Speaker 1: Convicted felon. Donald Trump also should be known as the
Speaker 1: draft dodging mysterious bone spurs guy. He's never served a
Speaker 1: second in any honorable way in our United States Armed Forces.
Speaker 1: But that soob certainly has a lot to say about
Speaker 1: the recent reporting about the horrific and grotesque conditions on
Speaker 1: the USS Lincoln that is forcing some sailors to jump overboard.
Speaker 1: According to Trump, though they should actually suffer longer. Okay,
Speaker 1: what else do I have to say?
Speaker 2: Well, no, that ship is moving.
Speaker 1: No not, that ship is moving right now or very shortly.
Speaker 2: And it's being replaced with another very similar ship. No, no, no,
Speaker 2: not nearly long enough. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Everybody more lives from fellon Trump. But the real story
Speaker 1: is not just what is happening on the Lincoln right
Speaker 1: now and the fact that the Teddy Roosevelt has to
Speaker 1: come in and save the Lincoln on its unprecedented deployment
Speaker 1: of more than two hundred and fifty days without a
Speaker 1: stop and a port. It's the mental toll it is
Speaker 1: taken on the people who are serving an active duty
Speaker 1: right now. We're talking people that are in an illegal war.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine not having the basic necessities like hygiene
Speaker 1: and food and potable water, and then you also have
Speaker 1: that compounded by the knowledge that you could be blown
Speaker 1: up at any time because this is active combat. It
Speaker 1: is unconscionable to me. And the Trump regime is dismissive
Speaker 1: and just flat out rude, and it's just so disrespectful
Speaker 1: about how they are handling this. And there's also now
Speaker 1: the toll that will take place on these veterans when
Speaker 1: they are discharged and they leave. And I thought it
Speaker 1: was really important to talk about that. There is not
Speaker 1: enough of a conversation on the regular about the mental
Speaker 1: health toll from being in the military, let alone serving
Speaker 1: in this type of dysfunctional regime. That's why I invited
Speaker 1: doctor Don Lanoville, clinical psychologist, who also has her own
Speaker 1: personal and professional experience dealing with veterans, to be able
Speaker 1: to have I think a very important conversation. Joining me
Speaker 1: now is doctor Don Lanoville of Abamarle Psychology, Clinical and
Speaker 1: Forensic Services. Doctor Lanivill, thank you so much for taking
Speaker 1: the time to join me for what I think is
Speaker 1: an important conversation we should always be having, but especially
Speaker 1: in the context of what we're learning about the USS Lincoln.
Speaker 2: Thank you I appreciate being here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so doctor Lannivill, first of all, I want to
Speaker 1: thank you, and you're the members of your family. I
Speaker 1: want to make sure that people understand exactly how much
Speaker 1: context you have, because context is key it comes to
Speaker 1: having this conversation about what is going on with these sailors,
Speaker 1: these marines, and their kind of and their mental health.
Speaker 1: You are the spouse of a retired sailor, the mother
Speaker 1: of an adult Navy veteran, the stepmother of an active
Speaker 1: duty airman. Your father served in nom your former father
Speaker 1: law served, and your Navy veterans in law parents both served,
Speaker 1: and their sibling in law is active duty. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: you should probably understand a lot of what's going on
Speaker 1: in our armed forces right now, especially on a personal level.
Speaker 2: I do, and I want to mention also, I've been
Speaker 2: on the ship. I've taken what they call a tiger cruise,
Speaker 2: So I've been out in the ocean on the USS
Speaker 2: in Shawn, which is now sunk and it's decommissioned, and
Speaker 2: it's sunken off the East coast.
Speaker 1: So you know, there's been so much reporting out there
Speaker 1: about what is happening with the USS Lincoln and The
Speaker 1: point of our conversation is talking about how essential it
Speaker 1: is to be providing mental health services not only during
Speaker 1: active duty deployment, right during the in the midst of
Speaker 1: all of it, they still need mental health support, and
Speaker 1: then obviously the continued support once they leave and their
Speaker 1: discharge and they're back in our communities. We are woefully inadequate,
Speaker 1: I think in so many ways. But this is a
Speaker 1: big part of what you do as a psychologist.
Speaker 2: Yes it is. It's my understanding that they have mental
Speaker 2: health out on the ship, but I don't know what
Speaker 2: that equates to as far as a level of care.
Speaker 2: That kind of came out after the fact from everything
Speaker 2: that I've listened to or read. I don't know how
Speaker 2: those mental health providers are doing. They could be experiencing
Speaker 2: a degree of exhaustion themselves, that's across my mind.
Speaker 1: That's a really good point. Oh wow, I didn't think
Speaker 1: about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's just yes, yes, you.
Speaker 1: Know, doctor Lanaville. I hear these reports of people either
Speaker 1: attempting to jump overboard or at least one sailor successfully
Speaker 1: making it overboard, and I have to think the level
Speaker 1: of desperation they must feel has to be so profound
Speaker 1: talk about why being on more than I want to
Speaker 1: make sure I get this right. They've been deployed for
Speaker 1: more than eight months. They left San Diego in November
Speaker 1: of last year, and they've had a record breaking two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty consecutive days at sea without and they
Speaker 1: haven't had a port stop in more than forty days.
