial record who reviewed the grand jury materials that the Government proposes to unseal would thus learn next to nothing new. The materials do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor. They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s. They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s crimes.

Engelmayer did consider unsealing the material for another reason: to expose the government’s attempt at diversion. But he decided that the government has already conceded that point.

The one colorable argument under that doctrine for unsealing in this case, in fact, is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the Government’s public explanations for moving to unseal. A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government’s motion for their unsealing was aimed not at “transparency” but at diversion—aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such. And there is precedent—In re Biaggi, the fountainhead of the Second Circuit’s “special circumstances” doctrine—permitting a court to order the release of grand jury testimony to correct a movant’s misleading public characterization of it.

[snip]

This Court gave careful consideration to unsealing the Maxwell grand jury materials on a similar rationale. But with the Government having now conceded that the information it proposes to release is redundant of the public record—that this information was “made publicly available at [Maxwell’s] trial or has otherwise been publicly reported”—the public interest in testing the Government’s bona fides does not require the extraordinary step of unsealing grand jury records. Dkt. 800 at 3. Without any need to review the grand jury materials, the public can evaluate for itself the Government’s asserted bases for making this motion. [my emphasis]

He goes onto call out Blanche’s haste, sloppiness, and ignorance about the proceeding, and his inattention to the concerns of the victims.

Second, any argument that the Government’s motion to unseal merits substantial deference is weakened by a host of irregularities with respect to that motion. That motion was not made, nor has it been joined in, by any member of the Government’s trial team—the DOJ lawyers presumably most familiar with the Maxwell case and the broader Epstein-Maxwell investigation. The motion was filed by the DAG alone, without any signatory from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this District. And it was made under circumstances suggestive of haste rather than reflective deliberation. The motion was three-and-a-half pages in length; there were no supporting materials filed, under seal or otherwise; the motion did not disclose (or reflect awareness of) the summary-witness nature of the Maxwell grand jury testimony; and the motion was made without advance notice to Epstein’s and Maxwell’s victims, a fact which, as reviewed below, has alarmed numerous victims. Only after the Court inquired on that point was notice to victims given. See Dkt. 789; Dkt. 796 at 9. Finally, the Government’s highlighting of the grand jury transcripts did not suggest close familiarity with the Maxwell trial record, because a number of details that it identified as non-public in fact had been testified to during the trial. See note 16, supra.

This was a stunt. Now exposed as a stunt.

Share this entry

Planning for a Cover-Up in a House with Small Children and Other Stories of How Todd Blanche Is Helping a Sex Trafficker

August 6, 2025/18 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

CNN has a story about how Trump’s impeachment defense attorney, his criminal defense attorney, the flunkie who helped frame Hillary Clinton, and his Chief of Staff will go to JD Vance’s home — where he is raising three children under the age of 10 — to discuss how to make Donald Trump’s sex trafficking problem go away.

They apparently believe that Todd Blanche can hold his own in an interview with Joe Rogan, who has long smelled the rat in this cover-up.

The administration’s handling of the Epstein case, as well as the need to craft a unified response, is expected to be a main focus of the dinner, three sources familiar with the meeting told CNN. The meeting will include White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, Vice President JD Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and Blanche.

With the exception of Vance, the White House considers those officials the leaders of the administration’s ongoing strategy regarding the Epstein files, two of the sources said.

The meeting comes as Trump’s administration is considering releasing the contents of Blanche’s interview last month with Maxwell. Two officials told CNN that the materials could be made public as early as this week.

There have also been internal discussions about Blanche holding a press conference or doing a high-profile interview, possibly with popular podcaster Joe Rogan, according to three people familiar with the discussions, though those conversations are preliminary. Rogan, who endorsed Trump on the eve of last fall’s election, has been highly critical of the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein case and previously called their refusal release more information about Epstein a “line in the sand.”

To be fair to Blanche, though, he has managed to serve his client, and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, well so far.

Yesterday, Maxwell’s attorney, David Markus, submitted his — well-justified — opposition to releasing the grand jury materials for Ghislaine Maxwell’s case, the ones that would feature a broad swath of victims. He as much as conceded that this might have provided a way to review the grand jury files (another benefit Blanche tried to offer), but now that Judge Paul Engelmeyer denied that request, he’s opposed to the unsealing request.

Although the government did not oppose allowing the defense to review the grand jury material to assess whether to object to its release, the Court denied that request. As a result, Ghislaine Maxwell has not seen the material and cannot take an informed position. Given that she is actively litigating her case and does not know what is in the grand jury record, she has no choice but to respectfully oppose the government’s motion to unseal it.

Maxwell’s opposition is likely enough, by itself, to rule against release of the Maxwell transcripts, which would include far more detail than Epstein’s would.

Little noticed is the line in the DOJ filing describing DOJ telling third parties — not victims — if they appear in the grand jury transcripts.

In addition, the Government is in the process of providing notice to any other individuals identified in the transcripts.

Meanwhile, DOJ confessed yesterday that they have still not notified all the victims identified in the transcripts, and only just started to notify the victims covered under the relevant victim notification law.

Seventh, regarding the Government’s approach to victim notification of the instant proceedings, as noted in its July 29 submission, the Government has provided notice of the unsealing motions to all but one of the victims who are referenced in the grand jury transcripts at issue in the motions. The Government still has been unable to contact that remaining victim. With respect to victims who are not identified in the grand jury transcripts but who have previously received victim notifications in the Maxwell and Epstein matters, the Government will over the coming days alert those victims to the fact of the unsealing motions.

That letter was posted the same day as this letter from Brad Edwards, who likely represents the largest number of known victims. He accuses the government of violating the Crime Victims’ Rights Act generally, as well as losing track of some victims who are likely implicated in the Epstein and Maxwell grand juries but only came to be represented by Edwards after their testimony. He describes that “yesterday” (that is, Monday), he contacted the government about the other victims and they responded, which suggests this newfound focus on other victims is a response to Edwards’ efforts.

Given our history fighting for the enforcement of the CVRA on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein’s many victims, we were quite surprised to learn that the government sought the unsealing of grand jury materials before this Court without first conferring with the victims or their counsel, a step required by the CVRA and reinforced by Doe v. United States, 08-80736 (S.D. Fla.). That case, litigated pro bono by undersigned counsel for more than a decade, arose precisely because the government previously violated the rights of many of these very same victims. It is especially troubling that, despite the outcome of that litigation, the government has once again proceeded in a manner that disregards the victims’ rights—suggesting that the hard-learned lessons of the past have not taken hold. This omission reinforces the perception that the victims are, at best, an afterthought to the current administration.

Of significant concern, the same government that failed to provide notice to the victims before moving this Court to unseal the grand jury materials is now the government representing to this Court that it has provided appropriate notice to the victims or their counsel and has conducted a proper review and redaction of the materials it seeks to release. Several clients have contacted us expressing deep anxiety over whether the redactions were in fact adequate. Consequently, we requested yesterday that the government identify which of our clients were referenced to the grand jury. The government responded promptly and provided clarification. However, we have strong reason to believe that additional individuals—whom we also represent—were likely referenced in those materials but were not identified to us by the government.

It remains unclear whether notice was instead provided to prior counsel, whether their omission was a government oversight, whether the government does not consider them to be victims, or whether these individuals were, in fact, not mentioned to the grand jury. Regardless of the explanation, this ambiguity raises a serious issue that must be resolved before any materials are publicly released. [my emphasis]

You know who wouldn’t have fucked up this process? The prosecutor Pam Bondi fired on Trump’s authority just as this cover-up began, Maurene Comey.

The asymmetric treatment is pissing off the victims. Annie Farmer’s attorney describes that the intent to redact third party names “smacks of a cover up.”

