#epsteinfilestransparencyact — Public Fediverse posts

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

There was a hearing, it ran longer than expected, and the DOJ sent a know-nothing to stonewall the judge's questions. That poor, poor attorney.

I would have given you the blow-by-blow but the court telephone system collapsed under the weight of everyone trying to dial in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDD-kjBiqok

https://www.allrisenews.com/p/judge-sullivan-contempt-phang-blanche

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

There was a hearing, it ran longer than expected, and the DOJ sent a know-nothing to stonewall the judge's questions. That poor, poor attorney.

I would have given you the blow-by-blow but the court telephone system collapsed under the weight of everyone trying to dial in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDD-kjBiqok

https://www.allrisenews.com/p/judge-sullivan-contempt-phang-blanche

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

There was a hearing, it ran longer than expected, and the DOJ sent a know-nothing to stonewall the judge's questions. That poor, poor attorney.

I would have given you the blow-by-blow but the court telephone system collapsed under the weight of everyone trying to dial in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDD-kjBiqok

https://www.allrisenews.com/p/judge-sullivan-contempt-phang-blanche

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

There was a hearing, it ran longer than expected, and the DOJ sent a know-nothing to stonewall the judge's questions. That poor, poor attorney.

I would have given you the blow-by-blow but the court telephone system collapsed under the weight of everyone trying to dial in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDD-kjBiqok

https://www.allrisenews.com/p/judge-sullivan-contempt-phang-blanche

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

There was a hearing, it ran longer than expected, and the DOJ sent a know-nothing to stonewall the judge's questions. That poor, poor attorney.

I would have given you the blow-by-blow but the court telephone system collapsed under the weight of everyone trying to dial in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDD-kjBiqok

https://www.allrisenews.com/p/judge-sullivan-contempt-phang-blanche

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

2026/08/11 Phang opposes Blanche's motion (Doc 28) to stay the complaint because the rules everyone has to follow are just to hard for the Attorney General to comply with while also doing the evil bidding of Lord Vader. Doc 30.

> Defendant’s request lacks any legal basis, and it also has no basis in reality. The Court has unequivocally ruled on the threshold issues identified by Defendant. ... The Attorney General is obviously trying to delay this case, and this Court should not condone his tactics.

> Defendant largely failed to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction order.

> Defendant admitted that the redactions do not contain victim information, but claimed that the redactions are proper because they contain private email addresses. See ECF 19 at 11–12. Defendant, again, is wrong. See ECF 20 at 7.

> In addition to his failure to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction order, Defendant Blanche failed to answer Plaintiff’s Complaint by his June 26, 2026 deadline.

> Defendant’s counsel made clear to Plaintiff’s counsel that his failure to comply with the deadline was not neglect at all — rather, Defendant made a calculated decision not to respond to the Complaint until Defendant decided the preliminary injunction proceedings were concluded.

2026/08/13 — Public Hearing! Make your predictions now!

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

2026/08/11 Phang opposes Blanche's motion (Doc 28) to stay the complaint because the rules everyone has to follow are just to hard for the Attorney General to comply with while also doing the evil bidding of Lord Vader. Doc 30.

> Defendant’s request lacks any legal basis, and it also has no basis in reality. The Court has unequivocally ruled on the threshold issues identified by Defendant. ... The Attorney General is obviously trying to delay this case, and this Court should not condone his tactics.

> Defendant largely failed to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction order.

> Defendant admitted that the redactions do not contain victim information, but claimed that the redactions are proper because they contain private email addresses. See ECF 19 at 11–12. Defendant, again, is wrong. See ECF 20 at 7.

> In addition to his failure to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction order, Defendant Blanche failed to answer Plaintiff’s Complaint by his June 26, 2026 deadline.

> Defendant’s counsel made clear to Plaintiff’s counsel that his failure to comply with the deadline was not neglect at all — rather, Defendant made a calculated decision not to respond to the Complaint until Defendant decided the preliminary injunction proceedings were concluded.

2026/08/13 — Public Hearing! Make your predictions now!

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

2026/08/11 Phang opposes Blanche's motion (Doc 28) to stay the complaint because the rules everyone has to follow are just to hard for the Attorney General to comply with while also doing the evil bidding of Lord Vader. Doc 30.

> Defendant’s request lacks any legal basis, and it also has no basis in reality. The Court has unequivocally ruled on the threshold issues identified by Defendant. ... The Attorney General is obviously trying to delay this case, and this Court should not condone his tactics.

> Defendant largely failed to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction order.

> Defendant admitted that the redactions do not contain victim information, but claimed that the redactions are proper because they contain private email addresses. See ECF 19 at 11–12. Defendant, again, is wrong. See ECF 20 at 7.

> In addition to his failure to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction order, Defendant Blanche failed to answer Plaintiff’s Complaint by his June 26, 2026 deadline.

> Defendant’s counsel made clear to Plaintiff’s counsel that his failure to comply with the deadline was not neglect at all — rather, Defendant made a calculated decision not to respond to the Complaint until Defendant decided the preliminary injunction proceedings were concluded.

2026/08/13 — Public Hearing! Make your predictions now!

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

2026/08/11 Phang opposes Blanche's motion (Doc 28) to stay the complaint because the rules everyone has to follow are just to hard for the Attorney General to comply with while also doing the evil bidding of Lord Vader. Doc 30.

> Defendant’s request lacks any legal basis, and it also has no basis in reality. The Court has unequivocally ruled on the threshold issues identified by Defendant. ... The Attorney General is obviously trying to delay this case, and this Court should not condone his tactics.

> Defendant largely failed to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction order.

> Defendant admitted that the redactions do not contain victim information, but claimed that the redactions are proper because they contain private email addresses. See ECF 19 at 11–12. Defendant, again, is wrong. See ECF 20 at 7.

> In addition to his failure to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction order, Defendant Blanche failed to answer Plaintiff’s Complaint by his June 26, 2026 deadline.

> Defendant’s counsel made clear to Plaintiff’s counsel that his failure to comply with the deadline was not neglect at all — rather, Defendant made a calculated decision not to respond to the Complaint until Defendant decided the preliminary injunction proceedings were concluded.

