Speaker 1: I hear you. I read the comments and I share
Speaker 1: your sentiment.
Speaker 2: I have to keep my foot on the neck of
Speaker 2: Attorney General Todd Blanch, because that's just the way things
Speaker 2: have to go these days.
Speaker 1: Isn't that the case?
Speaker 2: And my litigation remains the only lawsuit that has been
Speaker 2: brought pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Speaker 1: And because I.
Speaker 2: Abide by the court's orders, I have now filed a reply.
Speaker 2: to the latest stream of excuses from Blanche as to
Speaker 2: why he is protecting convicted felon Donald Trump and other
Speaker 2: members of the Epstein elite, as in he's withholding and
Speaker 2: illegally redacting files, documents, materials that are legally required to
Speaker 2: be produced pursuant to federal statute. And yet the top
Speaker 2: cop in the land, the Attorney General of the United States,
Speaker 2: remains committed to the bit of being personal counsel to
Speaker 2: convicted felon, Donald Trump. Let's get into the latest. Here's
Speaker 2: my reply. It was just filed September 2nd, 2026. It's
Speaker 2: entitled reply on proposed order. It's because Judge Emmett Sullivan
Speaker 2: ordered Blanche to file a response to the notice that
Speaker 2: I have covered here at Katie Fang news in a
Speaker 2: prior episode that told the court that Blanche was wrong
Speaker 2: when his counsel said that it's too hard or they
Speaker 2: haven't produced. redacted handwritten FBI notes pursuant to FBI 302 reports,
Speaker 2: and also the proposed order that dealt with the publication
Speaker 2: of a redaction log in the Federal Register and beyond. Now,
Speaker 2: my reply is succinct. It's a little bit under seven pages,
Speaker 2: and it makes clear that Blanche continues to refuse to
Speaker 2: comply with not only the law, but with the court's orders.
Speaker 2: June 25th, Judge Sullivan granted my motion for preliminary injunction,
Speaker 2: setting forth very specific things that Blanche was required to do.
Speaker 2: Blanche failed to do that, thereby forcing the court to
Speaker 2: have to issue an order for a status hearing. I
Speaker 2: went a few weeks ago in D.C. And for two hours,
Speaker 2: the lawyer for Todd Blanche, this kid named Andrew Block,
Speaker 2: a lawyer for the Department of Justice, failed to give
Speaker 2: reasons to the court as to why Blanche was unable
Speaker 2: to comply with the court's orders and directives. The arguments
Speaker 2: that were set forth were specious at best. They were
Speaker 2: unsupported by the facts and the evidence, and they sat
Speaker 2: there like a rank smell in that courtroom. Now, we
Speaker 2: have provided the notice of the several examples of redacted
Speaker 2: handwritten notes being produced in the Epstein Files. We also
Speaker 2: submitted the proposed order, as was required by Judge Sullivan.
Speaker 2: The defendant, Todd Blanche, has now chosen to ignore the
Speaker 2: notice that we provided to the court and has done
Speaker 2: some half-assed explanation as to whether or not he's actually
Speaker 2: complied with a section of the law that requires the
Speaker 2: publication of the redaction log. But as I noted here
Speaker 2: on another episode at Katie Fang News, Todd Blanche is
Speaker 2: just a dumbass and has cited to the wrong section. Now,
Speaker 2: let's get into some of the details because I continue.