Speaker 2: That's correct. Actually they haven't had a port stop. I
Speaker 2: don't think in two hundred days. Oh my lord, I
Speaker 2: think we're approaching two hundred and sixty if we haven't
Speaker 2: passed that number. So it's the longest in known history,
Speaker 2: the longest deployment that we've heard of. So it clearly
Speaker 2: was not well planned, you.
Speaker 1: Know, doctor Lanevel, Why is it so important for the
Speaker 1: mental health of these sailors and marines to be able
Speaker 1: to have a port stop.
Speaker 2: As where they blow off their steam for a night
Speaker 2: or two, they get a break. You're floating around on
Speaker 2: the ocean and basically a heavily a heavy tin can.
Speaker 2: Basically the stairwells are extremely narrow and steep. The ships
Speaker 2: are not built for comfort, they're built for functionality, and
Speaker 2: so they get away from the ship, they get away
Speaker 2: from those surroundings and those smells. They get off of
Speaker 2: the water, they get to relax with their friends, maybe
Speaker 2: drink too much, you know, laying on each other to
Speaker 2: get back to the ship. It's just some time away.
Speaker 2: It's the only break they get. They have long shifts,
Speaker 2: they have frequent watches. When they're not doing a watch
Speaker 2: or working, they're trying to fall asleep or trying to
Speaker 2: get some rest. And that's their life. It's literally a
Speaker 2: twenty four hour cycle every day, no weekends, no days off.
Speaker 1: I read somewhere that one of the sailors inner was
Speaker 1: saying that there's no delineation of dates. You don't really know.
Speaker 1: A Monday could be a Wednesday as far as you're
Speaker 1: concerned when you're out on this type of carrier, out
Speaker 1: on the water like that.
Speaker 2: That's correct. It's literally twenty four to seven.
Speaker 1: So, doctor Lanovite, you know, when I heard that they
Speaker 1: left San Diego, it was supposed to be for a
Speaker 1: Pacific deployment, and they were supposed to end that deployment
Speaker 1: in May of this year. So it had been it
Speaker 1: would be about six months, right, you leave in November,
Speaker 1: you come back in May. They left in November. Now
Speaker 1: they have no idea when they're going to be able
Speaker 1: to come back.
Speaker 3: Talk about how.
Speaker 1: That would weigh mentally on someone who's now, like you said,
Speaker 1: logged more than two hundred and fifty days at sea
Speaker 1: without a port stop. Now they have no idea when
Speaker 1: this deployment's going to.
Speaker 2: End, right, So that's really that's a tough one because
Speaker 2: that's a long time away from family. They've got spotty internet,
Speaker 2: so they can't make connections through FaceTime or cell phones
Speaker 2: or even ship phones though they're completely unsupported by the
Speaker 2: networks that they have at home. But it's really compounded
Speaker 2: on this ship with food supplies being so critically low
Speaker 2: and showers not working. Basic necessities like toothpaste, deodorant, showers,
Speaker 2: working showers, working toilets, those things are gone, They're depleted.
Speaker 2: So the mental health is compounded by the time away
Speaker 2: from family and then without those basic living needs being met.
Speaker 1: You have such deep background and experience with these with
Speaker 1: these armed forces, is I mean, this sounds like just
Speaker 1: a no brainer to me. Wouldn't you provide these basic,
Speaker 1: even basic hygiene necessities. I've also read from my team
Speaker 1: here at Midas that, for example, the female female active
Speaker 1: service members they don't even have access to some of
Speaker 1: the basic feminine hygiene needs that they need. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can't imagine something even more demoralizing that you cannot
Speaker 1: even be able to get some of these basic necessities.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and you know that's the point of port calls, right,
Speaker 2: that's where they do get resupplied. But they've alienated so
Speaker 2: many of the countries that are surrounding them that no
Speaker 2: one will let them come into their ports, and so
Speaker 2: that's where they would normally get those supplies, and that's
Speaker 2: why they've run so critically low if not having it
Speaker 2: all gone.
Speaker 1: One thing you mentioned was an inability to be able
Speaker 1: to maintain regular communication. That is something I'm hearing from
Speaker 1: the families that are here stateside, and that they are
Speaker 1: unable to be in constant contact or even regular or
Speaker 1: even sporadic contact now with their loved ones. Why is
Speaker 1: that connection so important off that ship, and even if
Speaker 1: it isn't physically being able to see family, just being
Speaker 1: able to maybe call or even write.
Speaker 2: It's just so important because you know, you have your
Speaker 2: ship buddies, your battle buddies, but there's nothing like a
Speaker 2: wife or a husband. The young sailor that did jump
Speaker 2: has a five month old child that he hasn't met yet.
Speaker 2: I think he's met that child now because they they
Speaker 2: metavecked him off of the ship. But not being able
Speaker 2: to see pictures of your children, missing birthdays, missing anniversaries,
Speaker 2: those are all kind of anticipated, you know, things that
Speaker 2: they expect, but not with this kind of deployment with
Speaker 2: no known end in sight, you.