2026/08/13 — Public Hearing! Make your predictions now!

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

2026/08/11 Phang opposes Blanche's motion (Doc 28) to stay the complaint because the rules everyone has to follow are just to hard for the Attorney General to comply with while also doing the evil bidding of Lord Vader. Doc 30.

> Defendant’s request lacks any legal basis, and it also has no basis in reality. The Court has unequivocally ruled on the threshold issues identified by Defendant. ... The Attorney General is obviously trying to delay this case, and this Court should not condone his tactics.

> Defendant largely failed to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction order.

> Defendant admitted that the redactions do not contain victim information, but claimed that the redactions are proper because they contain private email addresses. See ECF 19 at 11–12. Defendant, again, is wrong. See ECF 20 at 7.

> In addition to his failure to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction order, Defendant Blanche failed to answer Plaintiff’s Complaint by his June 26, 2026 deadline.

> Defendant’s counsel made clear to Plaintiff’s counsel that his failure to comply with the deadline was not neglect at all — rather, Defendant made a calculated decision not to respond to the Complaint until Defendant decided the preliminary injunction proceedings were concluded.

2026/08/13 — Public Hearing! Make your predictions now!

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct

2026/08/06 Judge orders Blanche to

① "The Defendant shall be prepared to discuss what documentation he will provide to support his assertions." because this judge will not take the DOJ's naked word for it.

② "The Defendant shall be prepared to explain why the handwritten notes cannot be redacted manually, or why the redactions cannot be accomplished in another way." because the DOJ's opinion is not law the way that acts of Congress are.

③ "The Defendant shall be prepared to discuss his timing for complying with this requirement [to publish a list of written
justification for all redactions.]"

2026/08/07 The 2026/08/13 hearing is going to be a nationally public shellacking with the public invited to dial in and listen — provided no recordings are made.

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct

2026/08/06 Judge orders Blanche to

① "The Defendant shall be prepared to discuss what documentation he will provide to support his assertions." because this judge will not take the DOJ's naked word for it.

② "The Defendant shall be prepared to explain why the handwritten notes cannot be redacted manually, or why the redactions cannot be accomplished in another way." because the DOJ's opinion is not law the way that acts of Congress are.

③ "The Defendant shall be prepared to discuss his timing for complying with this requirement [to publish a list of written
justification for all redactions.]"

2026/08/07 The 2026/08/13 hearing is going to be a nationally public shellacking with the public invited to dial in and listen — provided no recordings are made.

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct

2026/08/06 Judge orders Blanche to

① "The Defendant shall be prepared to discuss what documentation he will provide to support his assertions." because this judge will not take the DOJ's naked word for it.

② "The Defendant shall be prepared to explain why the handwritten notes cannot be redacted manually, or why the redactions cannot be accomplished in another way." because the DOJ's opinion is not law the way that acts of Congress are.

③ "The Defendant shall be prepared to discuss his timing for complying with this requirement [to publish a list of written
justification for all redactions.]"

2026/08/07 The 2026/08/13 hearing is going to be a nationally public shellacking with the public invited to dial in and listen — provided no recordings are made.

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct

2026/08/06 Judge orders Blanche to

① "The Defendant shall be prepared to discuss what documentation he will provide to support his assertions." because this judge will not take the DOJ's naked word for it.

② "The Defendant shall be prepared to explain why the handwritten notes cannot be redacted manually, or why the redactions cannot be accomplished in another way." because the DOJ's opinion is not law the way that acts of Congress are.

③ "The Defendant shall be prepared to discuss his timing for complying with this requirement [to publish a list of written
justification for all redactions.]"

2026/08/07 The 2026/08/13 hearing is going to be a nationally public shellacking with the public invited to dial in and listen — provided no recordings are made.

Update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct

2026/08/06 Judge orders Blanche to

① "The Defendant shall be prepared to discuss what documentation he will provide to support his assertions." because this judge will not take the DOJ's naked word for it.

② "The Defendant shall be prepared to explain why the handwritten notes cannot be redacted manually, or why the redactions cannot be accomplished in another way." because the DOJ's opinion is not law the way that acts of Congress are.

③ "The Defendant shall be prepared to discuss his timing for complying with this requirement [to publish a list of written
justification for all redactions.]"

2026/08/07 The 2026/08/13 hearing is going to be a nationally public shellacking with the public invited to dial in and listen — provided no recordings are made.

2026/08/05 Dueling motions today in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

Doc 27 Phang moves to light a fire under Blanche, who missed the 2026/06/29 deadline and have him file an answer to the complaint by 2026/08/10 with all those internal administration decision records filed by 2026/08/17.

> There is no question that [Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche] is in default.

Doc 28 Blanche moves to stay the complaint because there is still a preliminary injunction motion pending???? Isn't that cause to move faster, not slower? And then he wants 60 *more* days.

> As indicated, the Department’s deadline for responding to the Complaint would have been due on June 26, 2026 had this case proceeded on a regular case schedule. To the extent any deadline was missed, that oversight, while regrettable, was not intentional and was not made in disregard of the Court’s deadline. Rather, it occurred while the Department was fully and visibly engaged in defending this action.

"The dog ate my homework" is more persuasive.

// Edit. OK, that was off the cuff and hasty, let me read the rest of the document to see if the claim is better fleshed out. What? There *IS* no more document?? Well, that's the last time I try to bail Todd Blanche out of anything!

// Edit 2: Read the exchange between Phang's lawyers and the DOJ lawyers defending Blanche. (Doc 27-2)

2026/08/05 Dueling motions today in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

Doc 27 Phang moves to light a fire under Blanche, who missed the 2026/06/29 deadline and have him file an answer to the complaint by 2026/08/10 with all those internal administration decision records filed by 2026/08/17.

> There is no question that [Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche] is in default.

Doc 28 Blanche moves to stay the complaint because there is still a preliminary injunction motion pending???? Isn't that cause to move faster, not slower? And then he wants 60 *more* days.