Speaker 2: to tell Judge Sullivan to order Blanche to produce the unredacted,
Speaker 2: handwritten FBI notes that relate to four separate interviews conducted
Speaker 2: by the FBI based on allegations made by a woman
Speaker 2: who says that when she was just 13 years old,
Speaker 2: between the span of 13 and 15 years old, that
Speaker 2: she was sexually assaulted by convicted felon Donald Trump and
Speaker 2: that she was also physically battered by him and others,
Speaker 2: by the way. But notably and tellingly, there is this
Speaker 2: insanity of trying to protect Donald Trump because why not
Speaker 2: produce the redacted handwritten notes to the public? And then
Speaker 2: why not produce the unredacted handwritten notes to Judge Sullivan,
Speaker 2: as has been ordered by him now repeatedly? The excuses
Speaker 2: provided by Blanche as to these handwritten notes are legion
Speaker 2: and they're dumb. The first one that he did in
Speaker 2: writing was, oh, they are substantially similar to the FBI
Speaker 2: 302 reports. Well, let me tell you something. And I've
Speaker 2: said it again. The Epstein Files doesn't provide for a, quote,
Speaker 2: substantially similar exception to production. Judge Sullivan's order did not
Speaker 2: recognize a substantially similar exception. In court, the lawyer for
Speaker 2: Todd Blanch says that the handwritten notes are duplicative. Again,
Speaker 2: there is a major material difference between something being substantially
Speaker 2: similar versus being duplicative. But even if they were duplicative,
Speaker 2: there's still.
Speaker 1: No exception in the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Speaker 2: That would allow Todd Blanche to withhold production of these
Speaker 2: handwritten FBI notes. As such, and because even the court
Speaker 2: pressed the lawyer for Todd Blanche during that status hearing
Speaker 2: to explain, you may be right that these things are duplicative.
Speaker 2: You may be right that these things are substantially similar,
Speaker 2: but the court needs to be in a position to
Speaker 2: say the court either agrees with the Department of Justice
Speaker 2: or disagrees. In other words, we don't take your word
Speaker 2: for it. We don't trust you, Department of Justice, Todd Blanche.
Speaker 2: So you got to give the court something to be
Speaker 2: able to rely upon. And as we sit here today,
Speaker 2: September 2nd, 2026, Todd Blanche continues to refuse to comply
Speaker 2: with the court's order to produce these unredacted notes so
Speaker 2: the judge can decide whether to produce them or not
Speaker 2: in redacted forms, redacted only to eliminate and remove any
Speaker 2: potential exposure for the victims in this case.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 2: So in this reply, we asked Judge Sullivan to order
Speaker 2: Blanche to produce the unredacted FBI handwritten notes within five
Speaker 2: days of entry of an order. Next. We also address
Speaker 2: the following. The redaction log. And I spent a decent
Speaker 2: amount of time just a few days ago, just last week,
Speaker 2: talking about how there are two separate sections in the
Speaker 2: Epstein Files Transparency Act. One is section three that says
Speaker 2: you do the summary and you give it to Congress
Speaker 2: and you publish it in the Federal Register. And then
Speaker 2: there's one that we are traveling under that we keep
Speaker 2: on harping on, which is Section 2, Subsection C, Subsection 2.
Speaker 2: I'm going to put it up on the screen now
Speaker 2: because it's very important that we focus on this language
Speaker 2: because Todd Blanch cannot read basic English.
Speaker 1: So here's the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Speaker 2: I want you to focus on Section 2, entitled Release
Speaker 2: of Documents Relating to Jeffrey Epstein. And we know Subsection A,
Speaker 2: very broad, comprehensive, what has to be produced, We know
Speaker 2: Blanche has already violated this because he hasn't produced everything
Speaker 2: that is listed here. Subsection B says these are actually
Speaker 2: grounds for withholding that you're not allowed to use as
Speaker 2: an excuse. Embarrassment, reputational harm or political sensitivity, including for
Speaker 2: any government official, public figure or foreign dignitary. We know
Speaker 2: Blanche has violated this because we know that he's withholding,
Speaker 2: if not redacting information. that would pose embarrassment, harm, and
Speaker 2: political sensitivity to, I don't know, Donald Trump and others. Well,
Speaker 2: let's go to section two. All redactions must be accompanied
Speaker 2: by a written justification published in the federal register and
Speaker 2: submitted to Congress. That's some plain English. All redactions must
Speaker 2: be accompanied by a written justification. Now, what does Todd
Speaker 2: Blanche say? Judge, judge, judge, judge, look what I did.
Speaker 2: I published this in the Federal Register, Judge. But Blanche
Speaker 2: cites to an entirely different section. He doesn't cite to
Speaker 2: Section 2C2. He cites to Section 3. Report to Congress.