Speaker 1: Know, as a psychologist. I'm going to read to you
Speaker 1: a portion of the Military Times article that was an
Speaker 1: interview with Annabelle Loma, whose husband is the one who
Speaker 1: attempted to jump overboard the Lincoln during his current deployment.
Speaker 1: She said that he had been repeatedly overextended and now
Speaker 1: he's really scared that he's going to get a dishonorable
Speaker 1: discharge after a thirteen year career because he just mentally
Speaker 1: was not able to process this anymore. On the Lincoln,
Speaker 1: she says she was initially advised by a way of
Speaker 1: a phone call from the ship's ombudsman, but then has
Speaker 1: not heard from anyone with the United States Navy in weeks.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot to unpack there, because you have
Speaker 1: a terrified wife who learns of you know, over time,
Speaker 1: building up the mental stress on her husband, and then
Speaker 1: now she hasn't gotten any additional information from the US
Speaker 1: Navy for week. So talk about why it's also taking
Speaker 1: such a profound mental health toll on the loved ones
Speaker 1: here are just wanting to make sure that their family,
Speaker 1: their spouses, their sons, their daughters, that they're okay.
Speaker 2: Well, we're really in uncharted waters for and not meant
Speaker 2: to be a pun, but we've never seen this before.
Speaker 2: We have not seen this before. The families haven't seen
Speaker 2: this before. You know, they've probably got other service members
Speaker 2: that they've dealt with. But it's terrifying if you know,
Speaker 2: especially with a thirteen year marriage, you're you've been married
Speaker 2: for a long time and that's that relationship is very solid,
Speaker 2: and so the two of them are like one and
Speaker 2: so it's hard to imagine, you know, your mind fills
Speaker 2: in the blanks if you don't know what's going on
Speaker 2: which may be happening with his wife.
Speaker 3: In your experience, because of your exposure to especially the Navy,
Speaker 3: I mean, and in talking to your family members that
Speaker 3: have this experience, what are there were actions when they're
Speaker 3: hearing this news.
Speaker 2: We haven't really talked about it much within the family.
Speaker 2: Everybody so far has been pretty safe, especially the brother
Speaker 2: in law that came home. So I'm not sure what
Speaker 2: kind of conversations they're having, but they're not positive ones.
Speaker 1: No, I just wanted to know if you had gained
Speaker 1: any reactions from anybody who has served, because this is
Speaker 1: such an unusual, horribly unusual scenario now where we're hearing this,
Speaker 1: because I know, in the time I've been on this planet,
Speaker 1: you know, I've never heard of people multiple attempts of
Speaker 1: people to jump overboard on a carrier, especially because of
Speaker 1: their you know, prolonged deployment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it does happen, and they're really minimizing that. What
Speaker 2: I can tell you, I did pull the text message
Speaker 2: from that one sailor who tried to jump, and you
Speaker 2: could tell that it was a realistic message that he
Speaker 2: had sent his wife because he did say he felt hopeless.
Speaker 2: That's not something that you can fabricate. So he mentioned
Speaker 2: feeling hopeless, not knowing if he could finish the deployment.
Speaker 2: Those things should have been in the forefront of the
Speaker 2: commanders and the admirals and is just not being addressed.
Speaker 2: I think people are a bit in shock and they're
Speaker 2: not sure what to say or to think about this
Speaker 2: particular issue. As I said, we've never seen it before.
Speaker 1: There was a meeting that was done by some of
Speaker 1: the higher ups in the military, right including the Undersecretary
Speaker 1: of the Navy, to be able to meet with family
Speaker 1: members to talk to them about what is going on.
Speaker 1: And there was a quote I wanted to share with you.
Speaker 1: One woman told these people, one of whom's a vice admiral,
Speaker 1: a couple of vice admirals, right, she said that they
Speaker 1: have broken trust between us and the leadership. I mean,
Speaker 1: and I understand now it seems kind of like a
Speaker 1: you know, afterthought. Now they're trying to send to Teddy
Speaker 1: Roosevelt to relieve the USS Lincoln. But what is the
Speaker 1: nature of that trust that this woman is speaking about,
Speaker 1: Because you know, I think we make a lot of
Speaker 1: assumptions about sending our family members to serve, and it's
Speaker 1: a voluntary thing when they sign up, and I think
Speaker 1: we all understand there's a risk baked into this type
Speaker 1: of job, but there has to be some type of
Speaker 1: understanding that we can trust our leaders in this country
Speaker 1: and of this government that they're going to do right
Speaker 1: by our family members if they're in service.
Speaker 2: I think we've seen broken trust from the beginning, right
Speaker 2: because they went there without any authorization in the first place.
Speaker 2: The sailors were sent over there without any clear mission,
Speaker 2: and then the mission kept changing and the goalposts kept changing,
Speaker 2: and then they lost access to the different ports. So
Speaker 2: there have been multiple points of broken trust along the way,
Speaker 2: and I don't see how they get that back because
Speaker 2: the leadership isn't changing, it's staying the same. The same
Speaker 2: people are making all of the decisions, and I think
Speaker 2: with the person that visited over the weekend, it's an afterthought.