> As indicated, the Department’s deadline for responding to the Complaint would have been due on June 26, 2026 had this case proceeded on a regular case schedule. To the extent any deadline was missed, that oversight, while regrettable, was not intentional and was not made in disregard of the Court’s deadline. Rather, it occurred while the Department was fully and visibly engaged in defending this action.

"The dog ate my homework" is more persuasive.

// Edit. OK, that was off the cuff and hasty, let me read the rest of the document to see if the claim is better fleshed out. What? There *IS* no more document?? Well, that's the last time I try to bail Todd Blanche out of anything!

// Edit 2: Read the exchange between Phang's lawyers and the DOJ lawyers defending Blanche. (Doc 27-2)

2026/08/05 Dueling motions today in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

Doc 27 Phang moves to light a fire under Blanche, who missed the 2026/06/29 deadline and have him file an answer to the complaint by 2026/08/10 with all those internal administration decision records filed by 2026/08/17.

> There is no question that [Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche] is in default.

Doc 28 Blanche moves to stay the complaint because there is still a preliminary injunction motion pending???? Isn't that cause to move faster, not slower? And then he wants 60 *more* days.

> As indicated, the Department’s deadline for responding to the Complaint would have been due on June 26, 2026 had this case proceeded on a regular case schedule. To the extent any deadline was missed, that oversight, while regrettable, was not intentional and was not made in disregard of the Court’s deadline. Rather, it occurred while the Department was fully and visibly engaged in defending this action.

"The dog ate my homework" is more persuasive.

// Edit. OK, that was off the cuff and hasty, let me read the rest of the document to see if the claim is better fleshed out. What? There *IS* no more document?? Well, that's the last time I try to bail Todd Blanche out of anything!

// Edit 2: Read the exchange between Phang's lawyers and the DOJ lawyers defending Blanche. (Doc 27-2)

2026/08/05 Dueling motions today in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

Doc 27 Phang moves to light a fire under Blanche, who missed the 2026/06/29 deadline and have him file an answer to the complaint by 2026/08/10 with all those internal administration decision records filed by 2026/08/17.

> There is no question that [Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche] is in default.

Doc 28 Blanche moves to stay the complaint because there is still a preliminary injunction motion pending???? Isn't that cause to move faster, not slower? And then he wants 60 *more* days.

> As indicated, the Department’s deadline for responding to the Complaint would have been due on June 26, 2026 had this case proceeded on a regular case schedule. To the extent any deadline was missed, that oversight, while regrettable, was not intentional and was not made in disregard of the Court’s deadline. Rather, it occurred while the Department was fully and visibly engaged in defending this action.

"The dog ate my homework" is more persuasive.

// Edit. OK, that was off the cuff and hasty, let me read the rest of the document to see if the claim is better fleshed out. What? There *IS* no more document?? Well, that's the last time I try to bail Todd Blanche out of anything!

// Edit 2: Read the exchange between Phang's lawyers and the DOJ lawyers defending Blanche. (Doc 27-2)

2026/08/05 Dueling motions today in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

Doc 27 Phang moves to light a fire under Blanche, who missed the 2026/06/29 deadline and have him file an answer to the complaint by 2026/08/10 with all those internal administration decision records filed by 2026/08/17.

> There is no question that [Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche] is in default.

Doc 28 Blanche moves to stay the complaint because there is still a preliminary injunction motion pending???? Isn't that cause to move faster, not slower? And then he wants 60 *more* days.

> As indicated, the Department’s deadline for responding to the Complaint would have been due on June 26, 2026 had this case proceeded on a regular case schedule. To the extent any deadline was missed, that oversight, while regrettable, was not intentional and was not made in disregard of the Court’s deadline. Rather, it occurred while the Department was fully and visibly engaged in defending this action.

"The dog ate my homework" is more persuasive.

// Edit. OK, that was off the cuff and hasty, let me read the rest of the document to see if the claim is better fleshed out. What? There *IS* no more document?? Well, that's the last time I try to bail Todd Blanche out of anything!

// Edit 2: Read the exchange between Phang's lawyers and the DOJ lawyers defending Blanche. (Doc 27-2)

Saturday update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct — the judge says to the #DOJ: I don't trust your representations, bring all the receipts. (Doc 23.) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

> ORDERED that Defendant shall submit to the Court on [2026/07/30] by no later than 3:00 pm the following documents: [8 unredacted emails] and documentation supporting Defendant’s representation that the names that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victims; [an unredacted document] and documentation supporting the Defendant’s representation that the names in the “to” and “from” lines that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of law enforcement personnel; and [another unredacted document] and documentation supporting the Defendant’s representation that the names that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victims.

This last document is EFTA00194840 which Todd Blanche says is substantially similar to the EFTA01703108 which exists only in redacted copy. (Doc 19, p. 13)

While the order of the items varies, these look like the 10 items identified in Katie Phang's Preliminary Injunction motion (Doc 9) and the first 10 items in the Order to Show Cause (Doc 16).

EFTA00749245 — Someone emailed Epstein “where are you? are you ok I loved the torture video” but Todd Blanche wrote that it was OK to redact the email sender since members of Congress leaked who it was. Oh, R'ly?

Saturday update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct — the judge says to the #DOJ: I don't trust your representations, bring all the receipts. (Doc 23.) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

> ORDERED that Defendant shall submit to the Court on [2026/07/30] by no later than 3:00 pm the following documents: [8 unredacted emails] and documentation supporting Defendant’s representation that the names that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victims; [an unredacted document] and documentation supporting the Defendant’s representation that the names in the “to” and “from” lines that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of law enforcement personnel; and [another unredacted document] and documentation supporting the Defendant’s representation that the names that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victims.

This last document is EFTA00194840 which Todd Blanche says is substantially similar to the EFTA01703108 which exists only in redacted copy. (Doc 19, p. 13)

While the order of the items varies, these look like the 10 items identified in Katie Phang's Preliminary Injunction motion (Doc 9) and the first 10 items in the Order to Show Cause (Doc 16).

EFTA00749245 — Someone emailed Epstein “where are you? are you ok I loved the torture video” but Todd Blanche wrote that it was OK to redact the email sender since members of Congress leaked who it was. Oh, R'ly?