Speaker 2: Within 15 days of completion of this release, the Attorney
Speaker 2: General shall submit to the House and Senate committees on
Speaker 2: the judiciary a report listing all categories of records released
Speaker 2: and withheld and a summary of redactions made, including legal basis.
Speaker 2: Number one, way beyond the 15 days. But number two,
Speaker 2: why did it say here in Section 3 that you
Speaker 2: have to publish it in the Federal Register? So once again,
Speaker 2: Todd Blanch intentionally, negligently, either way, he's horrible, is conflating
Speaker 2: two sections. But you and I both know he can
Speaker 2: read basic English, right? He can read basic English. He's
Speaker 2: intentionally doing this. He's trying to pull a fast one
Speaker 2: on the court, which is unethical and terrible. But he's
Speaker 2: also trying to confuse people because unless you actually, you know,
Speaker 2: look at the statute, you may get understandably confused. But
Speaker 2: in our reply, and as we've said repeatedly, we've made
Speaker 2: it clear to the court, you can't snow the court.
Speaker 2: Court's too smart, number one. But number two, you haven't
Speaker 2: provided for all of the redactions. You haven't given a
Speaker 2: written justification. And what he has done is he's published
Speaker 2: in the Federal Register a six-page letter it gave to
Speaker 2: Congress more than six months ago, and he tries to
Speaker 2: say that he satisfied the redaction log, and the answer
Speaker 2: is no.
Speaker 1: He hasn't.
Speaker 2: And we cite to... Are you ready? Justice Scalia. The
Speaker 2: cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is that no provision should
Speaker 2: be construed to be entirely redundant. Section 2 requires an
Speaker 2: explanation for each individual redaction, while Section 3 requires only
Speaker 2: a summary of all redactions. I don't want the summary.
Speaker 2: I want what the law requires the attorney general to do.
Speaker 2: And this is important because it forces Todd Blanche's hand
Speaker 2: to have to admit that he has done redactions that
Speaker 2: are illegal and impermissible pursuant to a federal law. And
Speaker 2: that's why he is fighting this tooth and nail. They
Speaker 2: give away the game always. Their objections, their opposition, their
Speaker 2: efforts to delay and obfuscate and hide. They give away
Speaker 2: the game. And they also violate the law, not to
Speaker 2: mention the multiple court orders from Judge Sullivan. So we've
Speaker 2: asked the court to order Todd Blanch to publish within
Speaker 2: 10 days the written justification for, quote, all redactions made
Speaker 2: as required by the Epstein-Faust Transparency Act. One more thing,
Speaker 2: and it's a due process point, which is where I live.
Speaker 2: In a courtroom, everybody gets somebody whose entire job is
Speaker 2: to argue for them. That's the design. Now, Medicare processes
Speaker 2: about 35 claims every second, over a billion a year.
Speaker 2: And when yours comes back denied or the bill is wrong,
Speaker 2: nobody inside that system has the job of arguing for you.
Speaker 2: A clean claim clears in about two weeks. One dispute
Speaker 2: and you're 60 days in on hold, up against something
Speaker 2: counting on you to just give up and pay it.
Speaker 2: For me, That's troubling. So here's what I want you
Speaker 2: to know about Chapter. Chapter isn't a plan. They're independent
Speaker 2: Medicare advisors, the only Medicare advisors that compare every plan nationwide.
Speaker 2: And here's the part almost nobody knows. Once you've chosen
Speaker 2: a plan, you get their advocate's team year-round. Wrong bills,
Speaker 2: prior authorization denials, appeals, they take it on and they
Speaker 2: stay with it. Most agents don't offer that at all. Free,
Speaker 2: under 20 minutes, call 628-289-0726. or go to askchapter.org forward
Speaker 2: slash fang and get Medicare support that truly advocates.
Speaker 1: On your behalf.