Speaker 2: They should have been on this before. They shouldn't have
Speaker 2: had to run out of food or water or soap
Speaker 2: or toothput paste before they got attention. This should have
Speaker 2: been done three months ago. They should have had them back.
Speaker 2: But it just kind of speaks to the lack of planning.
Speaker 2: So they can't re establish that trust because there has
Speaker 2: been no planning and it's been consistent. So I don't
Speaker 2: know how they build that without changing out some of
Speaker 2: the players making the decisions.
Speaker 1: I'm going to play for you some very short sound
Speaker 1: from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and ask you a question.
Speaker 1: All the other side. Take a quick Listen, he is represented.
Speaker 4: Listen, we make sure at every ship, every crew, every
Speaker 4: captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment.
Speaker 1: I mean, doctor Laneville, that is the Secretary of Defense
Speaker 1: reacting to this reporting about the absence of food and water,
Speaker 1: basic hygiene, basic necessities, and the morale of these ships
Speaker 1: being so bad. I mean, he's pretty much calling them
Speaker 1: all liars. So I want to know what are your
Speaker 1: thoughts about that.
Speaker 2: It's reactionary. I mean, his whole statement was reactionary and false.
Speaker 2: If they had planned then they wouldn't have run out
Speaker 2: of food, they wouldn't have run out of good drinking
Speaker 2: water or basic supplies. It's just reactionary, and it's you know,
Speaker 2: it's after the fact. You had to find out about
Speaker 2: people trying to jump off of the ship before you acted,
Speaker 2: and then you had to see all of these text
Speaker 2: messages coming in to family members about the absence of
Speaker 2: basic needs. And for I don't think he's been on
Speaker 2: a ship for any amount of time. I've never heard
Speaker 2: that he's been on a ship for any amount of time.
Speaker 2: And you know, just to go a little further with that,
Speaker 2: the president hasn't spent any time on a ship, so
Speaker 2: they don't know what it's like to try and you know,
Speaker 2: move around those ships or you know, have a port call.
Speaker 2: They don't know what it's like to live that life.
Speaker 2: And so what he says just doesn't make any sense,
Speaker 2: probably not to any of the family members either.
Speaker 1: There's a I want to pull quickly on a thread
Speaker 1: of something you said about good drinking water. So this
Speaker 1: is five thousand, right, five five thousand of these service
Speaker 1: members on it's a floating city. I mean, he doesn't
Speaker 1: have amenities like you and I think of, you know,
Speaker 1: like you would think of maybe like a cruise ship,
Speaker 1: right or something. Right, He doesn't have amenities that way, right.
Speaker 1: How important is the good potable drinking water. I mean,
Speaker 1: at the same time you don't have, you don't get
Speaker 1: these things. And then in my mind, doctor Lanevel, I'm
Speaker 1: thinking to myself, this is active combat. You're not in
Speaker 1: the You are in an active common situation. You don't
Speaker 1: know you're in war, right, So you're at war, and
Speaker 1: you also don't have even sometimes basic enough drinking podable
Speaker 1: water to be drinking. That sounds just so mentally just
Speaker 1: overwhelming to me.
Speaker 2: It's reaching a level of cruel and inhumane. I mean water,
Speaker 2: things floating in the water. Toilet's not working, that's another
Speaker 2: thing that's been discussed. And then no end in sight,
Speaker 2: like when are we going to get water? Nobody's coming
Speaker 2: to save us. We're floating in this city that's empty.
Speaker 2: You know, ships have stores in them, they have vending
Speaker 2: machines at times where they can get things that they
Speaker 2: want that they don't get in the galley, for example,
Speaker 2: So those must be empty as well. Sure, and the
Speaker 2: last week, as Lieutenant General Hartlingman, and they're not traveling alone.
Speaker 2: I looked it up. There are seven vessels that are
Speaker 2: traveling with the USS Lincoln. We haven't heard anything about
Speaker 2: those conditions. What are they living under? Well, we have
Speaker 2: eight vessels that may be under the same conditions. It's
Speaker 2: a big picture. It's not just the USS Lincoln. It's
Speaker 2: a much bigger story.
Speaker 1: Doctor Laneville. Let's let's bring it back home.
Speaker 2: Literally.
Speaker 1: So you do veterans disability evaluations on the regular. That's
Speaker 1: a part of what your practice does. And you know,
Speaker 1: I read because you wrote something on SOOBSEC I thought
Speaker 1: was so important. You said, because you are in touch
Speaker 1: on a weekly basis, multiple times with veterans, and you
Speaker 1: wrote that the number of discharging service members substantially grows
Speaker 1: in terms of working with veterans because of a perceived
Speaker 1: lack of support that is worsening threats or alleged threats,
Speaker 1: or perceived possibilities of deployment, maybe even again to this
Speaker 1: unauthorized illegal war, increased discrimination claims, increased verbal abuse. I mean,
Speaker 1: we also have family members of active service members that
Speaker 1: are getting deported by this federal government while they're in service.
Speaker 4: It.
Speaker 1: I know it's hard to serve and then come back
Speaker 1: as a veteran, but this seems to be one of
Speaker 1: the worst kind of perfect storms. It's like you don't
Speaker 1: even get any support as a baseline, and now you
Speaker 1: have even this fear even that somebody may get deported
Speaker 1: while you're maybe on the USS Lincoln and you don't
Speaker 1: have any of your basic necessities.