Saturday update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct — the judge says to the #DOJ: I don't trust your representations, bring all the receipts. (Doc 23.) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

> ORDERED that Defendant shall submit to the Court on [2026/07/30] by no later than 3:00 pm the following documents: [8 unredacted emails] and documentation supporting Defendant’s representation that the names that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victims; [an unredacted document] and documentation supporting the Defendant’s representation that the names in the “to” and “from” lines that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of law enforcement personnel; and [another unredacted document] and documentation supporting the Defendant’s representation that the names that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victims.

This last document is EFTA00194840 which Todd Blanche says is substantially similar to the EFTA01703108 which exists only in redacted copy. (Doc 19, p. 13)

While the order of the items varies, these look like the 10 items identified in Katie Phang's Preliminary Injunction motion (Doc 9) and the first 10 items in the Order to Show Cause (Doc 16).

EFTA00749245 — Someone emailed Epstein “where are you? are you ok I loved the torture video” but Todd Blanche wrote that it was OK to redact the email sender since members of Congress leaked who it was. Oh, R'ly?

Saturday update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct — the judge says to the #DOJ: I don't trust your representations, bring all the receipts. (Doc 23.) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

> ORDERED that Defendant shall submit to the Court on [2026/07/30] by no later than 3:00 pm the following documents: [8 unredacted emails] and documentation supporting Defendant’s representation that the names that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victims; [an unredacted document] and documentation supporting the Defendant’s representation that the names in the “to” and “from” lines that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of law enforcement personnel; and [another unredacted document] and documentation supporting the Defendant’s representation that the names that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victims.

This last document is EFTA00194840 which Todd Blanche says is substantially similar to the EFTA01703108 which exists only in redacted copy. (Doc 19, p. 13)

While the order of the items varies, these look like the 10 items identified in Katie Phang's Preliminary Injunction motion (Doc 9) and the first 10 items in the Order to Show Cause (Doc 16).

EFTA00749245 — Someone emailed Epstein “where are you? are you ok I loved the torture video” but Todd Blanche wrote that it was OK to redact the email sender since members of Congress leaked who it was. Oh, R'ly?

Saturday update for #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct — the judge says to the #DOJ: I don't trust your representations, bring all the receipts. (Doc 23.) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

> ORDERED that Defendant shall submit to the Court on [2026/07/30] by no later than 3:00 pm the following documents: [8 unredacted emails] and documentation supporting Defendant’s representation that the names that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victims; [an unredacted document] and documentation supporting the Defendant’s representation that the names in the “to” and “from” lines that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of law enforcement personnel; and [another unredacted document] and documentation supporting the Defendant’s representation that the names that have been redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victims.

This last document is EFTA00194840 which Todd Blanche says is substantially similar to the EFTA01703108 which exists only in redacted copy. (Doc 19, p. 13)

While the order of the items varies, these look like the 10 items identified in Katie Phang's Preliminary Injunction motion (Doc 9) and the first 10 items in the Order to Show Cause (Doc 16).

EFTA00749245 — Someone emailed Epstein “where are you? are you ok I loved the torture video” but Todd Blanche wrote that it was OK to redact the email sender since members of Congress leaked who it was. Oh, R'ly?

Michael Popok interview with #KatiePhang about this failure of #ToddBlanche to even defend the failure to comply with the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct .

She also sees misogyny and the curious substitution of the DOJ or Government for Todd Blanche who is personally responsible and named in the lawsuit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TixrzeOsHKI

Michael Popok interview with #KatiePhang about this failure of #ToddBlanche to even defend the failure to comply with the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct .

She also sees misogyny and the curious substitution of the DOJ or Government for Todd Blanche who is personally responsible and named in the lawsuit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TixrzeOsHKI

Michael Popok interview with #KatiePhang about this failure of #ToddBlanche to even defend the failure to comply with the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct .

She also sees misogyny and the curious substitution of the DOJ or Government for Todd Blanche who is personally responsible and named in the lawsuit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TixrzeOsHKI

Michael Popok interview with #KatiePhang about this failure of #ToddBlanche to even defend the failure to comply with the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct .

She also sees misogyny and the curious substitution of the DOJ or Government for Todd Blanche who is personally responsible and named in the lawsuit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TixrzeOsHKI

Michael Popok interview with #KatiePhang about this failure of #ToddBlanche to even defend the failure to comply with the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct .

She also sees misogyny and the curious substitution of the DOJ or Government for Todd Blanche who is personally responsible and named in the lawsuit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TixrzeOsHKI

@KimPerales This is very similar to the argument in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche that the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct, being specific and detailed and passed much more recently, nullifies regulations and prohibitions predicated on the Privacy Act when the DOJ does the job Congress wants them to do.

@KimPerales This is very similar to the argument in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche that the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct, being specific and detailed and passed much more recently, nullifies regulations and prohibitions predicated on the Privacy Act when the DOJ does the job Congress wants them to do.

@KimPerales This is very similar to the argument in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche that the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct, being specific and detailed and passed much more recently, nullifies regulations and prohibitions predicated on the Privacy Act when the DOJ does the job Congress wants them to do.

@KimPerales This is very similar to the argument in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche that the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct, being specific and detailed and passed much more recently, nullifies regulations and prohibitions predicated on the Privacy Act when the DOJ does the job Congress wants them to do.

@KimPerales This is very similar to the argument in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche that the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct, being specific and detailed and passed much more recently, nullifies regulations and prohibitions predicated on the Privacy Act when the DOJ does the job Congress wants them to do.

Update in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

In response to Phang's argument that Blanche hasn't been following the law, which is his job, and the proposed $1000/day fines for continued delay, Blanche offers the following (Doc 22):

Phang is getting hysterical, unlike me, a logical man, "the Court *has not ordered* “the immediate production of documents,” but rather has ordered the Department to “show cause if [it] declines to do so.”".

(Quotes = a verbatim quote.)

Phang is stupid, too, because she says the #DOJ “makes clear that whatever the federal statute requires [it] to do, [it] will not comply” but the DOJ "has attempted to highlight for the Court the differing demands of several applicable statutes" while Phang's claim "the Epstein Act clearly trumps, as it was the more recently enacted law” doesn't even amount to an argument.