Speaker 2: And finally, as usual, Todd Blanch is begging the court
Speaker 2: for a stay. Todd Blanch is begging the court for
Speaker 2: more time because he wants to be able to figure
Speaker 2: out if he can appeal. Now remember, for months he's
Speaker 2: been like, I don't know if I can appeal because
Speaker 2: the preliminary injunction hasn't been granted. But then just a
Speaker 2: few weeks ago, he's like, I'm filing a protective notice
Speaker 2: of appeal because, as I said, he's thinking, I got
Speaker 2: a 50-50 chance of getting this appeal right. Never actually
Speaker 2: filed the appeal right, just did a notice of appeal.
Speaker 2: But here's the problem, too. He never actually asked for
Speaker 2: a stay by way of any motion. He didn't file
Speaker 2: a motion to stay the preliminary injunction or the bigger lawsuit,
Speaker 2: which continues behind the scenes. And because of that, any
Speaker 2: ask for a stay should be dismissed. But we also
Speaker 2: have the law on our side. In the D.C. Circuit,
Speaker 2: a court assesses four factors when considering a motion to
Speaker 2: stay an injunction pending appeal. Number one, the moving party
Speaker 2: is Blanche. Blanche's likelihood of success on the merits of
Speaker 2: his appeal. Number two, whether Blanche will suffer irreparable injury.
Speaker 2: Number three, whether the issuance of this stay would substantially
Speaker 2: harm other parties in this proceeding. and subsection 4, the
Speaker 2: public interest. Now look, Judge Sullivan granted my motion for
Speaker 2: preliminary injunction and already resolved factors 1, 3, and 4
Speaker 2: in my favor. So really the only one that remains,
Speaker 2: whether there's irreparable harm to Blanche in having to not
Speaker 2: get a stay that he is seeking, well, Blanche cannot...
Speaker 2: circumvent well-established law recognizing that administrative burdens and staffing limitations
Speaker 2: fail to constitute irreparable harms in this manner. In other words,
Speaker 2: if Blanche says, judge, I'm going to have all this
Speaker 2: irreparable harm because I'm going to have to go and
Speaker 2: I'm going to have to do all these explanations for
Speaker 2: all of these redactions, it's not an excuse. So that's
Speaker 2: why we say the Attorney General of the United States
Speaker 2: must spend time and effort to follow the law, but
Speaker 2: that is not a harm, let alone an irreparable one.
Speaker 2: It is a labor of love doing this lawsuit. It
Speaker 2: is a lot to do this lawsuit, but I am
Speaker 2: determined to see this thing through. And as I said
Speaker 2: a few minutes ago, the lawsuit, the big lawsuit, seeks
Speaker 2: the production of the entirety of the Epstein files with
Speaker 2: proper legal redactions. And not just the ones that have
Speaker 2: been published so far publicly, but the ones that Toblanch
Speaker 2: continues to sit on, claiming that they are what? Duplicative
Speaker 2: and non-responsive. We all know that we cannot trust what
Speaker 2: Toblanch says. Haven't been able to trust what Toblanch says
Speaker 2: for a long time, but especially when it comes to
Speaker 2: the Epstein files, we most certainly can't trust him. This
Speaker 2: preliminary injunction has been incredibly important. It has dislodged a
Speaker 2: lot of information from Blanche and the Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: It has exposed them for their cover-up, for their concealment,
Speaker 2: for their violations of the law, and it has made
Speaker 2: them scramble to try to stay consistent on excuses, and
Speaker 2: they get revealed each and every step of the way. But,
Speaker 2: like I said, it becomes a labor of love because
Speaker 2: we have to continue to push it forward knowing that
Speaker 2: we have to comply with not only rules of procedure
Speaker 2: in the law, but with what the judge tells us
Speaker 2: to do. That's the reason, pursuant to the court's order,
Speaker 2: we have filed this reply today. Hot off the presses,
Speaker 2: you have it here at Katie Faye News exclusively. Conveniently,
Speaker 2: my lawsuit. If you have not subscribed, please subscribe. I
Speaker 2: am on a push, a campaign to hit a million
Speaker 2: subscribers by the end of 2026. I want the world
Speaker 2: to hear and see the news and the content that
Speaker 2: we do here. Because as I am want to say
Speaker 2: as of late, I have an obligation to be truthful.
Speaker 2: I have no obligation to be neutral. And I am
Speaker 2: giving the truth, not only when it comes to the law,
Speaker 2: not only when it comes to this lawsuit, not only
Speaker 2: when it comes to the Epstein files, but to everything
Speaker 2: else that is happening in real time here in the
Speaker 2: United States and beyond. Be mad, be outraged, demand accountability.
Speaker 2: I am demanding accountability each and every day. I'm off
Speaker 2: to round more cages.
Speaker 1: Katie Fang here.
Speaker 2: We launched the Katie Fang News Channel in partnership with
Speaker 2: the Midas Touch Network so we could bring you the
Speaker 2: latest in legal and political news. Straight, no chaser. So
Speaker 2: if you're a fellow truth teller, hit that subscribe button
Speaker 2: and share the word about this channel so we can
Speaker 2: build a high information America together. As if we needed
Speaker 2: more evidence that the convicted felon Donald Trump White House
Speaker 2: seems to be a pay to play kind of place.
Speaker 2: Remember this truth social announcement that came out just about
Speaker 2: a week ago, August 21st?
Speaker 1: It's on your screen.
Speaker 2: It's from a felon Trump. And it states today, as
Speaker 2: in August 21st, 2026. I concluded a deal to substantially
Speaker 2: lower the price of ground beef for working American families.
Speaker 2: And then it goes on to lie and blame former
Speaker 2: President Joe Biden for the prices of beef, when in
Speaker 2: reality it is not Biden's fault at all. But it
Speaker 2: then goes on to say that in the next 90 days,
Speaker 2: the United States will allow up to 300,000 metric tons
Speaker 2: of product for ground beef to be imported with no
Speaker 2: out-of-quota tariff. We have a commitment that this beef will
Speaker 2: be sold at 25% below current market prices. Okay, again,
Speaker 2: rife with lies, but I guess what's not a lie
Speaker 2: is the date, August 21st. And the reason why I
Speaker 2: am spending time about that date is what happened the
Speaker 2: day before on August 20th? Well, funny you should ask
Speaker 2: because I'm here to tell you. On August 20th, a
Speaker 2: guy named Joesley, Joesley Batista, let's just call him JBS.
Speaker 1: Let's just call him that, right?
Speaker 2: Jules Lee Batista met with convicted felon Donald Trump on
Speaker 2: August 20th, the day before this announcement goes out on
Speaker 2: Truth Social. They meet in the Oval Office and the
Speaker 2: two of them discuss how additional beef supplied from Brazil
Speaker 2: could help if Trump dropped a 26% import tax. Boom.
Speaker 2: Next day, Trump posts on Truth Social. He's going to
Speaker 2: temporarily allow foreign beef product to be imported into the
Speaker 2: United States and sold at a 25% discount to market prices. Now,
Speaker 2: of course, this news not being well received by American
Speaker 2: cattle ranchers and American farmers, because of course it doesn't
Speaker 2: help them. And in reality, it's not really going to
Speaker 2: help American working families. It just makes him, as in Trump,
Speaker 2: think that he's, you know, looking good when it's just not.
Speaker 2: And then the same day, on August 21st, that that
Speaker 2: truth social statement comes out, the Brazilian government said that
Speaker 2: the president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, held
Speaker 2: an 80-minute call with Trump touching on issues like tariffs,
Speaker 2: combating organized crime, and their views on current global conflicts.
Speaker 2: No coincidence, Brazil is the world's largest producer of beef.
Speaker 2: The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the largest trade group for
Speaker 2: cattle ranchers, saying that government intervention, like what Trump just announced,
Speaker 2: will only hurt ranchers and prevent long-term stability in the
Speaker 2: beef industry. Now, why are we talking about Joesley Batista?
Speaker 2: I'm calling him the Brazilian billionaire beef bro of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: The reason why we're talking about him... is because JBS,
Speaker 2: which is the world's largest meat packer, has played a
Speaker 2: key role in the Trump administration in terms of policy
Speaker 2: and in terms of how it's approaching certain market things.