Speaker 2: And you don't have any information coming in. So yes,
Speaker 2: I have seen an increase in the discharges. And I
Speaker 2: have met with veterans from all the conflicts back to
Speaker 2: World War Two, and I've met a veteran from the
Speaker 2: Korean War and then all of the people from Vietnam,
Speaker 2: and I just want to make it very clear, no
Speaker 2: one has ever told me that they ran out of
Speaker 2: food while they were deployed. We have not heard this before.
Speaker 2: We've never heard before that they ran out of water.
Speaker 2: You know, they didn't have great toilets in Afghanis Dan
Speaker 2: or Iraq, but that's not what they went there for.
Speaker 2: And they also knew what they were there for, and
Speaker 2: they volunteered. These people have not So now I'm thinking
Speaker 2: when they're coming back, they're going to get out and
Speaker 2: we've got a whole different look to the post traumatic
Speaker 2: stress disorder diagnosis. They're literally facing threats to their life
Speaker 2: without food or without water, or without supplies. I think
Speaker 2: I heard one report last week where they were doling
Speaker 2: out half a cup of rice and a tortilla and
Speaker 2: that was a meal. So we're going to have to
Speaker 2: really review PTSD claims and they are going to earn
Speaker 2: those benefits because of what they've been.
Speaker 1: Through, assuming that this administration even preserves the right to
Speaker 1: be able to even have these benefits at all. Wow,
Speaker 1: Doctor don Lanoville, think thank you so much. I'd love
Speaker 1: to have another conversation with you as more develops, because
Speaker 1: you know, there is so much going on all the time,
Speaker 1: and people are obviously paying attention because of the recent headlines,
Speaker 1: but there's still so much more to unpack to your
Speaker 1: point about the trauma that they are sustaining, and they're
Speaker 1: doing it in service to our country, but they're doing
Speaker 1: it because of an illegal war which we don't support.
Speaker 1: So I'm just so grateful for your insight. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for taking the time.
Speaker 2: You're welcome. It was my pleasure and I'd be happy
Speaker 2: to come on again anytime whatever you need.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Doctor Lanavill.
Speaker 2: You're welcome.
Speaker 1: Katie Fang. Here, we launched the Katifang News Channel in
Speaker 1: partnership with the Midas Touch Network, so we can bring
Speaker 1: you the latest and legal and political news straight, no chaser.
Speaker 1: So if you're a fellow truthteller, hit that subscribe button
Speaker 1: and share the word about this channel so we can
Speaker 1: build a high information America together. We talk a lot
Speaker 1: about the failures of legacy media, about the failures of
Speaker 1: mainstream media. Let me be clear, if Attorney General Todd
Speaker 1: blanche would be willing to sit down and speak with
Speaker 1: me and answer questions, I'd be willing to sit down
Speaker 1: with him and ask him the questions. But you and
Speaker 1: I both know neither Todd, Blanche Cash, Patel, jd Vance
Speaker 1: convicted fellon Donald Trump. None of them would sit down
Speaker 1: with me. And before you come at me and say, well, Katie,
Speaker 1: it's because your partisan, well Katie, it's because you have
Speaker 1: an angle or you have a narrative that you want
Speaker 1: to push, let me be clear. I am partisan and
Speaker 1: I do have very specific specific angles that I pursue,
Speaker 1: not because they're lies and not because they're false narratives,
Speaker 1: because no one seems to be pushing them in media,
Speaker 1: in mainstream media. And here's the problem. They're not gonna
Speaker 1: sit down with me, You and I both of That's
Speaker 1: never going to happen. Instead, they go to the safe places.
Speaker 1: And yeah, of course Fox News. I don't even know
Speaker 1: if any of these other freaking place News Max oh An,
Speaker 1: I don't even know if they still exist. But yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a no brainer. I'm not talking about those places.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the places like Meet the Press and look,
Speaker 1: it gives me heartache and adjuda to have to sit
Speaker 1: there and say what I am about to say and
Speaker 1: do what I'm about to do, but it's true. And
Speaker 1: you know what do I always tell you, I give
Speaker 1: it to you straight, no chaser, and here's the truth.
Speaker 1: Yesterday August sixteenth, twenty twenty six, the Attorney General of
Speaker 1: the United States, Todd Blanche, sat down for an interview
Speaker 1: with Kristin Welker at Meet the Press, a storied or
Speaker 1: used to be program for ABC News, where leaders leaders
Speaker 1: of the free world would come and the people that
Speaker 1: are running this country, albeit chittily so far into the ground,
Speaker 1: really at this rate, would come and sit down and
Speaker 1: participate in a discourse which is supposed to have a purpose. Right,
Speaker 1: It's supposed to be able to do more than be performative,
Speaker 1: and to do more than just check the box for
Speaker 1: Sunday morning programming. And yet on August sixteenth, just a
Speaker 1: mere what three days after a major hearing in my
Speaker 1: lawsuit against Todd Lanche seeking the production of the unredacted
Speaker 1: Epstein files, unredacted to the extent that the federal law,
Speaker 1: the Epstein Files Transparency Act, allows Attorney General Todd Lanche
Speaker 1: to be able to react, I heard not a single
Speaker 1: question asked by Kristin Walker of Todd Blanche about my
Speaker 1: lawsuit number one and just even bigger picture number two,
Speaker 1: about the Epstein Files. How Is it possible that you
Speaker 1: have the man, the highest person in the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: You have him sitting in front of you, and you
Speaker 1: don't ask him one damn question about the Epstein files,
Speaker 1: not a single one. It is not only alarming, and
Speaker 1: yet it's typical. What's he going to say? I can't
Speaker 1: answer those questions because I'm a litigant. What's he gonna say?
Speaker 1: I can't answer those questions because I don't know Any
Speaker 1: of those answers would merit a hurricane of follow up questions.
Speaker 1: But not a single question was asked and looked Just
Speaker 1: in case I had gotten it wrong. What did I do?
Speaker 1: I went and I got the transcript, ran a transcript.
Speaker 1: It was about I don't know, twenty something minutes or so, Yeah,
Speaker 1: about twenty two minutes of an interview, not a single
Speaker 1: question about the Epstein files. You have a federal judge
Speaker 1: on Thursday who takes a routine status hearing, and it
Speaker 1: becomes a two hour courtroom proceeding during which this senior
Speaker 1: federal judge spends a good twenty eight minutes of that
Speaker 1: two hour status hearing to talk about holding Department of
Speaker 1: Justice lawyers in contempt of court for the exact same
Speaker 1: factual scenario, the failure of the DOJ to turn over
Speaker 1: documents pursuant to court order. You have a federal judge,
Speaker 1: in the only lawsuit that has been brought pursuanto the
Speaker 1: Epstein Files Transparency Act, announce that he's not only how
Speaker 1: DOJ lawyers in contempt and that that finding, that ruling,
Speaker 1: that order of contempt was upheld by a federal appeals court.
Speaker 1: You have that happen, and you don't ask a single
Speaker 1: question of the Attorney General, who is the defendant in
Speaker 1: that case, who didn't go to court on Thursday, but
Speaker 1: instead sent a trio of DOJ lawyers, none of whom
Speaker 1: answered Judge Sullivan's questions, none of whom had satisfactory responses
Speaker 1: for not only me as the plaintiff litigant, but for
Speaker 1: you as the American people. But Kristen Welker, not a
Speaker 1: single question, not a single one. And I don't want
Speaker 1: to hear there wasn't enough time because when we now
Speaker 1: shift gears and we talk about what answers we did get,
Speaker 1: which had no value, of course, because platforming Todd bla
Speaker 1: blanche and any of these people, including Felon Trump, makes
Speaker 1: no sense, because all they do is why. But I
Speaker 1: want to focus on just a few exchanges by and
Speaker 1: between Walker and Blanche because I think it's worthwhile underscoring,
Speaker 1: because it's exactly the reason why. To their credit, Senators
Speaker 1: Murkowski and Collins said they would not vote yes for
Speaker 1: Todd Blanche to become the Attorney General of the United
Speaker 1: States because other than the Epstein files, the slush fund,
Speaker 1: the tax immunity, I mean, a myriad reasons to not confirm.
Speaker 1: One of the top primary concerns they expressed was Todd
Speaker 1: Blanche's role as personal lawyer for Felon Trump, his inability,
Speaker 1: his lack of willingness to shed that role as personal counsel,
Speaker 1: and Blanche's evident, apparent and in your fucking face lack
Speaker 1: of independence from serving as a law lackey for convicted
Speaker 1: fella Donald Trump. I don't even have to play again
Speaker 1: for you. That absurd and uncomfortable sound of Todd Blanche
Speaker 1: saying that he loves Donald Trump. I love you, sir,
Speaker 1: is what Todd Blanche said. And this is before he
Speaker 1: was even nominated to be the Attorney General of the
Speaker 1: United States. But let's start here. Let's start with the following.
Speaker 1: Take a listen to what Todd Blanche had to say
Speaker 1: here about whether or not he would be willing to
Speaker 1: pledge that the Justice Department will always act independently of
Speaker 1: the White House. Take a listen to Blanche's response.
Speaker 4: Well, what that's there's a big difference between saying we
Speaker 4: will be we will always do our job and investigate
Speaker 4: any case and act independently of the White House. No,
Speaker 4: I'm not going to pledge that, and no Attorney general
Speaker 4: should ever pledge that.
Speaker 1: But why not? I mean that's when I if I
Speaker 1: had Tom blanchetting in front of me and he said, quote,
Speaker 1: there's a big difference between saying we will we will
Speaker 1: always do our job and investigate any case and act
Speaker 1: independently of the White House. No, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: pledge that, and no Attorney General should ever pledge that
Speaker 1: to the President. I would have immediately interjected and said,
Speaker 1: but why not why not pledge that a federal agency
Speaker 1: that has the power to imprison people, a federal agency
Speaker 1: that has the power to be able to do subpoenas
Speaker 1: in an intrusive manner? Right, I mean, why not pledge
Speaker 1: that you controlling that federal agency will always maintain your independence.