(Doesn't it though?)

Why Phang doesn't rebut my points on a per document basis almost like she hasn't read them yet!

(Yeah, that's the point, dumbass.)

It is simply *too early* in the expensive and slow process of civil litigation to compel the production of the #EpsteinFiles since we need an expensive litigation on full discovery for every page and whatever you rule produced we will appeal.

There! Now how can Phang possibly say "Notably, in his response, the Attorney General makes clear that whatever the federal statute requires him to do, he will not comply."? (this is the actual quote from Phang's Doc 2, which puts the blame on Blanche and not the DOJ as an organization).

This has been my paraphrase of Doc 22.

Update in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

In response to Phang's argument that Blanche hasn't been following the law, which is his job, and the proposed $1000/day fines for continued delay, Blanche offers the following (Doc 22):

Phang is getting hysterical, unlike me, a logical man, "the Court *has not ordered* “the immediate production of documents,” but rather has ordered the Department to “show cause if [it] declines to do so.”".

(Quotes = a verbatim quote.)

Phang is stupid, too, because she says the #DOJ “makes clear that whatever the federal statute requires [it] to do, [it] will not comply” but the DOJ "has attempted to highlight for the Court the differing demands of several applicable statutes" while Phang's claim "the Epstein Act clearly trumps, as it was the more recently enacted law” doesn't even amount to an argument.

(Doesn't it though?)

Why Phang doesn't rebut my points on a per document basis almost like she hasn't read them yet!

(Yeah, that's the point, dumbass.)

It is simply *too early* in the expensive and slow process of civil litigation to compel the production of the #EpsteinFiles since we need an expensive litigation on full discovery for every page and whatever you rule produced we will appeal.

There! Now how can Phang possibly say "Notably, in his response, the Attorney General makes clear that whatever the federal statute requires him to do, he will not comply."? (this is the actual quote from Phang's Doc 2, which puts the blame on Blanche and not the DOJ as an organization).

This has been my paraphrase of Doc 22.

Update in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

In response to Phang's argument that Blanche hasn't been following the law, which is his job, and the proposed $1000/day fines for continued delay, Blanche offers the following (Doc 22):

Phang is getting hysterical, unlike me, a logical man, "the Court *has not ordered* “the immediate production of documents,” but rather has ordered the Department to “show cause if [it] declines to do so.”".

(Quotes = a verbatim quote.)

Phang is stupid, too, because she says the #DOJ “makes clear that whatever the federal statute requires [it] to do, [it] will not comply” but the DOJ "has attempted to highlight for the Court the differing demands of several applicable statutes" while Phang's claim "the Epstein Act clearly trumps, as it was the more recently enacted law” doesn't even amount to an argument.

(Doesn't it though?)

Why Phang doesn't rebut my points on a per document basis almost like she hasn't read them yet!

(Yeah, that's the point, dumbass.)

It is simply *too early* in the expensive and slow process of civil litigation to compel the production of the #EpsteinFiles since we need an expensive litigation on full discovery for every page and whatever you rule produced we will appeal.

There! Now how can Phang possibly say "Notably, in his response, the Attorney General makes clear that whatever the federal statute requires him to do, he will not comply."? (this is the actual quote from Phang's Doc 2, which puts the blame on Blanche and not the DOJ as an organization).

This has been my paraphrase of Doc 22.

Update in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

In response to Phang's argument that Blanche hasn't been following the law, which is his job, and the proposed $1000/day fines for continued delay, Blanche offers the following (Doc 22):

Phang is getting hysterical, unlike me, a logical man, "the Court *has not ordered* “the immediate production of documents,” but rather has ordered the Department to “show cause if [it] declines to do so.”".

(Quotes = a verbatim quote.)

Phang is stupid, too, because she says the #DOJ “makes clear that whatever the federal statute requires [it] to do, [it] will not comply” but the DOJ "has attempted to highlight for the Court the differing demands of several applicable statutes" while Phang's claim "the Epstein Act clearly trumps, as it was the more recently enacted law” doesn't even amount to an argument.

(Doesn't it though?)

Why Phang doesn't rebut my points on a per document basis almost like she hasn't read them yet!

(Yeah, that's the point, dumbass.)

It is simply *too early* in the expensive and slow process of civil litigation to compel the production of the #EpsteinFiles since we need an expensive litigation on full discovery for every page and whatever you rule produced we will appeal.

There! Now how can Phang possibly say "Notably, in his response, the Attorney General makes clear that whatever the federal statute requires him to do, he will not comply."? (this is the actual quote from Phang's Doc 2, which puts the blame on Blanche and not the DOJ as an organization).

This has been my paraphrase of Doc 22.

Update in #KatiePhang v. #ToddBlanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia over non-production of documents covered by the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

In response to Phang's argument that Blanche hasn't been following the law, which is his job, and the proposed $1000/day fines for continued delay, Blanche offers the following (Doc 22):

Phang is getting hysterical, unlike me, a logical man, "the Court *has not ordered* “the immediate production of documents,” but rather has ordered the Department to “show cause if [it] declines to do so.”".

(Quotes = a verbatim quote.)

Phang is stupid, too, because she says the #DOJ “makes clear that whatever the federal statute requires [it] to do, [it] will not comply” but the DOJ "has attempted to highlight for the Court the differing demands of several applicable statutes" while Phang's claim "the Epstein Act clearly trumps, as it was the more recently enacted law” doesn't even amount to an argument.

(Doesn't it though?)

Why Phang doesn't rebut my points on a per document basis almost like she hasn't read them yet!

(Yeah, that's the point, dumbass.)

It is simply *too early* in the expensive and slow process of civil litigation to compel the production of the #EpsteinFiles since we need an expensive litigation on full discovery for every page and whatever you rule produced we will appeal.

There! Now how can Phang possibly say "Notably, in his response, the Attorney General makes clear that whatever the federal statute requires him to do, he will not comply."? (this is the actual quote from Phang's Doc 2, which puts the blame on Blanche and not the DOJ as an organization).

This has been my paraphrase of Doc 22.