Speaker 2: Pilgrim's Pride, which is the country's second largest chicken processor
Speaker 2: and is the control, the majority control of Pilgrim's Pride,
Speaker 2: is by this company, JBS. Pilgrim's Pride contributed $ 5 million
Speaker 2: to Trump's inauguration, making it the biggest donor.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 2: You know who watches that stuff? Senator Elizabeth Warren. Check
Speaker 2: this out from Elizabeth Warren. she sent a letter. And
Speaker 2: she sent this letter saying, I write with concern about
Speaker 2: the possibility that large corporations, including big ag, big agricultural
Speaker 2: companies like Pilgrim's Pride, may have donated massive amounts to
Speaker 2: President Trump's inauguration in an effort to influence the actions
Speaker 2: of his administration. Pilgrim's Pride was the largest single, was
Speaker 2: the single largest donor to the Trump-Vance inaugural committee. Its
Speaker 2: $ 5 million donation amounts to more than the contributions from
Speaker 2: Apple's CEO, plus Amazon, Meta, and Google combined. I am
Speaker 2: concerned that Pilgrim's Pride may have made its contribution to
Speaker 2: the inaugural fund to curry favor with the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: You think?
Speaker 2: I mean, clearly. JBS, Joesley, Batista, Pilgrim's Pride, they're playing
Speaker 2: the long game here, right? Let's give you the $ 5
Speaker 2: million at the inauguration, and then let's kind of see
Speaker 2: what comes out along the way. Okay. So, right now, interestingly...
Speaker 2: the Justice Department in the Trump administration is actually investigating beef.
Speaker 2: The Justice Department disclosing in April of this year that
Speaker 2: they're investigating beef companies because Trump blamed majority foreign-owned meatpackers. Now,
Speaker 2: this is back in April, right? Blamed them for the
Speaker 2: problems that we're having with beef. But what's outrageous is
Speaker 2: Then when this guy, Joesley Batista, comes along and has
Speaker 2: this conversation in the Oval about, oh, hey, how great
Speaker 2: would it be, blah, blah, blah, the next thing you
Speaker 2: know is what? Trump's like, oh, oh, okay. We're going
Speaker 2: to allow 300,000 metric tons. By the way, I did
Speaker 2: the math on this, or maybe my computer did. You
Speaker 2: know what that is? 661.4 million pounds of beef product
Speaker 2: is going to be entering the United States. Trump calling
Speaker 2: for an investigation by his Justice Department, blaming those majority
Speaker 2: foreign-owned meatpackers. And so now the DOJ probe is looking
Speaker 2: at all of the major companies that sell beef in
Speaker 2: the U.S., Tyson Foods, Cargill, JBS, and National Beef. JBS,
Speaker 2: headquartered in Brazil, as I mentioned, National Beef is owned
Speaker 2: by Brazil-based MBRF Global Foods.
Speaker 1: It's kind of amazing, huh?
Speaker 2: Sounds like Brazil has a monopoly on the four companies
Speaker 2: that are dominating the meatpacking and beef market. Now, that
Speaker 2: investigation apparently is going on. It's an antitrust probe. But
Speaker 2: here's the thing. This company, JBS, if it imports more
Speaker 2: of its Brazilian product into the U.S., it would give
Speaker 2: JBS a bigger share of the American market than it
Speaker 2: already has. In the first six months of this year alone,
Speaker 2: in 2026, Brazil sent about $ 1. 5 billion worth of beef
Speaker 2: to the United States, up 10% from last year, 2025.
Speaker 2: Last year, JBS listed its shares on the New York
Speaker 2: Stock Exchange, something that it had been wanting to do
Speaker 2: for a long time. The reason why it took it
Speaker 2: a while to be able to go and list on
Speaker 2: the New York Stock Exchange is because as far back
Speaker 2: as 2017, the company admitted to bribing leaders in Brazil. What? Well,
Speaker 2: check this out. This company, PetroBoss and JBS... which is
Speaker 2: that meatpacking company I've been talking about, okay? They were
Speaker 2: a part of a three-year investigation into graft and grift
Speaker 2: and corruption. And JBS telling prosecutors that JBS paid a
Speaker 2: total of $ 123 million in bribes to the country's politicians
Speaker 2: over recent years, including... to the prior president, Michael Temer,
Speaker 2: as well as his predecessors, Dilma Rousseff and Luiz Inácio
Speaker 2: Lula da Silva. Oh my God, is that the guy
Speaker 2: that I just mentioned is the president of Brazil? Joesley Batista,
Speaker 2: chairman and heir to the family-run pork and chicken empire,
Speaker 2: said he deposited $ 30 million in an offshore bank account
Speaker 2: for Ms. Rousseff in exchange for loans from Brazil's State
Speaker 2: Development Bank. He gave at least $ 50 million to an
Speaker 2: offshore account held by Mr. Da Silva. Batista also saying
Speaker 2: that Rousseff and Da Silva had $ 150 million located in
Speaker 2: offshore accounts in 2014. Now, JBS executives did a plea
Speaker 2: deal with Brazilian prosecutors after Brazil's Supreme Court launched a
Speaker 2: formal investigation into the president, former President Temer, for corruption, conspiracy,
Speaker 2: and obstruction of justice.
Speaker 1: Brazil's got some issues.
Speaker 2: Now, this is back in 2017. JBS... was a part
Speaker 2: of a probe going as far back as 2014 into
Speaker 2: money laundering. Under the leftist Workers' Party, which ruled Brazil
Speaker 2: from 2003 until Rousseff's ouster in August, JBS enjoyed a
Speaker 2: close relationship with the government. Kind of sounds like what JBS,
Speaker 2: Joesley Batista, is doing now, right? With our American government,
Speaker 2: with Trump. Between 2007 and 2010, the meatpacker received 8.1
Speaker 2: billion reais in subsidized loans from BNDES, which is the
Speaker 2: state development bank for Brazil. And it helped it undertake
Speaker 2: a multi-billion dollar deal spree in the U.S., positioning JBS
Speaker 2: among the biggest American meat packers.
Speaker 1: So hear this out.
Speaker 2: JBS in 2007 paid $ 1. 4 billion to acquire Swift Foods,
Speaker 2: and then two years later paid $ 800 million to get
Speaker 2: the controlling stake in Pilgrim's Pride. I mean, talk about
Speaker 2: taking over the American market and industry space. In 2015,
Speaker 2: JBS bought Cargill's pork business for $ 1. 45 billion. So JBS USA,
Speaker 2: the American entity of JBS, second largest processor of beef
Speaker 2: and pork in the U.S., and Pilgrim's Pride is the
Speaker 2: second largest poultry company. And this is back in 2017,
Speaker 2: by the way, which is the market share is much
Speaker 2: bigger now. JBS may have received illegal favorable treatment from
Speaker 2: Brazil's state development bank with financing. JBS denying that it
Speaker 2: received special treatment. Remember, this is a 2017 article within,
Speaker 2: oh my gosh, what happens in 2020? Billionaire brothers Joe
Speaker 2: Wesley and Wesley Batista going to jail for several months
Speaker 2: in Brazil because a company called JNF Investimentos admitted to
Speaker 2: paying $ 150 million in bribes to Brazilian politicians. to secure
Speaker 2: cheap government funding to fuel one of its most ambitious
Speaker 2: global acquisition sprees in Brazilian corporate history. And who are
Speaker 2: the controlling stakeholders in JNF? Oh, it's Joesley and Wesley Batista.
Speaker 2: The United States Justice Department imposing a penalty of $ 256. 6
Speaker 2: million on JNF, but ordering it to only pay half
Speaker 2: of that to U.S. authorities because it already paid fines
Speaker 2: to Brazilian authorities. JBS has invested billions of dollars in
Speaker 2: the U.S. market. To carry out bribes and other activities,
Speaker 2: the Justice Department says J & F executives like Joe
Speaker 2: Wesley and Wesley Batista used New York-based bank accounts to
Speaker 2: make illicit payments and purchased a $ 1. 5 million Manhattan apartment
Speaker 2: that was used as a bribe. Prosecutors saying that executives
Speaker 2: of this company met in the U.S. to discuss and
Speaker 2: advance the scheme. Both JBS and J & F investimentos
Speaker 2: are controlled by the Batista family. JBS agreeing to pay
Speaker 2: $ 27 million to the SEC. Pilgrim's Pride paying a fine
Speaker 2: of $ 110. 5 million. Remember I mentioned the 2017 investigation in Brazil?
