#epsteinfilestransparencyact — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #epsteinfilestransparencyact, aggregated by home.social.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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
-
https://www.europesays.com/people/11502/ The Epstein Files, Redactions and the Deep State Question #BipartisanPoliticalEmbarrassment #DeepStateRedactions #DonaldTrumpAndEpstein #EliteCompromiseTheory #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #JeffreyEpsteinFilesRelease #MediaSilenceOnEpstein #POTUS #PresidentOfTheUnitedStates #ThomasMassieAndRoKhannaEpsteinFiles #TrumpMidterms #USMidtermElections2026
-
When you are not as wealthy as #JeffreyEpstein was, you now get a chance to feel like you've got a #EpsteinBirthdayBook entry from #DonaldTrump by holding a dollar bill in your hands
#uspol #politics #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinCoverup #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #ScottBessent
-
When you are not as wealthy as #JeffreyEpstein was, you now get a chance to feel like you've got a #EpsteinBirthdayBook entry from #DonaldTrump by holding a dollar bill in your hands
#uspol #politics #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinCoverup #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #ScottBessent
-
When you are not as wealthy as #JeffreyEpstein was, you now get a chance to feel like you've got a #EpsteinBirthdayBook entry from #DonaldTrump by holding a dollar bill in your hands
#uspol #politics #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinCoverup #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #ScottBessent
-
When you are not as wealthy as #JeffreyEpstein was, you now get a chance to feel like you've got a #EpsteinBirthdayBook entry from #DonaldTrump by holding a dollar bill in your hands
#uspol #politics #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinCoverup #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #ScottBessent
-
When you are not as wealthy as #JeffreyEpstein was, you now get a chance to feel like you've got a #EpsteinBirthdayBook entry from #DonaldTrump by holding a dollar bill in your hands
#uspol #politics #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinCoverup #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #ScottBessent
-
Unfortunately, this won't be her Wikipedia infobox picture (which would then potentially appear in search engines' right-hand infoboxes).
But, maybe, this can:
#uspol #politics #PamBondi #PamBondiFiring #PamBondiFired #JeffreyEpstein #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinList #EpsteinClientList #EpsteinCoverup #ToddBlanche #EpsteinSurvivors
-
Unfortunately, this won't be her Wikipedia infobox picture (which would then potentially appear in search engines' right-hand infoboxes).
But, maybe, this can:
#uspol #politics #PamBondi #PamBondiFiring #PamBondiFired #JeffreyEpstein #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinList #EpsteinClientList #EpsteinCoverup #ToddBlanche #EpsteinSurvivors
-
Unfortunately, this won't be her Wikipedia infobox picture (which would then potentially appear in search engines' right-hand infoboxes).
But, maybe, this can:
#uspol #politics #PamBondi #PamBondiFiring #PamBondiFired #JeffreyEpstein #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinList #EpsteinClientList #EpsteinCoverup #ToddBlanche #EpsteinSurvivors
-
Unfortunately, this won't be her Wikipedia infobox picture (which would then potentially appear in search engines' right-hand infoboxes).
But, maybe, this can:
#uspol #politics #PamBondi #PamBondiFiring #PamBondiFired #JeffreyEpstein #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinList #EpsteinClientList #EpsteinCoverup #ToddBlanche #EpsteinSurvivors
-
Unfortunately, this won't be her Wikipedia infobox picture (which would then potentially appear in search engines' right-hand infoboxes).
But, maybe, this can:
#uspol #politics #PamBondi #PamBondiFiring #PamBondiFired #JeffreyEpstein #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinList #EpsteinClientList #EpsteinCoverup #ToddBlanche #EpsteinSurvivors
-
Whenever we need a picture of just fired U.S. attorney general #PamBondi for illustration, we should use this one and this one only:
#uspol #politics #PamBondiFiring #PamBondiFired #JeffreyEpstein #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinList #EpsteinClientList #EpsteinCoverup #ToddBlanche
-
Whenever we need a picture of just fired U.S. attorney general #PamBondi for illustration, we should use this one and this one only:
#uspol #politics #PamBondiFiring #PamBondiFired #JeffreyEpstein #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinList #EpsteinClientList #EpsteinCoverup #ToddBlanche
-
Whenever we need a picture of just fired U.S. attorney general #PamBondi for illustration, we should use this one and this one only:
#uspol #politics #PamBondiFiring #PamBondiFired #JeffreyEpstein #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinList #EpsteinClientList #EpsteinCoverup #ToddBlanche
-
Whenever we need a picture of just fired U.S. attorney general #PamBondi for illustration, we should use this one and this one only:
#uspol #politics #PamBondiFiring #PamBondiFired #JeffreyEpstein #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct #EpsteinList #EpsteinClientList #EpsteinCoverup #ToddBlanche