#ToddBlanche explains to #KatiePhang and the District Court why so many incomplete and inappropriately redacted #Epstein files. Doc 19, 2026/07/02 in Phang v. Blanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/ (continued)

6 emails had a victim as sender and/or recipient and so those should stay redacted of PII, even it it looks like they were collaborators. (pp. 10–11)

7th email: "I don't understand SMTP headers." Blanche leans on the Privacy Act and not the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct to redact those names, as per unsigned DOJ memo. 'Sides, Thomas Massie was able to figure it out, so you don't need one more email address. (pp. 11–12)

8th email: Private email address of non-victim also redacted because *memo*. (p. 12)

9th email EFTA00038227: Law Enforcement names/emails redacted because *memo*. One of the four "conspirators" newly unredacted on website now because not a victim. Hey, you can't mean we have to update all the redactions on all the documents when we learn X is not a victim, right?? (p. 12–13)

EFTA01703108 is a photocopy of a redacted draft indictment. We can't find the original but we think all of the redactions which were made *sometime* by *someone* are names of victims by comparing with a different draft. (p. 13)

The court-ordered release of handwritten law enforcement notes seems just too *hard*. (p. 14)

The court-ordered release of foreign-language material seems just too *hard*. Why are you so mean when Trump-adjacent Congress isn't? (p. 14)

Congress didn't give us a deadline to publish the final list of redactions, so just trust we will, eventually. (pp 14–15)

We will fight if you ask for more. (p. 15)

#ToddBlanche explains to #KatiePhang and the District Court why so many incomplete and inappropriately redacted #Epstein files. Doc 19, 2026/07/02 in Phang v. Blanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/ (continued)

6 emails had a victim as sender and/or recipient and so those should stay redacted of PII, even it it looks like they were collaborators. (pp. 10–11)

7th email: "I don't understand SMTP headers." Blanche leans on the Privacy Act and not the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct to redact those names, as per unsigned DOJ memo. 'Sides, Thomas Massie was able to figure it out, so you don't need one more email address. (pp. 11–12)

8th email: Private email address of non-victim also redacted because *memo*. (p. 12)

9th email EFTA00038227: Law Enforcement names/emails redacted because *memo*. One of the four "conspirators" newly unredacted on website now because not a victim. Hey, you can't mean we have to update all the redactions on all the documents when we learn X is not a victim, right?? (p. 12–13)

EFTA01703108 is a photocopy of a redacted draft indictment. We can't find the original but we think all of the redactions which were made *sometime* by *someone* are names of victims by comparing with a different draft. (p. 13)

The court-ordered release of handwritten law enforcement notes seems just too *hard*. (p. 14)

The court-ordered release of foreign-language material seems just too *hard*. Why are you so mean when Trump-adjacent Congress isn't? (p. 14)

Congress didn't give us a deadline to publish the final list of redactions, so just trust we will, eventually. (pp 14–15)

We will fight if you ask for more. (p. 15)

#ToddBlanche explains to #KatiePhang and the District Court why so many incomplete and inappropriately redacted #Epstein files. Doc 19, 2026/07/02 in Phang v. Blanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/ (continued)

6 emails had a victim as sender and/or recipient and so those should stay redacted of PII, even it it looks like they were collaborators. (pp. 10–11)

7th email: "I don't understand SMTP headers." Blanche leans on the Privacy Act and not the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct to redact those names, as per unsigned DOJ memo. 'Sides, Thomas Massie was able to figure it out, so you don't need one more email address. (pp. 11–12)

8th email: Private email address of non-victim also redacted because *memo*. (p. 12)

9th email EFTA00038227: Law Enforcement names/emails redacted because *memo*. One of the four "conspirators" newly unredacted on website now because not a victim. Hey, you can't mean we have to update all the redactions on all the documents when we learn X is not a victim, right?? (p. 12–13)

EFTA01703108 is a photocopy of a redacted draft indictment. We can't find the original but we think all of the redactions which were made *sometime* by *someone* are names of victims by comparing with a different draft. (p. 13)

The court-ordered release of handwritten law enforcement notes seems just too *hard*. (p. 14)

The court-ordered release of foreign-language material seems just too *hard*. Why are you so mean when Trump-adjacent Congress isn't? (p. 14)

Congress didn't give us a deadline to publish the final list of redactions, so just trust we will, eventually. (pp 14–15)

We will fight if you ask for more. (p. 15)

#ToddBlanche explains to #KatiePhang and the District Court why so many incomplete and inappropriately redacted #Epstein files. Doc 19, 2026/07/02 in Phang v. Blanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/ (continued)

6 emails had a victim as sender and/or recipient and so those should stay redacted of PII, even it it looks like they were collaborators. (pp. 10–11)

7th email: "I don't understand SMTP headers." Blanche leans on the Privacy Act and not the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct to redact those names, as per unsigned DOJ memo. 'Sides, Thomas Massie was able to figure it out, so you don't need one more email address. (pp. 11–12)

8th email: Private email address of non-victim also redacted because *memo*. (p. 12)

9th email EFTA00038227: Law Enforcement names/emails redacted because *memo*. One of the four "conspirators" newly unredacted on website now because not a victim. Hey, you can't mean we have to update all the redactions on all the documents when we learn X is not a victim, right?? (p. 12–13)

EFTA01703108 is a photocopy of a redacted draft indictment. We can't find the original but we think all of the redactions which were made *sometime* by *someone* are names of victims by comparing with a different draft. (p. 13)

The court-ordered release of handwritten law enforcement notes seems just too *hard*. (p. 14)

The court-ordered release of foreign-language material seems just too *hard*. Why are you so mean when Trump-adjacent Congress isn't? (p. 14)

Congress didn't give us a deadline to publish the final list of redactions, so just trust we will, eventually. (pp 14–15)

We will fight if you ask for more. (p. 15)

#ToddBlanche explains to #KatiePhang and the District Court why so many incomplete and inappropriately redacted #Epstein files. Doc 19, 2026/07/02 in Phang v. Blanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/ (continued)

6 emails had a victim as sender and/or recipient and so those should stay redacted of PII, even it it looks like they were collaborators. (pp. 10–11)