Speaker 2: JNF agreeing to pay the equivalent of $ 3. 2 billion over
Speaker 2: 25 years to settle that investigation that I just read
Speaker 2: to you. JBS executives admitting to bribing almost 2,000 politicians.
Speaker 2: By signing the plea deal, brothers Joesley and Wesley Batista
Speaker 2: avoided going to jail here in the U.S., The brothers
Speaker 2: were later arrested, though, in Brazil on accusations that they
Speaker 2: committed insider trading by dumping the company's shares and stockpiling U.S.
Speaker 2: dollars before the plea bargain became public. I mean....
Speaker 1: If the shit stinks, it's shit.
Speaker 2: Let's get back to what's happening now, right? So... Trump
Speaker 2: announcing he's going to let these beef trimmings or beef
Speaker 2: products in.
Speaker 1: I mean, the.
Speaker 2: Timing is everything, is it not? And it really bothers
Speaker 2: me because how do we not pay attention to what
Speaker 2: is happening internationally to understand how corruption knows no international borders, right?
Speaker 2: And clearly it knows no boundaries here. And you see
Speaker 2: this You see this meeting with Joesley Batista on the
Speaker 2: 20th in the Oval, and the Batista family company owning
Speaker 2: a huge stake in beef and a huge stake in chicken,
Speaker 2: and now Brazil is going to end up sending in beef?
Speaker 2: I mean... Bye. just, it's like you can't even script it, right?
Speaker 2: You can't even script it. Argentine beef too, is that
Speaker 2: how you pronounce it? It is outrageous to me. And look,
Speaker 2: the least I can do is bring it to you
Speaker 2: so that you know.
Speaker 1: So that you understand what is happening here.
Speaker 2: This White House has historically been on sale in the
Speaker 2: Trump term 1.0, Trump term 2.0. I mean, look at
Speaker 2: the lineup of people at the inauguration from big tech.
Speaker 2: I mean, Elon Musk and others. I mean, it is grotesque,
Speaker 2: is it not?
Speaker 1: And now this.
Speaker 2: I don't understand how any American could support Trump and
Speaker 2: a Republican at this point. Especially, I'm talking to you,
Speaker 2: American farmers, cattle ranchers, soybean farmers. And there's no coincidence here.
Speaker 2: The number of bankruptcies that have been announced by American farmers.
Speaker 2: Senate candidate Hallie Schaffner shutting down her 150-year-old family farm, soybean,
Speaker 2: last year.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's no coincidences here, right?
Speaker 2: And then we see this. And it didn't take a
Speaker 2: lot for me to learn the history of the Batista
Speaker 2: family and the Batista brothers and everything that was happening
Speaker 2: in Brazil. You think... That just because they got caught
Speaker 2: in Brazil bribing politicians to get favorable deals, you think
Speaker 2: that shit would stop in Brazil? What's to stop them
Speaker 2: from doing the same thing in America? And again, the
Speaker 2: timing stinks, does it not? Be mad. Farmers, ranchers, those
Speaker 2: of you that supported Donald Trump, be outraged. Be outraged
Speaker 2: that your bottom line is being impacted by corruption and
Speaker 2: grift and graft. And demand accountability by voting out Republicans
Speaker 2: and doing everything you can to get rid of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: That's the least you should be doing. I'm off to
Speaker 1: round more cages. Katie Fang here.
Speaker 2: We launched the Katie Fang News Channel in partnership with
Speaker 2: the Midas Touch Network so we could bring you the
Speaker 2: latest in legal and political news. Straight, no chaser. So
Speaker 2: if you're a fellow truth teller, hit that subscribe button
Speaker 2: and share the word about this channel so we can
Speaker 2: build a high information America together.