Speaker 1: In fact, if I were you as a lawyer, you
Speaker 1: would know that you have to, mister Blanche, actually be
Speaker 1: independent of the White House. You owe no loyalty to
Speaker 1: the White House. You owe loyalty only to the law.
Speaker 1: What's he going to say? I mean, did he later
Speaker 1: save himself when he says that the President will never
Speaker 1: ask me to do something an ethical or legal or illegal.
Speaker 1: I mean, take a listen to that language from Todd Blanche,
Speaker 1: because I think it's worth listening to, and tell me
Speaker 1: if you actually believed the bullshit that he was peddling. Well,
Speaker 1: I guess the big picture of the president asks you
Speaker 1: to do something that you feel cross as an ethical
Speaker 1: or legal line, would you do it?
Speaker 4: The President will never ask me to do something unethical
Speaker 4: or legal or illegal. He never has, he never will.
Speaker 4: And now I swore to the Constitution of the United States,
Speaker 4: like every Cabinet secretary has done, and like every Attorney
Speaker 4: general before me has done.
Speaker 1: Did you believe that convicted fellon Donald Trump has never
Speaker 1: asked Blanche to do something unethical or illegal or illegal.
Speaker 1: He never has, he never will. There's a reason why
Speaker 1: the guys called convicted felon Donald Trump. That's something Todd
Speaker 1: Blanche should know intimately well, seeing how Todd was his
Speaker 1: lawyer alongside Emil Bovy and they lost that criminal jury
Speaker 1: trial when a jury of Trump's peers found him guilty
Speaker 1: of thirty four felonies a falsification of business records. Ergo
Speaker 1: the reason why I call him convicted felon Donald Trump. So, yes,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has done something illegal, and it's not just
Speaker 1: my mere assertions, mister Blanche. So why did Krista Walker
Speaker 1: not say? But mister Blanche, you should know yourself. You
Speaker 1: represented President Trump when he was found guilty of committing
Speaker 1: thirty four felonies of falsification of business records. What is
Speaker 1: Blanche going to say then it was a mistake, It's
Speaker 1: up on appeal, great, whatever, But isn't the point getting
Speaker 1: across that you cannot allow somebody like Attorney General of
Speaker 1: the United States Todd Blanche make bla I think it
Speaker 1: bald faced assertions that are not grounded in the facts.
Speaker 1: And when Todd Blanche says, quote he never will convicted Ellen,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump never will asked me to do something unethical
Speaker 1: or illegal. I want you to stop and think about that.
Speaker 1: That means that Todd Blanche has committed himself to the
Speaker 1: position that this man, a fallible human being, a completely
Speaker 1: mentally incompetent, like physically decaying man, Donald Trump quote will
Speaker 1: never ever ask him to do something illegal or unethical.
Speaker 1: That is a disqualifying statement for Todd Blanche. That means
Speaker 1: that Todd Blanche has already presupposed and predetermined that no
Speaker 1: matter what comes out of that man's mouth, no matter
Speaker 1: what comes out of Trump's mouth, it'll never be unethical
Speaker 1: or illegal. How can Tom Blanche possibly be the Attorney
Speaker 1: General of the United States, a country where quote, no
Speaker 1: man is above the law, because in Tom Blanche's mind,
Speaker 1: there's a really bit astrous to that, right, And that
Speaker 1: asterisk says except for Donald Trump. So that was problematic.
Speaker 1: And of course I mean and in fairness, I'll check
Speaker 1: the transcript right now, no follow up, No follow up. Okay,
Speaker 1: here's another thing I wanted to play for you really quickly.
Speaker 1: Just take a listen, and I'll let you know what
Speaker 1: my thoughts are. On the other side, I.
Speaker 4: Will act with integrity, Our prosecutors will act with integrity.
Speaker 4: We will prosecute without fear or any sort of favor.
Speaker 4: And that's exactly what we've been doing, and that's what
Speaker 4: every Department of Justice should do.
Speaker 1: So right after Todd, Blanche says, quote, we will prosecute
Speaker 1: without fear or any sort of favor, and that's exactly
Speaker 1: what we've been doing, and that's what every Department of
Speaker 1: Justice should do. End quote. Isn't that when we should
Speaker 1: have heard the following? Mister Attorney General. I do want
Speaker 1: to ask you, though, because you say that there has
Speaker 1: been no prosecutions without fear or any sort of favor.
Speaker 1: But let's talk about the following and then you could
Speaker 1: bring up so many examples, could you not? James call
Speaker 1: me tiss James?
Speaker 3: Listen?
Speaker 1: Even the Davy Hearn thing. Blanche during this interview says
Speaker 1: that he supports Jeanine Piro. The evidence doesn't support Jenine Piro.
Speaker 1: Jennine Piro's own motion to dismiss Davey Hearn's indictment states
Speaker 1: that the evidence doesn't support an indictment, and yet and
Speaker 1: yet what and yet? He as in, Blanche also supports Trump,
Speaker 1: saying that there is an indictment that should still be investigated.
Speaker 1: Isn't that an example of no independence? That the DOJ
Speaker 1: should be made making independent decisions in the White House
Speaker 1: has absolutely no say in it. It is just outrageous
Speaker 1: to me. How about prosecuting somebody for seashells eighty six,
Speaker 1: forty seven, eighty six, forty seven, so many examples of
Speaker 1: politically motivated prosecutions. How about indicting people and claiming that
Speaker 1: they're Antifa. How about the news that broke on Friday
Speaker 1: that I covered with you here at Katie Fang News
Speaker 1: just two days before this Meet the Press interview, that
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice in Minnesota deployed tactics including undercover
Speaker 1: agents and surveillance and overly invasive and intrusive subpoenas. And
Speaker 1: how about claiming people are a part of a group
Speaker 1: that isn't even a defined group that doesn't exist, what
Speaker 1: but they happen to be in opposition to the federal government.
Speaker 1: How about asking Blanche about the separation of powers? How
Speaker 1: about asking Blanche about deploying subpoenas against the fourth Estate,
Speaker 1: against the media. There is so much meat on this bone.
Speaker 1: And if you're actually listening to when people are either
Speaker 1: testifying or if they're giving you answers, and you hear
Speaker 1: something that is a blanket assertion and It's so interesting
Speaker 1: because they all do this in the Trump regime, including
Speaker 1: Fellon Trump. They make blanket assertions, broad and generalized. Ninety
Speaker 1: nine point nine percent are lies, and nobody picks it
Speaker 1: apart except in independent media, right, but nobody when they
Speaker 1: have access to these people. In the immediate sense, it's
Speaker 1: picking it a part. Yes, yes, I know there is
Speaker 1: a handful once in a while that we will see
Speaker 1: of people in legacy mainstream media that are doing this.
Speaker 1: But you cannot allow somebody to state that prosecutors are
Speaker 1: acting with integrity when there's so many examples of no integrity.
Speaker 1: When you have the broad View six in Chicago and
Speaker 1: that prosecutorial misconduct, when you have Lindsay Halligan and her
Speaker 1: prosecutorial misconduct and the way that she presented to the
Speaker 1: grand jury, I mean for James Coney's first indictment. There
Speaker 1: are so many examples across this country of federal judges
Speaker 1: entering orders and making findings on the record of prosecutorial misconduct.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors in Trump's doch and blanches DOJ acting without integrity,
Speaker 1: but no follow up and no pointed questions asked to
Speaker 1: be able to say, Attorney General, how can you say
Speaker 1: that your prosecutors act in integrity when this and this,
Speaker 1: and have them be there. I don't know. I welcome
Speaker 1: your comments here on this episode of whether or not
Speaker 1: you think I am being unfair or harshly critical. And again,
Speaker 1: it gives me no joy right to have to do this,
Speaker 1: because I like Kristen Welker as a person, but I
Speaker 1: don't like when people waste an opportunity, and that is
Speaker 1: what happened here. He's the Attorney General of the United
Speaker 1: States after a bruising confirmation process where his independence was
Speaker 1: constantly questioned by Senate Democrats, when even some Senate Republicans
Speaker 1: actually questioned it, and then he's allowed to make these statements.
Speaker 1: He's allowed to pollute the discourse with these statements that
Speaker 1: are untrue that could be one hundred percent challenge with facts,
Speaker 1: including the order from the judge and the pronouncement from
Speaker 1: Emmitt Sullivan in my case about contempt. All things come
Speaker 1: full circle, don't they look in fairness. I have training
Speaker 1: over decades as a trial lawyer, including being a prosecutor,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't excuse humbly, I submit, that doesn't excuse
Speaker 1: not asking. I think the common sense follow ups that
Speaker 1: we're not getting now. Am I grateful for the factually
Speaker 1: accurate headline today? For example, in the New York Times,
Speaker 1: Blanche refuses to say he'll always be independent of Trump
Speaker 1: as a training general. Yeah, I guess I'm grateful, But
Speaker 1: I have loved to have had some sound I would
Speaker 1: have loved to have seen Todd Blanche actually have to
Speaker 1: squirm to answer questions. Open invite to any of them
Speaker 1: who want to sit here with me. I don't have
Speaker 1: an agenda, but you know what I do. My agenda
Speaker 1: is truth. It's not always pretty, does not always help
Speaker 1: us as Democrats, but the truth is important, especially in
Speaker 1: the context of justice, especially in the context of our
Speaker 1: legal system. That's all we got. Truth, facts, evidence, that's
Speaker 1: all we got. Be mad, be outrage, demand accountability. I'm
Speaker 1: not seeing any demands for accountability from this administration that
Speaker 1: comes from our legacy mainstream media. I'm off to rattle
Speaker 1: cages as an independent journalist. I would appreciate your support,
Speaker 1: like subscribe, and also I think there's a way to
Speaker 1: get notifications when these type of episodes drop for you.
Speaker 1: Katie Fang. Here, we launched the Katifang News channel in
Speaker 1: partnership with the Midas Touch Network, so we could bring
Speaker 1: you the latest in legal and political news straight no chaser. So,
Speaker 1: if you're a fellow truthteller, hit that subscribe button and
Speaker 1: share the word about this channel so we can build
Speaker 1: a high information America together