7th email: "I don't understand SMTP headers." Blanche leans on the Privacy Act and not the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct to redact those names, as per unsigned DOJ memo. 'Sides, Thomas Massie was able to figure it out, so you don't need one more email address. (pp. 11–12)

8th email: Private email address of non-victim also redacted because *memo*. (p. 12)

9th email EFTA00038227: Law Enforcement names/emails redacted because *memo*. One of the four "conspirators" newly unredacted on website now because not a victim. Hey, you can't mean we have to update all the redactions on all the documents when we learn X is not a victim, right?? (p. 12–13)

EFTA01703108 is a photocopy of a redacted draft indictment. We can't find the original but we think all of the redactions which were made *sometime* by *someone* are names of victims by comparing with a different draft. (p. 13)

The court-ordered release of handwritten law enforcement notes seems just too *hard*. (p. 14)

The court-ordered release of foreign-language material seems just too *hard*. Why are you so mean when Trump-adjacent Congress isn't? (p. 14)

Congress didn't give us a deadline to publish the final list of redactions, so just trust we will, eventually. (pp 14–15)

We will fight if you ask for more. (p. 15)

#ToddBlanche explains to #KatiePhang and the District Court why so many incomplete and inappropriately redacted #Epstein files. Doc 19, 2026/07/02 in Phang v. Blanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

He could have avoided this by producing the documents the law requires, but no-o-o.... (p. 2)

Congress required this of them and spent time and Congress-appropirated resources on the task. (p. 2)

Strong "you're not the boss of me" energy. Also, "I didn't do, you can't prove it." (pp. 2–3)

How *dare* the judge claim the DOJ conceded that it broke the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct when we just didn't contradict the many ways we obviously did when given a chance during the *preliminary* proceedings. The best innocent lawyers always save the best evidence and arguments for the end. (p. 3) [But, how is ¶ 1 above not a concession of the same shape?]

This is part of the statute. (pp. 4–5)

Congress, who gave us 100% of our budget, did not give us *more* money to expose these #EFTA files. (p. 6)

From day 1, Blanche was the PR flack who was tasked with telling Congress "everything is fine." (p. 6)

He's also #Trump's flunky, so he did PR flack for him too. Over 1k victims and relatives. (p. 6)

Some work completed by 2026/02/14. (pp. 6–7)

We also created a murder hole to spy on members of Congress who wanted to peep at the unredacted files: (p. 7) [budget for PR?]

More "you're not the boss of me" energy. (pp. 7–8)

Stupid, stupid court came to the opposite conclusion. (p. 8)

This is how stupid the court is. (pp. 8–10)

But assuming for a second that you are the boss of me, and because I am not in a posture to start an appeal, allow me to start to begin. (p. 10)

#ToddBlanche explains to #KatiePhang and the District Court why so many incomplete and inappropriately redacted #Epstein files. Doc 19, 2026/07/02 in Phang v. Blanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

He could have avoided this by producing the documents the law requires, but no-o-o.... (p. 2)

Congress required this of them and spent time and Congress-appropirated resources on the task. (p. 2)

Strong "you're not the boss of me" energy. Also, "I didn't do, you can't prove it." (pp. 2–3)

How *dare* the judge claim the DOJ conceded that it broke the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct when we just didn't contradict the many ways we obviously did when given a chance during the *preliminary* proceedings. The best innocent lawyers always save the best evidence and arguments for the end. (p. 3) [But, how is ¶ 1 above not a concession of the same shape?]

This is part of the statute. (pp. 4–5)

Congress, who gave us 100% of our budget, did not give us *more* money to expose these #EFTA files. (p. 6)

From day 1, Blanche was the PR flack who was tasked with telling Congress "everything is fine." (p. 6)

He's also #Trump's flunky, so he did PR flack for him too. Over 1k victims and relatives. (p. 6)

Some work completed by 2026/02/14. (pp. 6–7)

We also created a murder hole to spy on members of Congress who wanted to peep at the unredacted files: (p. 7) [budget for PR?]

More "you're not the boss of me" energy. (pp. 7–8)

Stupid, stupid court came to the opposite conclusion. (p. 8)

This is how stupid the court is. (pp. 8–10)

But assuming for a second that you are the boss of me, and because I am not in a posture to start an appeal, allow me to start to begin. (p. 10)

#ToddBlanche explains to #KatiePhang and the District Court why so many incomplete and inappropriately redacted #Epstein files. Doc 19, 2026/07/02 in Phang v. Blanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

He could have avoided this by producing the documents the law requires, but no-o-o.... (p. 2)

Congress required this of them and spent time and Congress-appropirated resources on the task. (p. 2)

Strong "you're not the boss of me" energy. Also, "I didn't do, you can't prove it." (pp. 2–3)

How *dare* the judge claim the DOJ conceded that it broke the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct when we just didn't contradict the many ways we obviously did when given a chance during the *preliminary* proceedings. The best innocent lawyers always save the best evidence and arguments for the end. (p. 3) [But, how is ¶ 1 above not a concession of the same shape?]

This is part of the statute. (pp. 4–5)

Congress, who gave us 100% of our budget, did not give us *more* money to expose these #EFTA files. (p. 6)

From day 1, Blanche was the PR flack who was tasked with telling Congress "everything is fine." (p. 6)

He's also #Trump's flunky, so he did PR flack for him too. Over 1k victims and relatives. (p. 6)

Some work completed by 2026/02/14. (pp. 6–7)

We also created a murder hole to spy on members of Congress who wanted to peep at the unredacted files: (p. 7) [budget for PR?]

More "you're not the boss of me" energy. (pp. 7–8)

Stupid, stupid court came to the opposite conclusion. (p. 8)

This is how stupid the court is. (pp. 8–10)

But assuming for a second that you are the boss of me, and because I am not in a posture to start an appeal, allow me to start to begin. (p. 10)

#ToddBlanche explains to #KatiePhang and the District Court why so many incomplete and inappropriately redacted #Epstein files. Doc 19, 2026/07/02 in Phang v. Blanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

He could have avoided this by producing the documents the law requires, but no-o-o.... (p. 2)

Congress required this of them and spent time and Congress-appropirated resources on the task. (p. 2)

Strong "you're not the boss of me" energy. Also, "I didn't do, you can't prove it." (pp. 2–3)

How *dare* the judge claim the DOJ conceded that it broke the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct when we just didn't contradict the many ways we obviously did when given a chance during the *preliminary* proceedings. The best innocent lawyers always save the best evidence and arguments for the end. (p. 3) [But, how is ¶ 1 above not a concession of the same shape?]