Any effort to redact third party names smacks of a cover up. The Government does not elaborate on what protocol it is using to redact other “third party” names or which types of individuals it seeks to protect in this way. To the extent the Government for some reason seeks to redact the names of other Epstein and Maxwell affiliates on the basis that these individuals “neither have been charged or alleged to be involved” in their crimes, the Court should exercise its independent authority to ensure that any redactions are tailored to serve compelling interests. See generally Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019) (even if materials are not considered judicial documents to which a presumption of public access applies, “a court must still articulate specific and substantial reasons for sealing such material”).

I have a feeling Judge Richard Berman (who has been posting victim letters as they come in) will not take kindly to a grand jury unsealing in which people like Donald Trump and Prince Andrew get notice, but the victims do not.

This may change as Congress gets involved. Perhaps in an attempt to stave off the Massie-Khanna bid for true transparency that will ripen over the August recess, James Comer announced a bunch of subpoenas for people not named Alex Acosta or Donald Trump.

Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) announced that he was summoning nearly a dozen former officials to appear for depositions on the Epstein investigation — a list that includes former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Former U.S. Attorneys General William Barr, Alberto Gonzales, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder and Merrick Garland, as well as former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey were also tapped to give testimony in connection to the case.

Comer was required to send the subpoenas after a Democratic-led subcommittee vote in July.

The move is the latest in a broader battle over the Epstein files, which took the Trump administration by storm last month as anger boiled over from within MAGA circles about the administration’s handling of the case.

The committee’s subpoena of Bill Clinton in particular seems more symbolic than substantive. No former president has ever testified to Congress under the compulsion of a subpoena — and lawmakers have tried only twice before: once in 1953, when the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed Harry Truman, and once in 2022, when the Jan. 6 select committee subpoenaed Donald Trump.

While this is the rare Epstein development that Fox has covered, there’s so much about this request that reeks of a cover-up it may well backfire.

But as Lisa Rubin describes, there’s also a subpoena to DOJ — the price of the Clinton testimony — that does make demands that would, among other things, cover the transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell interview.

By ABC’s description, Blanche got Ghislaine to perform like a trained seal, asking her to describe what he did in her presence, but not asking her about what he did when he learned she had “stolen” one of Trump’s spa girls and forced her into sex slavery.

During her nine hours speaking with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche last month, Ghislaine Maxwell said nothing during the interview that would be harmful to President Donald Trump, telling Blanche that Trump had never done anything in her presence that would have caused concern, according to sources familiar with what Maxwell said.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, is considering publicly releasing the transcripts from the interview, multiple sources familiar with the internal discussions told ABC News.

There are a lot of moving parts.

Including Ghislaine, to her new cozier digs, where the other inmates, including one whose daughter was trafficked, are already expressing disgust that Todd Blanche put a sex trafficker among their midst.

Julie Howell, 44, who is serving a one-year sentence for theft, told The Telegraph that “every inmate I’ve heard from is upset she’s here”.

“This facility is supposed to house non-violent offenders,” she added. “Human trafficking is a violent crime.”

[snip]

Inmates at FPC Bryan are worried about their own safety, given the widespread threats against Maxwell and lack of tight security on the prison grounds.

Howell said: “We have heard there are threats against her life and many of us are worried about our own safety because she’s here.”

Her comments will only fuel concern that could be targeted at the facility, preventing her testimony about Epstein from ever seeing the light of day.

Maxwell was allegedly moved under the cover of darkness because she had been “bombarded” with death threats from rapists who accused her of being a “snitch”, according to the Mail on Sunday.

Multiple outlets, including that CNN story, report that Trump’s close advisors think they’ve weathered this crisis because their mobsters — people like Charlie Kirk and Benny Johnson — have been distracted by other things.

One official told CNN that some of the conversation within the White House has focused on whether making the details from the interview public would bring the Epstein controversy back to the surface. Many officials close to Trump believe the story has largely died down.

We shall see.

As I wrote here, Trump and Blanche have the power to silence Maxwell, if the rapists calling her a snitch don’t get to her first.

But the moving parts and sheer cynicism of the cover-up may backfire.

Share this entry

Trump Might Pardon the Sex Trafficker Who “Stole” His Spa Girls and Other Details of the Cover-Up

July 30, 2025/43 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

Much of the traditional press (though not Chris Hayes) has missed the significance of Trump’s confession yesterday that Virginia Giuffre — recruited from Trump’s spa when she was 16 or 17 — was one of the girls that he says Jeffrey Epstein “stole.”

Reporter 1: I’m just curious. Were some of the workers that were taken from you — were some of them young women?

Trump: Were some of them?

Reporter 1: Were some of them young women?

Trump: Well, I don’t wanna say, but everyone knows the people that were taken. It was, the concept of taking people that work for me is bad. But that story’s been pretty well out there. And the answer is, yes, they were.

[inaudible]

Trump: In the spa. People that work in the spa. I have a great spa, one of the best spas in the world at Mar-a-Lago. And people were taken out of the spa. Hired. By him. In other words, gone. And um, other people would come and complain. This guy is taking people from the spa. I didn’t know that. And then when I heard about it I told him, I said, listen, we don’t want you taking our people, whether they were spa or not spa. I don’t want him taking people. And he was fine and then not too long after that he did it again and I said Out of here.

Reporter 2: Mr. President, did one of those stolen persons, did that include Virginia Giuffre?

Trump: Uh, I don’t know. I think she worked at the spa. I think so. I think that was one of the people, yeah. He stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know. None whatsoever.

Many, for example are forgetting what Trump said the day before: Epstein “stole” one of Trump’s girls, Trump told him to stop, and Epstein did it again.

What caused the breach with him? Very easy to explain. But I don’t want to waste your time by explaining it. But for years I wouldn’t talk to Jeffrey Epstein. I wouldn’t talk. Because he did something that was inappropriate. He hired help. And I said, don’t ever do that again. He stole people that worked for me. I said, don’t ever do that again. He did it again. And I threw him out of the place. Persona non grata. I threw him out. And that was it.

To tell Epstein to stop doing something, Trump would have had to have known he was doing something.

And the “it” is made much more clear by what “the Mar-a-Lago” told Page Six in 2007, even before Epstein had signed the sweetheart non-prosecution agreement.

Meanwhile, the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach last night confirmed a Web site report that Epstein has been banned there. “He would use the spa to try to procure girls. But one of them, a masseuse about 18 years old, he tried to get her to do things,” a source told us. “Her father found out about it and went absolutely ape-[bleep]. Epstein’s not allowed back.” Epstein denies he is banned from Mar-a-Lago and says, in fact, he was recently invited to an event there.

Before the full extent of Epstein’s abuse was public, someone at Mar-a-Lago wanted to make it clear that when Epstein did “procure girls … he tried to get her to do things.”

This member’s daughter who was “about 18,” was at least the second girl Trump learned about.

The first (or who knows? maybe she wasn’t the first!) was Giuffre.

The second (at least) was the member’s daughter.

Having now confirmed that Giuffre was among the “girls” Epstein would try to “procure” from Trump’s spa, it makes both Trump’s public acknowledgement to New York Magazine (two years after Ghislaine Maxwell “stole” Giuffre) that Epstein liked his so-called women “on the younger side” and the smutty letter sent a few months later reflected knowledge that Epstein was fucking girls.

“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,” the note began.

Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.

Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.

Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?

Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.

Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.

Not just any girls, but his girls. Trump’s girls, from his spa.

And Trump is so furious that Ghislaine Maxwell stole girls from his spa that he’s saying the same thing about a pardon for her that he said about pardons for Paul Manafort and Roger Stone before he rewarded for their lies about him, that he won’t rule it out.

By all appearances, Trump will pardon the woman who stole his girls. That’s how furious he is that she groomed at least two of his girls and tried — successfully in Giuffre’s case — to turn her into a sex slave.

Meanwhile, now that Trump has placated much of the press, the cover-up continues apace. In a letter David Markus sent to James Comer (but not Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia — Markus was leaving nothing to chance) he said that Ghislaine would only testify to the House Oversight Committee if she:

Got formal immunity
Got the questions in advance
After she tests her luck with SCOTUS (in which case she won’t need to spill secrets to get out of prison)
If she gets clemency for the things she’ll say

In other words, she’ll only testify if that’s the only way she can leverage what she knows.

Comer immediately declined, meaning Trump faces no risk that Ghislaine’s silence will disrupt the cover-up.

Meanwhile, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, and Jay Clayton (but not even the AUSA who filed an appearance) have confessed that they are engaged in a headfake. Their response to Richard Berman and Paul Engelmeyer falsely claims that the interest in these transcripts arose from the memo Pam Bondi released and not the inflammatory comments and promises Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino made.

Attention given to the Epstein and Maxwell cases has recently intensified in the wake of the July 6, 2025 Memorandum announcing the conclusions of the Government’s review into the investigation

They minimize the concerns about victim testimony because just two people testified.

Here, there was one witness—an FBI agent—during the Epstein grand jury proceedings. There were two witnesses—the same FBI agent from the Epstein grand jury proceedings and a detective with the NYPD who was a Task Force Officer with the FBI’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force—during the Maxwell grand jury proceedings.

Both witnesses are still alive; the FBI agent continues to be an agent with the FBI, and the Detective continues to be a Detective with the NYPD as well as a Task Force Officer.

Consistent with applicable rules concerning the admissibility of hearsay testimony, the grand jury witnesses described statements of others, including statements of and concerning victims, many of whom are still alive.

They admit they’ll redact the names of the third parties who enabled Epstein (which they wouldn’t necessarily have to do if they released the files in their custody).

[T]he grand jury transcripts contain victim-related and other personal identifying information related to third parties who neither have been charged or alleged to be involved in the crimes with which Epstein and Maxwell were charged, to which the Government is sensitive, and which is why the Government proposes redacting the transcripts before releasing them.

But they are providing notice to those people.

In addition, the Government is in the process of providing notice to any other individuals identified in the transcripts.

They appear to suggest that they’re not providing all the grand jury transcripts to the judges — just the underlying material.

The Court directed the Government to submit: (1) indices of Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials, including a brief summary, the number of pages, and dates; (2) a complete set of the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury transcripts; (3) a complete proposed redacted set of the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury transcripts; and (4) a description of any other Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials, including, but not limited to, exhibits. (Epstein Dkt. 63 at 3; Maxwell Dkt. 789 at 3). As to the final category, the Government provides a description of all of the underlying materials presented to the grand jury as well as copies of, and proposed redactions to, certain materials presented to the grand jury. [my emphasis]

They definitely don’t answer a question both judges asked: whether DOJ had asked the victims before filing this response.

The Court also directed the Government to state whether, “before filing the instant motion, counsel for the Government reviewed the Maxwell grand jury transcripts and whether the Government provided notice to the victims of the motion to unseal,”

[snip]

In addition, the Government has now provided notice to all but one of the victims who are referenced in the grand jury transcripts at issue in this motion. The Government has attempted to contact the remaining victim, but such efforts have been unsuccessful. In addition, the Government is in the process of providing notice to any other individuals identified in the transcripts.

Having not done that (and not yet spoken to one of the victims), they ask for a chance to respond to the victims’ comments about this ploy — which they should have asked about before they started it — after they file sealed responses.

[T]he Government also respectfully requests leave to file a supplemental submission once the Government and the Court have received any filings from the victims or others referenced in the transcripts.

The only thing this exercise is “transparency” has done so far is to share grand jury information with people implicated, but not charged, in Epstein’s actions.

Note, one person specifically implicated in Epstein’s crimes is Prince Andrew. To the extent he was investigated and possibly even charged under seal — which is the most obvious explanation for why he wouldn’t travel — the DOJ letter would create the appearance of a clean bill of health. But it could be buried in a different grand jury and we’d never even know.

Update: This is a very good CNN piece, including a long focus on how hard this is on the victims.

Share this entry

Todd Blanche’s Unsealing Request in Florida Was Designed to Fail

July 25, 2025/37 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

I know, right? Todd Blanche’s unsealing request in SDNY is also designed to fail.

But I want to look at how the denial went down in SDFL. Not only did Judge Robin Rosenberg make sure to get DOJ to reaffirm it knew it was asking her to do something it could not do, but she made a point of saying that the request to unseal two grand jury dockets — one from 2007, the year of the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal — is not related to the SDNY dockets, because DOJ is not conducting any investigation in those SDNY dockets.

The original request acknowledges this won’t work

Blanche’s original request to unseal — he names two grand juries, one (05-02) before the Alex Acosta plea deal and one (07-103) the same year — differs from the SDNY ones in several ways.

First, SDFL’s US Attorney, Hayden O’Byrne, signed and filed the court filings. Blanche adds language to say that DOJ would work with SDFL to make redactions of victim-related information if the grand jury transcripts were released.

Second, Blanche acknowledges that he’s requesting transcripts “associated with grand jury investigations,” as opposed to indictments.

Third, Blanche includes a paragraph noting that under 11th Circuit precedent, SDFL can’t release grand jury transcripts.

The Department of Justice recognizes that this Court is bound by Pitch v. United States [citation omitted] (district courts lack inherent, supervisory power to authorize the disclosure of grand jury records outside of exceptions enumerated in Rule 6(a)(3)). Nevertheless, the Department raises this argument due to the significance of the matter and to preserve it for any potential appeal.

Pitch is a 2020 decision in which the 11th Circuit rejected a historian’s effort to unseal grand jury transcripts about the investigation into a 1946 lynching, during a period when J. Edgar Hoover was reluctant to bring cases on lynching.

Judge Rosenberg asks how Blanche thinks this could work

In response, Judge Robin Rosenberg (an Obama appointee) instructs DOJ to clarify a few things. First, she asks whether DOJ thinks this request falls under any of the exceptions under Pitch, that 11th Circuit precedent.

The rule of secrecy is subject to exceptions, but in this Circuit, there are only five–that is, there are five, limited exceptions under which a district court may authorize the disclosure of grand jury materials. [citation omitted]

It is unclear from the Petition whether the government is arguing that any of the five exceptions applies to its request.

[snip]

In supplemental briefing, the Government shall clarify whether (1) it concedes that this Court must deny the Petition under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent, but that it nonetheless seeks an order from this Court so that it may file an appeal; or (2) it argues that an exception applies that would permit this Court to grant the Government’s Petition, together with legal argument in support of same.

She then asks whether there’s any reason to believe that a grand juries from 2005 and 2007 arose out of the one in SDNY, which is the only way she could transfer it.

Because the Florida Proceedings appear to have been initiated many years prior to the New York Proceedings, any argument that the Florida Proceedings nonetheless arose out of the New York Proceedings must be accompanied with an explanation and with legal argument in support of the same.

[snip]

Alternatively, if, under applicable law, there is no legal basis to transfer the Petition, the Government should clearly state the same.

Basically, Rosenberg was just forcing the government to concede that they were asking her to do something she could not.

SDFL attempts to claim Rosenberg has the authority

The response from SDFL (it’s not clear who is behind this response; O’Byrne signed it with an electronic signature) answers Rosenberg’s questions in reverse. First, SDFL claims that Rosenberg should transfer the case, because the petition arises out of those much later indictments.

This Petition to Disclose (filed July 18, 2025) arises out of two highly publicized judicial proceedings in the Southern District of New York: the indictment and criminal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein [citation omitted], and the subsequent federal criminal indictment, trial, and conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York [citation omitted]. Indeed, the relief sought in this petition is ancillary to the relief sought in those cases.

Then, SDFL answers Rosenberg’s first question — conceding she has no authority to release the grand jury materials, but then citing irrelevant precedent claiming she could anyway.

Consistent with its petition, the government recognizes the Eleventh Circuit precedent holds that no exception outside those expressly enumerated under Criminal Rule 6(e)(3) authorizes a court to publicly disclosure grand jury materials. [citation to Pitch omitted] The government also recognizes that, in this circuit, only an en banc decision or the Supreme Court may overrule that decision.

That said, decisions from other circuits support public disclosure of grand jury materials under “special circumstances,” including when a matter possess historical interest by the public.

Rosenberg notes that the New York proceeding is irrelevant

After reviewing the posture of the case, Rosenberg responds in the same order she posed the question. She notes that the exceptions SDFL cited are not among those under which she would have the authority under Eleventh Circuit precedent to release the transcripts.

The Government’s Petition to unseal the grand jury transcripts is not based on any of the exceptions in Rule 6. Instead, the Government makes two arguments outside Rule 6. First, the Government argues that disclosure is proper because “many of the rationales supporting grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e) no longer apply to this investigation because of Jeffrey Epstein’s death.” Supp. Br. at 5. It further argues that “the public’s strong interest in th[e] historical investigation into Jeffrey Epstein constitutes a special circumstance justifying public disclosure.”

[snip]

Contrary to the Government’s stated basis and the Second and Seventh Circuits,1 the Eleventh Circuit has directly held that a district court “do[es] not possess … the power to order the release of grand jury records not covered by Rule 6(e)(3)(E).

[snip]

The government does not assert that disclosure is appropriate under any exception in Rule 6(e)(3)(E).

[snip]

The Government concedes as much in its Petition.

1. A district court is bound by the decisions of its intermediate appellate court. That is, this court, the Southern District of Florida, is bound by the decisions of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

I assume Rosenberg provided that elementary language about precedent for readers who don’t know how this works, but I can’t help but hear some scolding at DOJ for trying to confuse the issue.

She then denies the request to transfer the case, in significant part because Blanche is not asking to transfer the grand jury proceedings to support an ongoing investigation in SDNY.

The Government’s request for transfer does not arise out of a judicial proceeding; the Government does not seek the disclosure of evidence for itself. Indeed, the Government provided the evidence sought to be unsealed with the Petition. Consistent with the fact that the Government does not need the evidence, it has not filed the Petition for the purpose of prosecution4 the New York Federal Proceedings — the trial-level proceedings concluded years ago. Similarly, the Government has not filed the Petition because unsealing the evidence is necessary for the proper litigation of the New York Federal Proceedings.

[snip]

Further, the text of the Petition sources the need for the Petition in the Government’s recent public memorandum summarizing its investigation into Mr. Epstein. Pet. at 1 (“[T]he Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a memorandum describing an internal [sic exhaustive] review undertaken of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein.”) Because that memorandum resulted in great public interest, the Government filed the instant Petition. Id. {[T]here has been extensive public interest in the basis for the Memorandum’s conclusions.”) As such, the request to unseal arises from the Government’s internal investigation, from its public statements about that investigation, and from great public interest in the investigation, but it does not arise from the New York Federal Proceedings themselves. The Government has not filed the Petition in response to a pleading, objecting, strategy or ruling in the New York Federal Proceedings, and it does not state that it will use the unsealed evidence in furtherance of any case-related objective. The trial proceedings have concluded.

And with that, she denied the request and ordered that this case “should be directly assigned to the undersigned,” just in case anyone else in the District tried to poach the case, I guess.

At one level, I think by forcing the secondary briefing, Rosenberg forced DOJ to concede that they knew they were making a request she had to reject. She’s not going to take the fall for this.

More interesting, though, is that second grand jury, the one from the same year that Epstein signed a plea deal eliminating any possibility of further charges for him or his co-conspirators (including Ghislaine Maxwell) in SDFL. Todd Blanche is claiming that it pertains to Jeffrey Epstein personally. I’m not sure whether it does or not.

Update: Per the Office of Professional Responsibility summary of the Alex Acosta investigation, there was a 60-count indictment in SDFL in May 2007. It’s possible the prosecutor needed to get a second grand jury after the first expired. Or it could be something else.

In May 2007, the AUSA submitted to her supervisors a draft 60-count indictment outlining charges against Epstein. She also provided a lengthy memorandum summarizing the evidence she had assembled in support of the charges and addressing the legal issues related to the proposed charges.

Update: I failed to note that Seamus Hughes found this docket.

Share this entry

Judge Richard Berman Had to Remind Todd Blanche to Think of Jeffrey Epstein’s Victims

July 23, 2025/32 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

In response to his motions to unseal grand jury testimony in the Epstein and Maxwell dockets, Judges Richard Berman and Paul Engelmayer (who got the case on reassignment from Alison Nathan, who is now at Second Circuit) gave Blanche a homework assignment.

[T]he Court cannot rule on the motion without additional submissions.

[snip]

The Second Circuit has identified the following as a non-exhaustive list of factors for district courts to weigh in considering applications for disclosure:

the identity of the party seeking disclosure;

whether the defendant to the grand jury proceeding or the Government opposes the disclosure;

why disclosure is being sought in the particular case;

what specific information is being sought for disclosure;

the current status of the principals of the grand jury proceedings and that of their families;

the extent to which the desired material — either permissibly or impermissibly — has been previously made public;

whether witnesses to the grand jury proceedings who might be affected by the disclosure are still alive; and

[whether there is an] additional need for maintaining secrecy in the particular case in question.

The letters are largely identical. They both ask, for example, whether Blanche bothered to notify the victims.

The Court also directs the Government to state in the memorandum whether, before filing the instant motion, counsel for the Government reviewed the [Epstein/Maxwell] grand jury transcripts and whether the Government provided notice to the victims of the motion to unseal.

Berman, who had this to say at the hearing on dismissing the indictment against Epstein, added one detail.

The victims have been included in the proceeding today both because of their relevant experiences and because they should always be involved before rather than after the fact.

In his unsealing memo, Blanche cited the DOJ/FBI memo attempting to shut all this down, focusing on whether there was evidence to predicate a case.

On July 6, 2025, the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a memorandum describing an exhaustive review undertaken of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein (the “Memorandum”).1 The Memorandum detailed the steps taken by the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether evidence existed that could predicate an investigation into uncharged third parties.

1. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl?inline.

It took Judge Berman, in his paragraph instructing victims to weigh in by August 5, to also mention the later reference in the DOJ/FBI letter”

See Gov’t Motion at 1 n.1. (This is a 2 page, undated, unsigned U.S. Department of Justice and Federal bureau of Investigation memo. According to the Government, “Epstein harmed over one thousand victims. Each suffered unique trauma. Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials. This includes specific details such as victim names and likenesses, physical descriptions, places of birth, associates, and employment history.”)

Todd Blanche — the President’s defense attorney — was focused on declaring uncharged third parties free of criminal liability. Berman had to remind him that DOJ claimed this is about victims.

A SDNY AUSA, Jeffrey Oestericher, who is representing the government in some of the high profile immigration cases, has joined these dockets. Sadly, Blanche won’t have to do this homework assignment himself. Because I bet that after firing Maurene Comey, it will take some time to do the victim notification that DOJ did not do.

Remember, too, that Blanche said he was making a similar request in SDFL, but thus far it has not been identified yet. For all we know Aileen Cannon could be intervening here without public notice!

Incidentally, the 2019 transcript is worth perusing for the victims’ statements, as well as the way that Comey spoke of the victims and vice versa.

I would also like to note that, as the government has previously mentioned, this dismissal in no way lessens the government’s resolve to stand up for the victims in this case, both those who have come forward and those who have yet to do so. We agree with your Honor’s sentiment that those victims should be respected, and we appreciate your Honor’s recognition of that.

[snip]

[Brad Edwards] And on behalf of all of victims, I would like to thank your Honor for the fairness with which they’ve been treated, and the United States Attorney’s office for the way in which you have handled this investigation, and especially how you have treated the victims in this case.

[snip]

[David Boies] I want to, as prior counsel have, commend both the Court and counsel for the Department of Justice for the consideration and respect and attention that they have paid to the victims. We believe that that is not only right, as a matter of human dignity, but we think that is exactly what the law requires and intends.

Update: This, from Lawrence O’Donnell, notes that the only one Trump has said anything nice about was Ghislaine Maxwell.

Share this entry

Trump’s Defense Attorney Todd Blanche Will Meet with Sex Trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell to Make a Deal for His Client

July 22, 2025/129 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

Trump Defense Attorney Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi just announced that Blanche will meet with Ghislaine Maxwell and discuss potential cooperation deals with her.

Statement from @DAGToddBlanche: This Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable truths, nor from the responsibility to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead. The joint statement by the DOJ and FBI of July 6 remains as accurate today as it was when it was written. Namely, that in the recent thorough review of the files maintained by the FBI in the Epstein case, no evidence was uncovered that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. President Trump has told us to release all credible evidence. If Ghislane Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say. Therefore, at the direction of Attorney General Bondi, I have communicated with counsel for Ms. Maxwell to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the Department. I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days. Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now.

Justice demands courage. For the first time, the Department of Justice is reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell to ask: what do you know? At @AGPamBondi’s direction, I’ve contacted her counsel. I intend to meet with her soon. No one is above the law—and no lead is off-limits.

So here’s what happened.

Maxwell delayed her appeal to SCOTUS until after the inauguration. Trump’s DOJ twice delayed the decision whether they were going to defend the appeal, finally filing their response on Monday.

That day, Maxwell’s defense attorney, David Markus, insinuated that Trump was reneging on a deal.

In a statement Monday, an attorney for Maxwell hinted at the swirling controversy surrounding the Trump administration’s decision not to release any further records related to investigations of Epstein.

“I’d be surprised if President Trump knew his lawyers were asking the Supreme Court to let the government break a deal. He’s the ultimate dealmaker—and I’m sure he’d agree that when the United States gives its word, it should keep it. With all the talk about who’s being prosecuted and who isn’t, it’s especially unfair that Ghislaine Maxwell remains in prison based on a promise the government made and broke,” wrote David Oscar Markus.

The next day, Tuesday, WSJ moved forward with a story implicating Trump in “daily secrets” with Jeffrey Epstein.

The following day, Wednesday, Pam Bondi fired Maurene Comey, the prosecutor who would be competent to assess any cooperation offered from Maxwell.

Friday, in a false show of transparency, Todd Blanche (filing under his defense attorney identity) moved to unseal grand jury transcripts that DOJ has in a form it could release immediately.

Meanwhile, Trump’s DNI Tulsi Gabbard created a false diversion to distract his rubes.

Yesterday, the Speaker of the House ceded his majority for a week to give Trump “space” to cover up his pedophile problem.

My belief is we need the administration to have the space to do what it is doing,

And today, Trump’s Defense Attorney Todd Blanche announces he will meet with Maxwell soon to make the kind of deal that could excuse releasing her early. Probably, he’ll ask her to implicate someone like Bill Clinton.

Absent that deal, it seems clear, the WSJ will continue to publish stories implicating the President in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking.

Update: Markus, in his Tweet about the deal, does Trump a real solid by suggesting Trump is taking action to “uncover the truth.”

I can confirm that we are in discussions with the government and that Ghislaine will always testify truthfully. We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.” David Oscar Markus We have no other comment at this time.

Update: Oversight just agreed to subpoena Maxwell for a deposition in a voice vote. This could complicate Blanche’s plans.

Timeline:

February 16, 2017: Alex Acosta nominated Secretary of Labor.

July 2, 2019: Jeffrey Epstein indicted.

July 12, 2019: Alex Acosta resigns.

August 10, 2019: Epstein dies by suicide.

June 20, 2020: Geoffrey Berman fired.

June 29, 2020: Ghislaine Maxwell indicted.

March 29, 2021: Superseding indictment.

November 16, 2021: Jury selection begins.

December 29, 2021: Maxwell convicted on 5 of 6 counts.

February 28, 2023: Maxwell appeals.

September 17, 2024: Second Circuit rejects appeal.

January 15, 2025: Maxwell delays appeal.

February 10, 2025: Dan Bongino promises he’ll never let Epstein story go.

February 21, 2025: Pam Bondi claims Epstein client list is on her desk.

February 27, 2025: Bondi orchestrates re-release of previously released Epstein files.

March 4, 2025: James Dennehy forced to retire.

March 14, 2025: Pam Bondi conducts emergency review of Epstein and Maxwell documents.

April 10, 2025: Maxwell files cert petition.

April 25, 2025: Virginia Giuffre dies by suicide.

May 7, 2025: John Sauer delays response; Bondi claims there are thousands of videos.

May 18, 2025: Kash Patel and Dan Bongino affirm that Epstein killed himself.

May 22, 2025: Epstein prison video created.

June 6, 2025: John Sauer delays response.

July 7, 2025: Pam Bondi claims there’s no there there.

July 8, 2025: Trump loses it over questions about Epstein.

July 12, 2025: Trump attempts to claim Epstein is a Democratic plot.

July 14, 2025: DOJ defends Maxwell prosecution; David Markus suggests Trump is reneging on a deal.

July 15, 2025: WSJ interviews Trump about Epstein book.

July 16, 2025: Pam Bondi fires Maurene Comey, on Trump’s personal authority.

July 17, 2025: Trump yells at supporters who won’t move on from Epstein. WSJ publishes story.

July 18, 2025: Todd Blanche files to unseal grand jury materials; Trump sues WSJ.

July 21, 2025: Mike Johnson dodges week of work to give Trump “space” to fix his Epstein problem.

July 22, 2025: Blanche announces he’ll meet with Maxwell; Oversight votes to subpoena Maxwell for deposition.

Share this entry

Why Is Todd Blanche Risking the Conviction of a Sex Trafficker Rather Than Use Fruits of Already-Completed Review?

July 20, 2025/51 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

As I’ve mentioned, Todd Blanche was in such a rush to ask a judge to unseal Jeffrey Epstein grand jury files that he didn’t update his SDNY filing profile first. As a result, his request to unseal grand jury records was filed under the identity he had when formally serving as Donald Trump’s defense attorney: Todd Blanche, Blanche Law, a firm set up exclusively to serve Trump.

In his request to unseal the files, Blanche waves away the concern that unsealing these files should wait until Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal has been exhausted.

While the Government recognizes that Maxwell’s case is currently pending before the Supreme Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari, it nonetheless moves this Court for relief due to the intense public scrutiny into this matter.

As Josh Gerstein noted, in a filing submitted in a FOIA lawsuit last year, Maurene Comey described at great length the risks posed by releasing files before Maxwell’s appeals are exhausted.

12. As noted above, the Maxwell criminal prosecution is still pending on appeal. If the Second Circuit grants Maxwell the relief she seeks, there could be a new trial. Therefore, public disclosure of the FBI’s records relating to the investigation and prosecution of Epstein that were withheld in full or in part under Exemption 7(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with the pending prosecution of Maxwell.

[snip]

14. Public disclosure of the first category of records, identified in the First Seidel Declaration as Evidentiary/Investigative Materials, could reasonably be expected to interfere with the pending prosecution of Maxwell. As noted in paragraphs 61 through 63 of the First Seidel Declaration, this first category includes copies of records or evidence, analysis of that evidence, and derivative communications summarizing or otherwise referencing evidence. Those records or evidence include, among other things: business records (for example, phone records, travel records, financial records, and shipping records) gathered during criminal investigations, including through the service of grand jury subpoenas, and analysis of those records; documents and evidence provided by witnesses to law enforcement; documents regarding witness background information (for example, criminal history records, medical records, employment records, social media records, and educational records); reports, notes, or transcripts of witness statements; and communications with and about witnesses. The documents contained in this category include confidential witness statements from dozens of witnesses, and the discussion of evidence among members of law enforcement. The release of these records to the public risks the following harms to the pending prosecution of Maxwell:

a. Impact on Witness Testimony: Premature disclosure of the business records and witness statements within this category (including disclosure of analysis and summaries of those materials) could reasonably be expected to influence potential witnesses’ testimony at trial. These records include details that are not publicly known or known to other witnesses, and include information and documents authored by and about potential witnesses. Because the majority of the records in this category were not introduced as public exhibits during Maxwell’s first trial, they remain non-public, though the Government may still seek to introduce them should Maxwell be granted a retrial. The premature release of these materials could influence the testimony of witnesses by providing the opportunity for witnesses to shape their testimony to conform with other evidence gathered during the investigation, including both records and witness statements. For example, witnesses may shade their testimony to match the descriptions of events and places given by other witnesses about whom they might not otherwise know, or witnesses may shade their testimony to match the timing of travel, financial transactions, phone calls, and/or shipments reflected in the records. In order to preserve the independent integrity of its witnesses’ testimony, the Government has worked to ensure that its witnesses are not exposed to other parts of its investigative file, the accounts of other witnesses, or the full scope of exhibits it may offer at a retrial. The release of these materials would undermine the Government’s efforts to present witness testimony that is uninfluenced by exposure to other evidence in the case and can therefore be independently corroborated by other witness accounts and exhibits at trial. Additionally, premature release of witness statements and background materials in this category could prevent the Government from effectively questioning witnesses in a manner that would allow jurors to assess their credibility because the witnesses may have already viewed records that counsel may use for impeachment purposes, including witness background materials, witness statements, and business records that might contradict witnesses’ testimony.

b. Impact on Witnesses’ Willingness to Testify: The business records, witness statements, and witness background materials within this category (including summaries and analysis thereof) contain sensitive personal and private information about dozens of potential witnesses, including some witnesses who testified at Maxwell’s first trial and many witnesses who were not called at Maxwell’s first trial, but who may be called to testify if Maxwell is granted a retrial. By their very nature, all of the witness statements and witness background materials necessarily include identifying information and sensitive details regarding numerous witnesses. Similarly, the business records—including financial records, travel records, phone records, and shipping records—include the names, addresses, phone numbers, and other identifying information of numerous witnesses. The public release of this information could lead to the identification and intimidation of witnesses, who may decline to cooperate with the parties and be disinclined to testify if their personal information is released to the public. Indeed, multiple witnesses at Maxwell’s first trial testified under pseudonyms or just their first name to protect their privacy. Those same witnesses likely would not have agreed to testify if their identities or sensitive information about them were publicly revealed. The premature release of these records could reasonably be expected to interfere with a potential retrial of Maxwell by causing witnesses to be identified in the media and face embarrassment and potential harassment from members of the public as a result. Should these records be released, many witnesses, including some witnesses who agreed to testify at Maxwell’s first trial and others who did not testify at Maxwell’s first trial but may be called at a retrial, may decline to cooperate in trial preparation with the Government and may refuse to testify at a retrial. This outcome is likely because many witnesses only agreed to cooperate with the Government’s investigation because they understood that the Government would take every effort to protect their privacy.

c. Impact on Jury: Premature public disclosure of the records withheld under Exemption 7(A) within this first category, including those which the Government anticipates will be entered into evidence at trial, could reasonably be expected to further impair the Government’s pending prosecution of Maxwell by affecting its ability to present its case in court in any Maxwell retrial because it risks prejudicing the jury pool. As noted above, the majority of records in this category—including phone records, bank records, travel records, and shipping records—were not admitted into evidence at Maxwell’s first trial. Similarly, many witnesses whose statements and background information fall within this category did not testify at Maxwell’s first trial. The premature release of these materials risks prejudicing the jury pool so as to hinder the Government’s ability to present its case in court in two distinct respects. First, to the extent materials within this category are never admitted at a retrial, the jury may wonder why those materials were absent from the trial and may suspect the Government of trying to hide evidence from the jury, causing jurors to draw an unwarranted adverse inference against the Government. In this scenario, the jury may also improperly consider publicly released materials that were not introduced as evidence at the trial in their deliberations. The materials in this category, including business records and witness statements, may seem relevant to a layperson but may be inadmissible at trial for various reasons under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Potential jurors’ consideration of the records that are being withheld under Exemption 7(A) but will not be presented at trial may impact the consideration jurors give to the actual evidence presented by the Government. If some or all of this evidence is excluded at trial, pre-trial publication of these materials would risk exposing potential jurors to material they would otherwise not be shown during trial, which risks unduly influencing jurors’ views of the case and would impair the Government’s ability to effectively and fairly present its case in court. Second, if materials within this category are admitted at trial after being prematurely released, members of the jury could have preconceived notions of that evidence’s relevance or importance. This is especially concerning given the intense media scrutiny surrounding the Maxwell case and commentary that is likely to follow the release of any records of substance from the investigative file.

Of course, Ms. Comey was fired on Wednesday, as Trump waited for the WSJ story on his ties to Epstein to drop. So now Blanche can do whatever he wants with this case, without anyone to protect the equities of the prosecution.

And the grand jury request is not only completely unnecessary, but it represents a colossal waste of the time that Pam Bondi already invested when she ordered up to 1,000 people to spend reviewing the FBI case files in March.

Bondi could release those files without involving a judge. But she’s not. She’s going to instead meddle with grand jury records, a smaller subset of the whole, but one that could do more damage if Maxwell wins a retrial.

Donald Trump can’t pardon Maxwell, in spite of his past expression of well wishes for the sex trafficker, because his mob would go nuts.

But Todd Blanche could do something to intentionally fuck up her case.

Share this entry

Trump’s Deep State Can’t Even Deep State Competently

July 11, 2025/39 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

I was and still intend to write a post arguing that all of the coverage of this comment from Trump is wrong. As I rant on Nicole Sandler’s show today, what we saw in these few moments was Trump, whose super power is in being able to command attention, not only failing that, but flubbing his lines when he tried to reassert his command over attention focused on Jeffrey Epstein.

The conspiracy theorists who put Trump in office will not let him take ahold of this conspiracy.

What we see in this exchange is — more than at any time in the last ten years, I argue — Trump’s super power of commanding where people focus their attention failing him.

So I want to write about how everyone is getting this wrong.

But first, I want to talk about how Trump’s Deep State can’t even Deep State competently.

Trump’s attempt to tamp this down, predictably, had the opposite effect, both because infighting over who fucked up the incompetent attempt to tamp it down, and the conspiracy theories that have arisen in the void.

Conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer is at the pivot of both worlds, and she’s playing her part to perfection. She started things today by revealing that Dan Bongino — who actually doesn’t like how hard he has to work at FBI anyway — complaining about how the memo that attempted but failed to tamp all this down happened.

That led Todd Blanche, fresh off his efforts to make the Erez Reuveni disclosures worse, to weigh in, claiming there was no dispute about how to release the Epstein memo.

Meanwhile, Marc Caputo — who has close ties with Susie Wiles from way back — debunks Blanche’s claim of harmony, describing that Wiles and Taylor Budowich witnessed anything but.

The intrigue: MAGA influencer Laura Loomer, a Bondi critic, first reported Friday on X that Bongino left work and that he and Patel were “furious” with the way Bondi had handled the case.

Some Trump advisers have criticized Bondi, but Trump “loves Pam and thinks she’s great,” a senior White House official said.

Those witnessing the Wednesday clash between Bondi and Bongino in the White House were Patel, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich.

The more important part of Caputo’s report, though, is that insiders blame Bongino for the “missing minute,” which provided the nutters reason to doubt the entire effort to tamp all this down.

Zoom in: At the center of the argument: a surveillance video from outside Epstein’s cell that the administration released, saying it was proof no one had entered the room before he killed himself.

The 10-hour video had what has widely been called a “missing minute,” fueling conspiracy theories in MAGA’s online world about a cover-up involving Epstein’s death.

The “missing minute,” authorities say, stemmed from an old surveillance recording system that goes down each day at midnight to reset and record anew. It takes a minute for that process to occur, which effectively means that 60 seconds of every day aren’t recorded.

Bongino — who had pushed Epstein conspiracy theories as a MAGA-friendly podcast host before President Trump appointed him to help lead the FBI — had found the video and touted it publicly and privately as proof that Epstein hadn’t been murdered.

That conclusion — shared by FBI Director Kash Patel, another conspiracy theorist-turned-insider — angered many in Trump’s MAGA base, criticism that increased after Axios first reported the release of the video and a related memo.

After the video’s “missing minute” was discovered, Bongino was blamed internally for the oversight, according to three sources.

Only, complaints about the video are only going to get worse. Wired describes that the metadata shows the video has been altered.

The “raw” file shows clear signs of having been processed using an Adobe product, most likely Premiere, based on metadata that specifically references file extensions used by the video editing software. According to experts, Adobe software, including Premiere and Photoshop, leaves traces in exported files, often embedding metadata that logs which assets were used and what actions were taken during editing. In this case, the metadata indicates the file was saved at least four times over a 23-minute span on May 23, 2025, by a Windows user account called “MJCOLE~1.” The metadata does not show whether the footage was modified before each time it was saved.

The embedded data suggest the video is not a continuous, unaltered export from a surveillance system, but a composite assembled from at least two separate MP4 files. The metadata includes references to Premiere project files and two specific source clips—2025-05-22 21-12-48.mp4 and 2025-05-22 16-35-21.mp4. These entries appear under a metadata section labeled “Ingredients,” part of Adobe’s internal schema for tracking source material used in edited exports. The metadata does not make clear where in the video the two clips were spliced together.

Hany Farid, a professor at UC Berkeley whose research focuses on digital forensics and misinformation, reviewed the metadata at WIRED’s request. Farid is a recognized expert in the analysis of digital images and the detection of manipulated media, including deepfakes. He has testified in numerous court cases involving digital evidence.

Farid says the metadata raises immediate concerns about chain of custody—the documented handling of digital evidence from collection to presentation in a courtroom. Just like physical evidence, he explains, digital evidence must be handled in a way that preserves its integrity; metadata, while not always precise, can provide important clues about whether that integrity has been compromised.

“If a lawyer brought me this file and asked if it was suitable for court, I’d say no. Go back to the source. Do it right,” Farid says. “Do a direct export from the original system—no monkey business.”

Farid points to another anomaly: The video’s aspect ratio shifts noticeably at several points. “Why am I suddenly seeing a different aspect ratio?” he asks.

It is abundantly likely that all of this is easily explained. I noted in my first post that the missing minute probably comes from MCC’s ancient surveillance equipment. And it sounds like someone packaged this up for Bongino.

Of course, none of that is going to matter if and when people confirm that the video doesn’t even show Epstein’s cell, as multiple people claim.

Every single wrinkle will only serve to feed the conspiracy theorists whose attention Trump cannot manage to command.

Here’s the thing, though. I think Bondi probably did shut down these investigations because they are inconvenient to Trump. Maybe it stems from nothing more than Trump’s demand to command attention; maybe it has to do with the known connections between Trump and the abuser looking damning no matter how close or far Trump is to the rape.

But because the Deputy Director of the FBI, an agency with thousands of people with expertise on this kind of thing, couldn’t manage to find someone who could hold his hand and explain basic things like chain of custody, they have all made it far, far worse.

Trump’s Deep State can’t even Deep State competently.

Update: The date of the saved video (May 23) was between the date when Bongino and Kash told Bartiromo that Epstein killed himself and the date when Bongino told Fox the FBI was going to release the video but first was, “taking time to clean up and enhance the video.”

Share this entry

“Fuck You:” Todd Blanche Continues to Flopsweat over Emil Bove’s Contempt

July 11, 2025/16 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

Among the flood of new developments (two sets of communications from Erez Reuveni corroborating his whistleblower complaint: one, two) and developments (DOJ’s continued obfuscation regarding the fate of Kilmar Abrego Garcia) detailing DOJ’s abuse of detentions, there are several details that put Todd Blanche in the thick of unlawful efforts to deport men with tattoos.

Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You

The communications Reuveni shared with the Senate Judiciary Committee that were released yesterday confirm that Reuveni has at least two witnesses with whom he discussed the “fuck you” comment Reuveni has attributed to Bove, which Bove, at his confirmation hearing, claimed he couldn’t recall but which he did not deny

For example, Reuveni produced texts between him and an unnamed colleague discussing Drew Ensign’s claimed ignorance of deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act at an emergency hearing before James Boasberg. Reuveni describes that they were “About to enter the find out phase following fuck around.”

Another set of texts reportedly shows August Flentje texting Reuveni an hour before the planes to El Salvador would land, quipping, “guess its time to find out on the “fuck you,” which Reuveni claims is proof that Flentje heard the “fuck you” comment.

Later that day, Reuveni texted his colleague saying, “Guess we are going to say fuck you to the court,” to which the colleague responds, “Well, Pamela Jo Bondi is.”

Another text exhange, from three days later, again with Flentje, shows one of them suggesting they just submit “an emoji of a middle finger as our filing” asking for a stay of his order. “a picayune middle finger.”

So Reuveni has brought the goods showing that he and his colleagues not just heard the “fuck you” comment, but continued to discuss it for several days.

Emil Bove in the thick of things

Reuveni also substantiated his claims about Emil Bove’s role in all this, notably in a substantive text exchange from the day when Todd Blanche first put Reuveni on paid leave. Days earlier, Flentje had texted Reuveni about “a nastygram from Emil Bove.”

On April 5, a few hours after Todd Blanche put Reuveni on paid leave, Flentje confirmed that at the meeting on March 15, he “told our host we would not violate a court order.”

Reuveni glossed that text this way:

The exchange demonstrates that Flentje was at the March 14 meeting during which Bove said the government might have to say “fuck you” to courts and that Flentje sees a connection between that meeting and Mr. Reuveni’s placement on administrative leave.

But the smoking gun putting aspiring Circuit Court Judge Emil Bove at the center of a decision to blow off Judge James Boasberg’s order is this email in which a top Civil Division political appointee, Yaakov Roth (the same guy who would pass on nastygrams from Bove weeks later), confirmed that he had “been told by ODAG that the principal associate deputy attorney general” — PDAAG, meaning Bove — “advised DHS last night that the deplaning of the flights that had departed US airspace prior to the court’s minute order was permissible under the law.”

Reuveni described this email in his complaint, but here he has produced it.

Emil Bove gave the order to defy Boasberg’s order.

Notably, this email is unlike all others in the communications he turned over. It appears to be a paper copy. There are definitely questions about when and how Reuveni obtained all the other communications (remember that Flentje was put on leave for a while but not fired). Of some interest, Reuveni’s texts with Flentje are in a different format — perhaps a different app — than the ones he sent to other colleagues. But this communication, in which a very senior DOJ official names Bove as the guy who ordered DHS to unload the planes, was captured in paper, not digital, form.

So Reuveni appears to have substantially corroborated his claims, even if he had to resort, in one case, to a paper copy of an email to do so.

Todd Blanche’s flopsweat

That matters not just for Emil Bove’s bid to be a Circuit Court Judge (which sadly will likely still win the support of the GOP anyway), but also for Todd Blanche’s credibility.

Todd Blanche doesn’t tweet all that much, but each time Reuveni has made his case, Blanche has taken to Xitter to squeal loudly.

The day NYT first published Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint, Blanche labeled the formal whistleblower complaint as a leak to the press violating ethical guidelines. Then he claimed that “not a single individual” except Reuveni “agrees with the statements cavalierly printed” by the NYT, which I noted at the time suggested that Blanche had already tested these cover stories.

Well, that’s interesting, because Reuveni has now presented proof that Flentje and one other colleague at least used to believe it.

Yesterday, in the wake of the release of these communications, Blanche (and Pam Bondi) took to wailing on Xitter again, accusing Reuveni — even after he produced that paper email proof that Emil Bove ordered DHS to unload the planes — of falsehoods, even while accusing Reuveni of being fired not for refusing an illegal order, but for “breaching his ethical duties.”

Blanche keeps claiming there was no order to defy, even after Reuveni presented corroboration — even in the face of efforts to avoid putting anything in writing — that everyone at DOJ knew there was.

Which is why I find two other details of interest. As noted above, Blanche tried to deny that Bove suggested they would tell courts “fuck you” by claiming he had been at the March 14 meeting where, Reuveni alleges, Bove envisioned telling courts “fuck you.”

I was at the meeting described in the article and at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed.

In his complaint, Reuveni did not include Blanche in the list of people who were at the meeting.

On Friday March 14 , 2025, Mr. Reuveni received notice ofhis promotion toActing Deputy Director ofthe Office of Immigration Litigation. That same day, following news reports that the President intended to sign a presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Mr. Reuveni was summoned to a meeting by Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) of OIL, Drew Ensign. At the meeting were Principal Assistant Deputy Attorney General (PADAG) Emil Bove, Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General James McHenry, Associate Deputy Attorney General (ADAG) Paul Perkins, DAAG Ensign, Acting Director for OIL and Mr. Reuveni’s direct supervisor, August Flentje, and other OIL attorneys.

Now, Reuveni’s original whistleblower complaint is almost entirely unredacted. The three exceptions — redacted because they might disclose materials that remain covered by a duty of confidentiality — are in a paragraph describing that March 14 meeting.

At the meeting Bove indicated to those in attendance that the AEA proclamation would soon be signed and that one or more planes containing individuals subject to the AEA would be taking off over the weekend – meaning Saturday, March 15 and Sunday, March 16. Bove did not provide further details and [half line redacted]19 Bove indicated [half line redacted]20 and stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what.

Bove then made a remark concerning the possibility that a court order would enjoin those removals before they could be effectuated. Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts “fuck you” and ignore any such court order. Mr. Reuveni perceived that others in the room looked stunned, and he observed awkward, nervous glances among people in the room. Silence overtook the room. Mr. Reuveni and others were quickly ushered out of the room. Notwithstanding Bove’s directive, Mr. Reuveni left the meeting understanding that DOJ would tell DHS to follow all court orders.21

19 This clause is redacted because it is not clear that an exception to the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality applies here.

20 This clause is redacted because it is not clear that an exception to the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality applies here.

21 Mr.Reuveni left the meeting with this impression because [redacted]. This clause is redacted because it is not clear that an exception to the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality applies here. [my emphasis]

Reuveni and his attorneys view a lot of material that might qualify as attorney-client or deliberative privileged as exempted for some reason. But not these two passages and one footnote, the former of which seemingly relate to the reason why Bove said the planes had to take off. Bove insisted that the planes had to take off and said something that remains privileged, and then he said they might have to tell the courts, “fuck you.”

Perhaps any privilege covering those would fall under a different privilege?

Which is interesting because, in an interview with Devlin Barrett published yesterday, Reuveni clarified something about Blanche’s claim to have been at the meeting: According to Reuveni, Blanche came into the meeting, whispered something to Bove, then left, only after which did Bove start threatening to tell judges to fuck off.

The No. 2 official at the Justice Department, Todd Blanche, has denied Mr. Reuveni’s account, asserting he was at the same meeting and never heard Mr. Bove suggest the department disregard court orders.

“The claims about Department of Justice leadership are utterly false,” Mr. Blanche has said.

Mr. Reuveni disputed Mr. Blanche’s account. The deputy attorney general, he said, briefly entered the conference room during the March 14 meeting, but only to speak privately with Mr. Bove. Mr. Blanche then left and did not participate in the meeting, Mr. Reuveni said.

Only after the one-on-one discussion between Mr. Bove and Mr. Blanche did Mr. Bove use an expletive to suggest the Justice Department might choose to ignore court orders, Mr. Reuveni said.

Blanche’s brief entry into that meeting seems to exactly coincide with those two still-privileged redactions.

Blanche doesn’t tweet much.

What he does spend a great deal of his time doing — which is appropriate, I guess, for Trump’s lead defense attorney — is try to cover up this entire corrupt scheme. First he launched a witch hunt into the sources debunking Trump’s false claims behind the Alien Enemies Act invocation, then Pam Bondi reversed the media guidelines in an effort to assist that fight.

One of the very first public things Todd Blanche did as DAG was to launch a witch hunt into NYT’s source debunking Trump’s claims in the Alien Enemies Act. Then, when Pam Bondi reversed the media protections put into place by Merrick Garland, she cited that story as well. The seniormost officials at DOJ are using the Department to hunt down evidence of their own complicity in human rights violations. And Blanche’s intemperate response to Reuveni’s allegations looks to be more of the same.

This whole scheme — in which DOJ cooperated with Nayib Bukele so Bukele could make damning witnesses unavailable to prosecutors in the US, so DOJ could plop a bunch of mostly-innocent Venezuelans in a concentration camp as bait that Trump could attempt to use to free prisoners in Venezuela (which raises questions about those detainees in Venezuela), which Stephen Miller could use to spin false claims that migrants are terrorists — is bullshit.

All of it.

All of it is wildly corrupt on its face, but there is something about the scheme that is even more dangerous for Trump and the various men who have served as his defense attorneys.

And Trump’s defense attorney turned DAG keeps piping up to discredit himself, emphasize his flopsweat, and invite further revelations from the guy he fired in hopes all this would go away.

Update, July 13: Corrected the number of redactions in Reuveni’s complaint.

Share this entry

Posts

LaMonica McIver Prepares to Hoist Todd Blanche with His Own Petard

Congressional immunity

Motion to Compel

Selective Prosecution

Motion to Restrain

In Rejecting Bid to Unseal Grand Jury Testimony, Judge Paul Engelmeyer Accuses Todd Blanche of “Diversion”

Planning for a Cover-Up in a House with Small Children and Other Stories of How Todd Blanche Is Helping a Sex Trafficker

Trump Might Pardon the Sex Trafficker Who “Stole” His Spa Girls and Other Details of the Cover-Up

Todd Blanche’s Unsealing Request in Florida Was Designed to Fail

The original request acknowledges this won’t work

Judge Rosenberg asks how Blanche thinks this could work

SDFL attempts to claim Rosenberg has the authority

Rosenberg notes that the New York proceeding is irrelevant

Judge Richard Berman Had to Remind Todd Blanche to Think of Jeffrey Epstein’s Victims

Trump’s Defense Attorney Todd Blanche Will Meet with Sex Trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell to Make a Deal for His Client

Why Is Todd Blanche Risking the Conviction of a Sex Trafficker Rather Than Use Fruits of Already-Completed Review?

Trump’s Deep State Can’t Even Deep State Competently

“Fuck You:” Todd Blanche Continues to Flopsweat over Emil Bove’s Contempt

Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You

Emil Bove in the thick of things

Todd Blanche’s flopsweat

Interesting links

Pages