This is part of the statute. (pp. 4–5)

Congress, who gave us 100% of our budget, did not give us *more* money to expose these #EFTA files. (p. 6)

From day 1, Blanche was the PR flack who was tasked with telling Congress "everything is fine." (p. 6)

He's also #Trump's flunky, so he did PR flack for him too. Over 1k victims and relatives. (p. 6)

Some work completed by 2026/02/14. (pp. 6–7)

We also created a murder hole to spy on members of Congress who wanted to peep at the unredacted files: (p. 7) [budget for PR?]

More "you're not the boss of me" energy. (pp. 7–8)

Stupid, stupid court came to the opposite conclusion. (p. 8)

This is how stupid the court is. (pp. 8–10)

But assuming for a second that you are the boss of me, and because I am not in a posture to start an appeal, allow me to start to begin. (p. 10)

#ToddBlanche explains to #KatiePhang and the District Court why so many incomplete and inappropriately redacted #Epstein files. Doc 19, 2026/07/02 in Phang v. Blanche (26-cv-01417) District Court, District of Columbia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

He could have avoided this by producing the documents the law requires, but no-o-o.... (p. 2)

Congress required this of them and spent time and Congress-appropirated resources on the task. (p. 2)

Strong "you're not the boss of me" energy. Also, "I didn't do, you can't prove it." (pp. 2–3)

How *dare* the judge claim the DOJ conceded that it broke the #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct when we just didn't contradict the many ways we obviously did when given a chance during the *preliminary* proceedings. The best innocent lawyers always save the best evidence and arguments for the end. (p. 3) [But, how is ¶ 1 above not a concession of the same shape?]

This is part of the statute. (pp. 4–5)

Congress, who gave us 100% of our budget, did not give us *more* money to expose these #EFTA files. (p. 6)

From day 1, Blanche was the PR flack who was tasked with telling Congress "everything is fine." (p. 6)

He's also #Trump's flunky, so he did PR flack for him too. Over 1k victims and relatives. (p. 6)

Some work completed by 2026/02/14. (pp. 6–7)

We also created a murder hole to spy on members of Congress who wanted to peep at the unredacted files: (p. 7) [budget for PR?]

More "you're not the boss of me" energy. (pp. 7–8)

Stupid, stupid court came to the opposite conclusion. (p. 8)

This is how stupid the court is. (pp. 8–10)

But assuming for a second that you are the boss of me, and because I am not in a posture to start an appeal, allow me to start to begin. (p. 10)

As if we all didn't know that #PresidentCoverup happily participates in cover-ups when it suits him

#uspol #politics #TrumpAdministration2026 #SecondTrumpAdminstration #AlienFiles #GOP_Propaganda #AlienEnemiesAct #EpsteinFiles #TrumpAdministration #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinFilesCoverup #Trump #DonaldTrump

As if we all didn't know that #PresidentCoverup happily participates in cover-ups when it suits him

#uspol #politics #TrumpAdministration2026 #SecondTrumpAdminstration #AlienFiles #GOP_Propaganda #AlienEnemiesAct #EpsteinFiles #TrumpAdministration #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinFilesCoverup #Trump #DonaldTrump

As if we all didn't know that #PresidentCoverup happily participates in cover-ups when it suits him

#uspol #politics #TrumpAdministration2026 #SecondTrumpAdminstration #AlienFiles #GOP_Propaganda #AlienEnemiesAct #EpsteinFiles #TrumpAdministration #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinFilesCoverup #Trump #DonaldTrump

As if we all didn't know that #PresidentCoverup happily participates in cover-ups when it suits him

#uspol #politics #TrumpAdministration2026 #SecondTrumpAdminstration #AlienFiles #GOP_Propaganda #AlienEnemiesAct #EpsteinFiles #TrumpAdministration #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinFilesCoverup #Trump #DonaldTrump

As if we all didn't know that #PresidentCoverup happily participates in cover-ups when it suits him

#uspol #politics #TrumpAdministration2026 #SecondTrumpAdminstration #AlienFiles #GOP_Propaganda #AlienEnemiesAct #EpsteinFiles #TrumpAdministration #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinFilesCoverup #Trump #DonaldTrump

"They investigated me for months – FOUND NOTHING!!! So 16 year old charge resulted! […] NO FUN, NOT WORHT IT!!"

#JeffreyEpstein's alleged suicide note reads suspiciously like something #DonaldTrump would say 🤔

#uspol #politics #Trump #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinSuicideNote #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinCoverup

"They investigated me for months – FOUND NOTHING!!! So 16 year old charge resulted! […] NO FUN, NOT WORHT IT!!"

#JeffreyEpstein's alleged suicide note reads suspiciously like something #DonaldTrump would say 🤔

#uspol #politics #Trump #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinSuicideNote #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinCoverup

"They investigated me for months – FOUND NOTHING!!! So 16 year old charge resulted! […] NO FUN, NOT WORHT IT!!"

#JeffreyEpstein's alleged suicide note reads suspiciously like something #DonaldTrump would say 🤔

#uspol #politics #Trump #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinSuicideNote #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinCoverup

"They investigated me for months – FOUND NOTHING!!! So 16 year old charge resulted! […] NO FUN, NOT WORHT IT!!"

#JeffreyEpstein's alleged suicide note reads suspiciously like something #DonaldTrump would say 🤔

#uspol #politics #Trump #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinSuicideNote #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinCoverup

"They investigated me for months – FOUND NOTHING!!! So 16 year old charge resulted! […] NO FUN, NOT WORHT IT!!"

#JeffreyEpstein's alleged suicide note reads suspiciously like something #DonaldTrump would say 🤔

#uspol #politics #Trump #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinSuicideNote #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinCoverup