Speaker 1: So my lawsuit against Attorney General Toblanche over the Epstein
Speaker 1: files is just one part of a bigger movement to
Speaker 1: achieve transparency and truth when it comes to the greatest
Speaker 1: cover up that is happening in real time in American history.
Speaker 1: And part of that movement and part of that progress
Speaker 1: relies upon Congress doing its job on oversight to expose
Speaker 1: people that are actively conspiring to hide very important people's
Speaker 1: involvement in these Epstein files. And they're also trying to
Speaker 1: make sure that we don't get the unredacted documents. That's
Speaker 1: why the role of Congress from Robert Garcia as the
Speaker 1: Chair of House Oversight, That's why having a majority by
Speaker 1: Democrats in Congress through winning those races in November become
Speaker 1: so critically important. Congress from Robert Garcia is fighting so
Speaker 1: hard on so many different fronts, not just the Epstein files.
Speaker 1: But he has made it explicitly clear that once Democrats
Speaker 1: regain the majority and he becomes the Chair of House Oversight,
Speaker 1: all bets are off when it comes to trying to
Speaker 1: reel in House Oversights investigation into the Epstein files. He
Speaker 1: talks about public hearings, he talks about using subpoenas versus
Speaker 1: this BS transcribed interview thing where nobody's under oath, they're
Speaker 1: not videotaped, and they're not public. This is the type
Speaker 1: of transparency that we deserve and we demand from our
Speaker 1: members of Congress. Congressman Garcia joins me to be able
Speaker 1: to talk about why James Comer, the current chairff House
Speaker 1: Oversight Republican, why his claim that the investigation by House
Speaker 1: Oversight into the Epstein files getting wrapped up by Christmas
Speaker 1: of this year, why that's a pipe dream, and why
Speaker 1: he thinks Malania Trump is recipient number one of a
Speaker 1: subpoena from House Oversight once he becomes the chipper. Joining
Speaker 1: me now is somebody that I have always said and
Speaker 1: continues to be one of the greatest fighters for transparency,
Speaker 1: especially in Washington, d C. Congressman Robert Garcia, Congressman, it's good.
Speaker 2: To see you.
Speaker 3: Always good to see you, Katie.
Speaker 1: So you know, I just came out of a big
Speaker 1: hearing yesterday on my lawsuit against oh I was about
Speaker 1: to call him acting, but I guess he's not.
Speaker 2: He crossed that threshold.
Speaker 1: Attorney General Todd Blanche over the Epstein files, and that
Speaker 1: is something that you and I have in common when
Speaker 1: it comes to the pursuit of getting the unredacted files.
Speaker 1: Were redacted for the proper stuff, with holdings for the
Speaker 1: proper stuff, but otherwise compliance with the law. I stumbled
Speaker 1: on a quote I have to start with you. It's
Speaker 1: from the Chair of Oversight, James Comer, and he said,
Speaker 1: I fully expect criminal referrals and some things we found
Speaker 1: enough that I believe the Department of Justice should look
Speaker 1: into certain people. We're going to do everything we can
Speaker 1: to hold anyone accountable who's still alive. Because he's doing
Speaker 1: this after quote years of depositions on Comer promising criminal
Speaker 1: referrals by Christmas, it's August, and I'm a little bit
Speaker 1: surprised that we're not in a better position to be
Speaker 1: able to make some serious criminal referrals to DJ on
Speaker 1: this absolutely.
Speaker 4: I mean, look a couple of things. One, thank you first,
Speaker 4: Katie for everything you're doing. Obviously we're following it very closely.
Speaker 3: It's really important. I think the public should know that.
Speaker 4: Anyone you know, obviously you and your capacity others are
Speaker 4: involved in other pieces of the investigation.
Speaker 3: All these lawsuits.
Speaker 4: Particularly what you're doing is so critical in pushing the
Speaker 4: courts and getting the truth, pushing the DJ So thank
Speaker 4: you for.
Speaker 3: All you're doing.
Speaker 4: You know, look, I think it's comical that James Comber
Speaker 4: is now saying a few things.
Speaker 3: He's saying, we're gonna get criminal referrals. Okay, great, we
Speaker 3: want to see him.
Speaker 4: He's saying the Epstein investigation is going to be wrapped
Speaker 4: up by the end of the year. What yeah, I look,
Speaker 4: he's living on another planet. The reality is we have
Speaker 4: not had one public hearing on the Epstein investigation in
Speaker 4: the con not one. So I don't know where these
Speaker 4: these criminal referrals and the investigation, how it's going to end.
Speaker 4: When we've actually brought nobody in front of the public,
Speaker 4: then majority of the witnesses he's put in front of
Speaker 4: us have not been under oath, and so we're asking
Speaker 4: all of these witnesses who we want to speak to,
Speaker 4: and granted we've gotten some good information and some good leads,
Speaker 4: but but they've also not been under oath, and so
Speaker 4: my confidence level and thinking that they've all been honest,
Speaker 4: honest and truthful is not really there. In fact, I
Speaker 4: think many of them have been straight out lying or
Speaker 4: deceiving the committee and to not have them under oath
Speaker 4: really limit our ability, uh to put in place, you know,
Speaker 4: all the protections of holding those folks accountable right to
Speaker 4: the law. So that's very problematic. And then this idea
Speaker 4: that commit the majority and the DOJ haven't really sat
Speaker 4: down with the survivors and to understand their stories and
Speaker 4: get their perspective, except for this kind of rushed meeting
Speaker 4: that Todd Blanche set up before his confirmation. Look, we're
Speaker 4: just getting started on uncovering all the layers of this investigation,
Speaker 4: the financials, what's not been released. James Comer should be
Speaker 4: calling for the other half of the Epstein files that
Speaker 4: have not been released. I mean, he wants to close
Speaker 4: an investigation when half the evidence and likely some of
Speaker 4: the most important the public hasn't even seen yet. So
Speaker 4: we have a lot of work to do when we
Speaker 4: flip the House and actually have real subpoena power and
Speaker 4: access to be filing lawsuits in the courts, which fortunately
Speaker 4: so many others and you, especially in your case most
Speaker 4: importantly are doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I want to get to how important it
Speaker 1: is for the Democrats to have a majority so that
Speaker 1: you are the chair of House Oversight in November, but
Speaker 1: I wanted you to please remind the viewers who are
Speaker 1: tuning in, because this is a very important perceptional thing
Speaker 1: that I want to make sure is crystal clear. It's
Speaker 1: the chair, James Comer, who dictates whether these interviews that
Speaker 1: are being done with people that are coming in front
Speaker 1: of oversight, whether they are just transcribed interviews, or whether
Speaker 1: they are done like under oath, on video, et cetera,
Speaker 1: because I, as a trivelawyer, have a frustration that these
Speaker 1: are not done on videos so that we can see
Speaker 1: these people's credibility, their body language, the way that they're
Speaker 1: maybe evasive in the way that they're answering. And to
Speaker 1: your well taken point, the absence of an oath under
Speaker 1: penalties of perjury, and I understand false statements to Congress
Speaker 1: are still a crime, but there is something incredibly powerful
Speaker 1: about taking an oath to tell the truth, knowing that
Speaker 1: there is very real consequence if you don't tell the truth.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, and it's we just you know, We've asked Comer
Speaker 4: to change the style of these interviews. We've asked them
Speaker 4: to make them public, We've asked them to video tape them,
Speaker 4: We've asked them to put them all under oath, and
Speaker 4: he's refused, and I think, you know the question, we
Speaker 4: have to ask the question why these are not unreasonable requests.
Speaker 4: I think the average average person that's kind of following
Speaker 4: casually what was happening, they would say, of course, we
Speaker 4: want those things to be in place.
Speaker 3: And this is Republicans and Democrats.
Speaker 4: You ask anybody these you know, the Epstein files investigation
Speaker 4: is like the most bipartisan thing in the country.
Speaker 3: Everybody wants justice.
Speaker 4: Everybody wants those that committed these horrific acts and harm
Speaker 4: and rape and the abuse of women and children. They
Speaker 4: want people behind bars or for there to be criminal convictions.
Speaker 4: And so we're not sure why there is this kind
Speaker 4: of agreement. It seems like to cover this up. Right
Speaker 4: from day one, you've had the President of the United
Speaker 4: States and the Attorney General at the time, Pambondi, making
Speaker 4: the clear decision to cover this up, that this was
Speaker 4: going to be a hoax, nothing was going to get released,
Speaker 4: there's nothing else to share. And then we've fought every
Speaker 4: step of the way to get bits and pieces out
Speaker 4: video data, different files, emails, and we're finally beginning to
Speaker 4: put together and piece together this whole timeline of what's happening,
Speaker 4: and there's so much more information that we need, whether
Speaker 4: it's from the Epstein estate, certainly from the DJ We
Speaker 4: need the three million missing files, and we don't know.
Speaker 3: What's actually been redacted, what's been kept from us.
Speaker 4: And you know, there's there's so much happening. And one
Speaker 4: other thing, Kay, I think it's really important for your
Speaker 4: for your viewers to know. You know, Todd Blantch just
Speaker 4: came out with this kind of expanded definition of privilege
Speaker 4: that he just put out there. I know, I wish
Speaker 4: the media, the Legacy, MEDYA would be reporting on this
Speaker 4: because I don't think people understand how bad this is.
Speaker 4: What Todd blanch Is basically said is that no longer
Speaker 4: is executive privilege between the president and other kind of
Speaker 4: White House kind of oval office agency employees, but it
Speaker 4: now extends to whoever the president views as an advisor,
Speaker 4: and it's retroactive. And so imagine now that anyone that
Speaker 4: Donald Trump has talked to about the Epstein investigation, the
Speaker 4: situation room meetings and a cover up any directions that
Speaker 4: he may have been giving anyone conversations you might be
Speaker 4: having with other people outside the government.
Speaker 3: Those are now all going to be privileged.
Speaker 4: This is Dayton and look, it's not legal, it's certainly
Speaker 4: not constitutional. We're going to this is a challenge in
Speaker 4: the courts. But sure, I think in between, I think
Speaker 4: this is really dangerous stuff we're.
Speaker 1: Dealing with, and the challenge in the courts, and it's
Speaker 1: something that I'm obviously experiencing, is you have to respect
Speaker 1: the process.
Speaker 2: But the delay only a.
Speaker 1: Nurse to the benefit of the abusers of people like
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, like people who are actively participating in a concealment,
Speaker 1: a cover up. Right, So the delay of having to
Speaker 1: litigate the applicability, the breath, the legality of this type
Speaker 1: of executive privilege just delays transparency, which reminds me and
Speaker 1: I'm so glad you brought up the DJ in this context.
Speaker 1: The Department of Justice, when led by Pam Bondi in
Speaker 1: August of twenty twenty five, a year ago, Congressman Garcia
Speaker 1: was lawfully served with a Congressional subpoena from House Oversight,
Speaker 1: and that was courtesy of you and Congresswoman Summerly, an
Speaker 1: incredible one to two punch of getting a vote to
Speaker 1: be able to get that subpoena issued. It called for
Speaker 1: the production of the entirety of the Epstein files. This
Speaker 1: is even before the Epstein Files Transparency Act was even
Speaker 1: passed into law. Yet as we sit here in August
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty six, a year later, give or take, Congressman,
Speaker 1: how much have you gotten from the DOJ pursu into
Speaker 1: that subpoena, I.
Speaker 4: Mean, pursue it to that subpoena. We probably got the
Speaker 4: initial batch with maybe three percent of the entire entirety
Speaker 4: of the files. They never this is a lawful subpoena
Speaker 4: of the Congress. And of course, and this is what
Speaker 4: people don't get is when you're not in the majority,
Speaker 4: you don't have the ability to then go to court
Speaker 4: on behalf of the House.
Speaker 1: Okay, See this is important make sure people understand process
Speaker 1: and procedure because I know people get frustrated and they're like,
Speaker 1: where's the follow up? So let people know what would
Speaker 1: be the procedure if you were the chair and you
Speaker 1: had a majority by the Democrats to be able to
Speaker 1: do this.
Speaker 3: See, if we were in the majority, we not only
Speaker 3: would be.
Speaker 4: Able to obviously direct subpoenas get the information that we
Speaker 4: need from a variety of sources. We would have the
Speaker 4: ability to go to the court on behalf of the
Speaker 4: US House and demand the court to take action, but
Speaker 4: you can only do that if you're in the majority.
Speaker 4: And I think people really understand that piece of it,
Speaker 4: and so we have to force our way to get
Speaker 4: the House to act like we did with some of
Speaker 4: these subpoena emotions, which the DJ continues to not to
Speaker 4: basically ignore, and which is why again these lawsuits by you.
Speaker 4: Norm Issen has another a couple other lawsuits in his
Speaker 4: organization and other parts of the EPT investigation. They're so
Speaker 4: important because we don't have that same ability, and so
Speaker 4: we're watching what's happening with your actions very carefully, and
Speaker 4: certainly when we're in the majority, it's going to be
Speaker 4: a brand new day.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's mind boggling if I'm a congressman.
Speaker 1: Is this Like one component that came out of my
Speaker 1: hearing yesterday in my lawsuit is handwritten FBI notes from
Speaker 1: four meetings with the FBI with a victim who alleges
Speaker 1: that when she was thirteen years old.
Speaker 2: These are the allegations.
Speaker 1: That she was sexually abused by the now president of
Speaker 1: the United States Donald Trump, and that she was physically battered.
Speaker 1: Those are the allegations she has raised. The FBI met
Speaker 1: with her four separate times, conducted four separate interviews, the
Speaker 1: three h two reports. The official reports were eventually released
Speaker 1: by the Trump DOJ, but the underlying handwritten notes have
Speaker 1: never been turned over either to the public or even
Speaker 1: to you in Congress. You are a Congressman, I'm just
Speaker 1: a lowly person in this food chain right of importance.
Speaker 1: But Judge Sullivan yesterday said that the unredacted handwritten FBI
Speaker 1: notes are to be produced to him in chambers for
Speaker 1: his review, which would be the first time that anybody
Speaker 1: out of that chain of custody at DJ or FBI
Speaker 1: would have ever seen these documents.
Speaker 2: It is mind boling to me and nobody.
Speaker 1: The DOJ lawyer couldn't even answer Congressman how many pieces
Speaker 1: of paper were at issue, which I don't know if
Speaker 1: it was a credible statement made by a competent attorney
Speaker 1: in a court of law. So how important is it,
Speaker 1: considering the fact that the universe, as purportedly alleged by
Speaker 1: Todd Land, is like six million documents, how important is
Speaker 1: it for there to be a fulsome review by House
Speaker 1: oversight before James Comber declares this to be a closed
Speaker 1: investigation or a closed review.
Speaker 3: It's so important.
Speaker 4: And look, whether James Comer declares a closed case or not,
Speaker 4: you know, well, we're going to ignore that because there's
Speaker 4: a lot of work to do ahead obviously on this investigation.
Speaker 3: But I want to get back to this, these three
Speaker 3: h two's and the what.
Speaker 4: You're discussing, right, So I think the public should also
Speaker 4: know that when the Epstein files were first put out,
Speaker 4: the documents related to this allegation right that was made
Speaker 4: by this woman who was thirteen at the time about
Speaker 4: the president, these were highly redacted and overly redacted and
Speaker 4: were missing. Exact they were placed, they were put out,
Speaker 4: then they got missed. Yeah, exactly, they were missing and
Speaker 4: they were gone. And it was not only until overside Democrats,
Speaker 4: I myself went into the system a bunch of us
Speaker 4: and saw that the documentation in there is basically a
Speaker 4: kind of table of contents that showed all the documents
Speaker 4: that should be in these reports. When we went to
Speaker 4: go look at the actual reports, they were gone and
Speaker 4: it was these exact kind of three twos in documents
Speaker 4: surrounding this investigation in reference to the president, those weren't there.
Speaker 4: They deliberately did not include them until we said, but
Speaker 4: wait a minute, we have this manifest that explained that
Speaker 4: these documents should exist. It wasn't until then that the
Speaker 4: documents were then produced, and so they've been trying to
Speaker 4: cover this up from the get go and anytime.
Speaker 3: Look, I'll be the first to.
Speaker 4: Say, I mean, you know, obviously, as a Laura, you
Speaker 4: understand this from an investigation perspective. We're talking about allegations here,
Speaker 4: serious ones against the president. But at the end of
Speaker 4: the day, to be interviewed four times by the FBI,
Speaker 4: that is that is not common. They wanted more information.
Speaker 4: There was definitely back and forth, and so the public
Speaker 4: and the Congress has a right to see all of
Speaker 4: these notes in all of these documents. And I'm glad
Speaker 4: that the judge agrees with you on this, and certainly
Speaker 4: we do as well.
Speaker 2: So correspond.
Speaker 1: One thing that you have pledged once the Democrats take
Speaker 1: the majority in November after successful midterms, are subpoenas to
Speaker 1: be issued. You mentioned that at the top of that
Speaker 1: list is a woman by the name of Malania Trump.
Speaker 1: Why do you think it's important to make sure that
Speaker 1: a subpoena or some type of an investigative vehicle is
Speaker 1: chased down to be able to talk to Malani and
Speaker 1: Trump about the Epstein fives.
Speaker 4: Well, First Republicans have set a precedent that we can
Speaker 4: subpoena and talk to First ladies and former first ladies
Speaker 4: and family members of presidents I Hunter, Biden and others,
Speaker 4: and so that president has been laid out the Clintons,
Speaker 4: and we've seen it happen. Second, I mean, is there
Speaker 4: any does anyone here across the country think that the
Speaker 4: First Lady doesn't have additional information?
Speaker 1: I mean, especially after that bizarre presser best conference.
Speaker 4: Yeah, she herself wants their investigation to move for I
Speaker 4: mean she made that very clear.
Speaker 3: And so we're very interesting the way.
Speaker 2: It wasn't a hoax.
Speaker 1: Trump wants to call it a hoax, but she didn't
Speaker 1: say it was a hoax at.
Speaker 3: All, exactly right.
Speaker 4: And I think it's there's no question that we want
Speaker 4: to talk to the First Lady. Uh, Milania clearly has information.
Speaker 4: There's a lot of speculation about who knew who when,
Speaker 4: who was introduced to who, and how when and how,
Speaker 4: and so I think those are valid questions. And I
Speaker 4: think that if if Milania Trump wants real justice for
Speaker 4: the survivors, then she would work with us to try
Speaker 4: to get the truth. And so that's going to be
Speaker 4: an important part of this is as is going to
Speaker 4: be talking to all those players in the Situation Room
Speaker 4: that we're all planning on how they were going to
Speaker 4: exonerate Donald Trump, starting with jd Vance. Why is jd
Speaker 4: Vance leading secret meetings that nobody was supposed to find
Speaker 4: out about in the situation room which is meant for
Speaker 4: national security emergencies with Susie Wheles and Pambondi and Cash Well, yeah,
Speaker 4: and I mean this seems like serious stuff, not a hoax.
Speaker 4: You don't hold situation room meetings for a hoax. And
Speaker 4: it was out of these meetings that they began discussing
Speaker 4: the Glainne Maxwell connection. They began talking about how they're
Speaker 4: going to use Glaine Maxwell to somehow exonerate Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: So, look, there's a cover up here. There's no question.
Speaker 3: There's a lot more to the story.
Speaker 4: And the survivors aren't going to give up till all
Speaker 4: the files are released, and we're not.
Speaker 1: Either quickly before I have to let you go to Congressman.
Speaker 1: This is something that I always want to make sure
Speaker 1: that I cover with you and other members of Congress.
Speaker 1: There's other work that you are doing at Oversight. I
Speaker 1: want to make sure people understand that Oversight is not
Speaker 1: just Epstein. There may be a lot of visibility surrounding
Speaker 1: the Epstein files and the work that Oversight is doing,
Speaker 1: and more specifically the Democrats on House Oversight, but let
Speaker 1: some folks know about some other major issues because people
Speaker 1: care about the Epstein files, but of course we care
Speaker 1: about the affordability issues, the illegal war. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff that's still going on, and I
Speaker 1: want to make sure that people understand the hard work
Speaker 1: that Democrats are doing a House oversight for the American people.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Sure, things we've got, We've got We've got a bunch
Speaker 4: of investigations, probably over a dozen really serious ones. Three
Speaker 4: others that are really critical. Briefly, one is we're really
Speaker 4: focused on Trump family corruption. Uh, you know, the all
Speaker 4: the money to Jared Kusher from the Saudi's, Eric Trump
Speaker 4: and Donald Trump Junior cutting deals for the organization, the
Speaker 4: contracts at the Pentagon, to boards that Donald that Don
Speaker 4: Junior is sitting on. I mean, give me a break.
Speaker 4: The cryptos scheme, Trump getting billions of dollars, richer selling
Speaker 4: of the parties, I mean, the Trump family is is
Speaker 4: just full of of corruption and actions, we believe, and
Speaker 4: we're going to be investigating all of those. Another one
Speaker 4: is Ice and DHS. There we've had a lot of
Speaker 4: reports of pay to play. Why are all why they've
Speaker 4: turned into this immigrant their immigration and their deportation scheme
Speaker 4: really into a bonanza for all of these private contractors
Speaker 4: and buddies and donors of Donald Trump, and so there
Speaker 4: is now they've made it an industry of detention and deportation,
Speaker 4: and we got to understand that, and we're going after that.
Speaker 4: And then I'll say, finally, this doesn't get enough attention,
Speaker 4: but the destruction of our vaccination and our programs at
Speaker 4: HHS at the CDC are making us less healthy and
Speaker 4: quite frankly, are putting us in a very very dangerous
Speaker 4: place as it relates to the next pandemic. There will
Speaker 4: be a next pandemic, and we are not prepared. We
Speaker 4: are destroying our systems. We are making ourselves less healthy,
Speaker 4: we are being vaccinated less and we have fired all
Speaker 4: of the leading experts across the country that do this
Speaker 4: work because RFK Junior instead would rather wear a tinfoil
Speaker 4: hat and make decisions about our health on his own.
Speaker 4: And so these are all issues that Oversight is focused on,
Speaker 4: and they will be our key issues in the majority.
Speaker 2: Listen.
Speaker 1: You are always so generous with your time. I know
Speaker 1: that the viewers and the listeners they really appreciate how
Speaker 1: willing you are to lay it all out there, and
Speaker 1: you have completely eliminated the black box surrounding the information
Speaker 1: about the work that's being done in DC, especially by
Speaker 1: Democrats at House Oversight. So thank you so much, Congressman
Speaker 1: Garcia for joining me, and thank you for the work
Speaker 1: that your team does. I think there's a lot of
Speaker 1: unsung heroes at House Oversight, your staffers, like there are
Speaker 1: people that are working and investigating that don't get any
Speaker 1: of the attention that I know that they're working really hard,
Speaker 1: So my shout out to them. I know that you
Speaker 1: appreciate it, but I want to make sure other people
Speaker 1: know that they're working behind the scenes to get these
Speaker 1: answers for us.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, because they are They're working every
Speaker 4: single day. It's a hardworking team and Oversight staff members,
Speaker 4: some been there a long time, some newer, but they
Speaker 4: all want the truth and justice.
Speaker 3: So thanks to.
Speaker 2: Them, Thanks Congressman Katie Fang.
Speaker 1: Here, we launched the Katifang News Channel in partnership with
Speaker 1: the Midas Touch Network, so we could bring you the
Speaker 1: latest and 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. So some mombshell reporting out
Speaker 1: of the New York Times today, look at this headline.
Speaker 1: US investigated left leaning groups during Minnesota immigration crackdown. The
Speaker 1: government conducted expansive surveillance, infiltrated group chats, and obtained financial
Speaker 1: records of organizations never accused of crimes. In other words,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration launched an investigation into quote left leaning
Speaker 1: groups simply because they were exercising their First Amendment rights
Speaker 1: to free speech, freedom of assembly. Maybe they just wanted
Speaker 1: to hang out together and commiserate and complain about how
Speaker 1: horrific these immigration tactics have been from the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: But because of that innocent activity, they were unbeknownst at
Speaker 1: the time, the subjects of investigations and tactics that are
Speaker 1: pretty fucking outrageous by Homeland Security. Four days, just four
Speaker 1: days after Alex Party was murdered broad daylight in the
Speaker 1: streets of Minneapolis, the Homeland Security Department opened an investigation
Speaker 1: out of its office in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The target
Speaker 1: not Border Patrol CBP, the people that murdered Alex pretty
Speaker 1: that day.
Speaker 2: The targets these groups.
Speaker 1: These organizations, labor unions, a climate change, environmental activist grouped,
Speaker 1: socialist collectives, investigators, alleging that these groups provided help and
Speaker 1: money to quote violent opportunists and agitators on the street.
Speaker 1: Those are the claims that were made by the Trump regime.
Speaker 1: So what did Homeland Security do? They used incredibly and
Speaker 1: intrusive techniques like subpoena's, wire taps, things like that, surveillance,
Speaker 1: undercover operations to be able to try to snag or
Speaker 1: ensnare people that they claim were doing all of this
Speaker 1: violent criminal activity. Now, how did we find out about
Speaker 1: this because of emotion that was filed. Let's pull up
Speaker 1: that motion right now because this is really important. So
Speaker 1: the motion was filed in a case called United States
Speaker 1: Versuit Isaac Sant. This is somebody who's actually a part
Speaker 1: of a group that has been indicted. Do you remember
Speaker 1: these fifteen people that were indicted in Minnesota and the
Speaker 1: claim was that they were part of Antifa, So it's
Speaker 1: called the Antifa defendants, right, And that's what fifteen people
Speaker 1: who have been alleged of interfering with law enforcement agents
Speaker 1: and that they were doing all this subversive, illegal violent activity. Now,
Speaker 1: there is a motion, like I said, that was filed
Speaker 1: in this case in federal District Court by a lawyer
Speaker 1: on behalf of one of those fifteen defendants, and he
Speaker 1: filed this motion in order to obtain further information based
Speaker 1: upon the discovery that's been released so far by the
Speaker 1: DOJ and the prosecution of his client. Let's look at
Speaker 1: that motion. Like I said, this is very important because
Speaker 1: we get a lot of information straight out of the
Speaker 1: gate in the introduction on page one. This case, as
Speaker 1: in the Antifa indictment, involves an unprecedented campaign by the
Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Security to spy on Minnesotans. During Operation Retrosurge,
Speaker 1: undercover agents posed as protesters, surveilling community meetings at churches,
Speaker 1: public parks, public libraries, schools, and union halls. These agents surreptitiously,
Speaker 1: They secretly recorded dozens of conversations with just ordinary people
Speaker 1: who were exercising their First Amendment right to protest ICE's
Speaker 1: lawless rampage in Minnesota. These agents gathered information about Minnesotans
Speaker 1: from law enforcement databases as well as Internet searches, and
Speaker 1: then they created dossiers that are now available agency wide.
Speaker 1: And then it goes on and again. This context is
Speaker 1: so important homely security investigations. Abuses didn't stop there. They
Speaker 1: secretly obtained financial records for several national labor unions, including SCIU,
Speaker 1: the Communication Workers of America, and some social justice nonprofits
Speaker 1: like the Sunrise Movement and Voices for Racial Justice, with
Speaker 1: zero criminal predicate to do so. The government's presentation to
Speaker 1: the grand jury, which is the one that resulted in
Speaker 1: the indictment of those fifteen ANTIFA members, was broad and
Speaker 1: irrational with no evidence. The government alleged to the grand
Speaker 1: jury that the conspiracy in this case extends far beyond
Speaker 1: the defendants to include the AFLCIO, the Minneapolis Federation of Educators,
Speaker 1: the Minnesota Association of Esational Employees, MONARCA, Veterans for Peace,
Speaker 1: and the grease Pit Bicycle Repair Shop. Among others. Now
Speaker 1: it goes on to talk about NSPM seven. I've talked
Speaker 1: about it here at Katie Fang News a lot. That
Speaker 1: is the National Security Presidential Memorandum seven and that was
Speaker 1: issued by convicted fellon Donald Trump just last year in
Speaker 1: the fall September of twenty twenty five. NSPM seven authorizes
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice to prosecute ICE protesters and opponents
Speaker 1: of the administration. This is that NSPM seven memorandum that
Speaker 1: pretty much officializes ANTIFA again without any type of scope, definition,
Speaker 1: or reality. HSI cited to this presidential memorandum as the
Speaker 1: justification and authority to open their investigation in case.
Speaker 2: But here's the thing.
Speaker 1: The government is required during the course of a prosecution
Speaker 1: to do initial disclosures, and these initial disclosures that and
Speaker 1: turn over to the ANTIFA fifteen actually confirms and reveals
Speaker 1: the abuses that occurred through the crux of or during
Speaker 1: the course of this investigation. So the defendant in this
Speaker 1: case says that the government's initial disclosures are incomplete, and
Speaker 1: that's why they've brought this motion because they want to
Speaker 1: compel the government to have to turn over more information.
Speaker 1: For example, the government's initial disclosures are missing specific reports
Speaker 1: of investigation arois, as they are called, that the government
Speaker 1: has admitted that they're intentionally withholding. The government says that
Speaker 1: these rois are unrelated to the investigation, even though they
Speaker 1: were created and filed during the course of that investigation.
Speaker 1: The disclosures omit any rois that document the Homeland Security
Speaker 1: Investigation's domestic surveillance but placed in other case files. These
Speaker 1: initial disclosures omit documents and communications related to the initiation
Speaker 1: and supervision of undercover operations. They also omit download modes
Speaker 1: of undercover phones and undercover laptops used by undercover agents
Speaker 1: in this case to communicate with the defendants and others. Now,
Speaker 1: the motion goes on to say that on January twenty eighth,
Speaker 1: four days after alex Pretty was murdered, they opened this operation,
Speaker 1: this mass spying campaign on Minnesota's and they called it
Speaker 1: Operation puppet Master. And what was the purpose to quote
Speaker 1: identify and organize network of conspirators operating through online and
Speaker 1: in person, providing material support to violent opportunists and agitators
Speaker 1: involved in impeding law enforcement, rioting, destruction of federal property,
Speaker 1: and assaults on federal agents and officers.
Speaker 2: So here's the problem.
Speaker 1: Does it identify by name any specific people, nor does
Speaker 1: it flag any specific incidents of violence, rioting, destruction of property,
Speaker 1: or assaults on federal agents and officers. And then they
Speaker 1: did this undercover surveillance and it didn't actually investigate or
Speaker 1: unearth any of these events or people, but instead just
Speaker 1: violated people's constitutional rights. By doing all of this incredibly
Speaker 1: invasive and intrusive activity, they pretty much revealed people that
Speaker 1: were in opposition to what ICE was doing and DHS
Speaker 1: was doing in Minnesota. But we all saw that for ourselves.
Speaker 1: I saw that firsthand. Two weeks after this Operation puppet
Speaker 1: Master being launched, what do we find out? DHS launches
Speaker 1: Project Whipple Shield. That was another investigation into instances where
Speaker 1: individuals and organized networks quote have exploited events to engage
Speaker 1: in acts of violence, detraction of property, and timination of
Speaker 1: federal officers and employees, and attempts to impede federal operations.
Speaker 1: So what they did was they made the sallegation of
Speaker 1: some huge broad conspiracy with a number of local organizations
Speaker 1: and collectives that were just fighting back against ICE and
Speaker 1: against this Operation Metro Surge. But they wanted to label
Speaker 1: them as domestic terrorists or Antifa so that they could
Speaker 1: sit there and do all of this invasive, intrusive, unconstitutional
Speaker 1: activity against just simple ordinary people. Now, check out this
Speaker 1: diagram that's in the motion that we're talking about. It's
Speaker 1: at the top of page six. This is a diagram
Speaker 1: that was actually shown to the Grand jury that resulted
Speaker 1: in that indictment of those fifteen people as alleged quote Antifa.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's pretty wild. I don't know if you
Speaker 1: can zoom in a little bit on here, but in
Speaker 1: the center, the center of the you know, with all
Speaker 1: the spokes coming out of this wheel of conspiracy, is
Speaker 1: an organization called DAM Direct Action Minnesota. And then they
Speaker 1: just draw a spoke of connectivity to things like the
Speaker 1: Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, how about the SEIU twenty six,
Speaker 1: how about Whipple Watch, how about the afl CIO, And
Speaker 1: then there we go the grease pit, the bicycle repair shop.
Speaker 1: The government told Grand jurors during the course of this
Speaker 1: grand representation to secure that true bill indictment, that if
Speaker 1: any individual was connected to both DAM and any of
Speaker 1: those entities you see on that diagram that the government
Speaker 1: considered that to be quote conspiracy. Okay, so we talked
Speaker 1: about the fact that the HSI, the Homeland Security Investigations people,
Speaker 1: they got financial records of labor unions nonprofit organizations because
Speaker 1: it constituted domestic terrorist financing years worth of wire transfers.
Speaker 1: They also got subpoenas to get financial information for the
Speaker 1: Communication Workers of America's donations and pack spending. I'm talking
Speaker 1: three years worth. It's not even like it was narrowly
Speaker 1: tailored to begin with. They got PayPal and Venmo information
Speaker 1: for Voices of Racial Justice, the longest running racial justice
Speaker 1: organization in the state of Minnesota. Then they also got
Speaker 1: financial records for Sunrise Movement, a nonprofit that focuses on
Speaker 1: climate change and other social justice issues. Undercover agents posed
Speaker 1: as protesters and activists, and they went to community meetings
Speaker 1: at church's parks, libraries, union halls, schools, and restaurants. They
Speaker 1: exchanged signal messages with people about quote purely First Amendment
Speaker 1: protected conduct, and then they also surveilled people engaged solely
Speaker 1: in First Amendment protected activity. This is a top of
Speaker 1: page eleven, including the Whipple Watch group that engaged in
Speaker 1: peaceful observation of ice vehicle activity in and out of
Speaker 1: the Whipple building, conduct that a federal judge and a
Speaker 1: chief federal judge have confirmed is not unlawful. I want
Speaker 1: to stop here.
Speaker 2: I want to play for you right now. This is me.
Speaker 2: This is just two days after.
Speaker 1: Alex Prettie was murdered, and this is me outside of
Speaker 1: Whipple Federal and I was reporting from outside of there.
Speaker 1: And take a listen to this video, Hey.
Speaker 2: Wells of Katie Han.
Speaker 5: I am outside of a liberal federal in Minneapolis.
Speaker 6: As you can see and hear, there's definitely a lot
Speaker 6: of action going on here. The protesters are letting as
Speaker 6: people are driving in and out of Federal of Wipple Federal,
Speaker 6: know how they're feeling.
Speaker 2: Just some new developments here. We've got a drone.
Speaker 5: The drone is new taking I think probably a lot
Speaker 5: of biometric information, including people's faces. Another thing that's kind
Speaker 5: of interesting is we're hearing that Tom Holman is on
Speaker 5: his way here. There's kind of been a build up
Speaker 5: of agents cars. They're positioning themselves in the parking lot.
Speaker 5: They're not getting out of their cars. They're actually watching us.
Speaker 5: And here, let me see if I can do this.
Speaker 4: On the suck.
Speaker 6: Shame on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's definitely interesting here.
Speaker 6: But I PuF y'all posted on.
Speaker 1: What's going on, right, So that's me outside of Whipple
Speaker 1: Federal and Lord knows what biometric and other identifiers were
Speaker 1: seized that day from that drone and from the ICE people,
Speaker 1: the agents that were sitting in the cars that were
Speaker 1: facing us, and they thought that we couldn't see them,
Speaker 1: but we knew that they were there, and we knew
Speaker 1: that they were recording it. And what they would do
Speaker 1: is also when they would drive in and out of Whipple,
Speaker 1: they would use their own cell phone cameras and they
Speaker 1: would video our faces and they would.
Speaker 2: Video us when they were coming in and out.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was very obvious what they were doing,
Speaker 1: and we knew that we were being recorded in that way.
Speaker 1: But for what I mean, I'm there reporting. Those other
Speaker 1: people are there excusing exercising their First Amendment constitutionally protected
Speaker 1: right to protest, to voice their opposition to the murder
Speaker 1: of people in the streets of Minneapolis Saint Paul. And
Speaker 1: yet that's the type of stuff that they were doing,
Speaker 1: as now confirmed by this motion. They went to churches
Speaker 1: and they captured license plates of attendees, going to anti
Speaker 1: ICE protests and active meetings. They got the license plates,
Speaker 1: then they got the names of the attendees, search the
Speaker 1: social media and comply and compiled a intel workup that
Speaker 1: gave their names, photos, addresses, personal information including family and
Speaker 1: employment information, vehicle registration information for each person who went
Speaker 1: to that church. Okay, they went to No King's protests
Speaker 1: and they did surveillance of those peaceful protests, claiming to
Speaker 1: the Grand Jury that look, as far as this investigation is,
Speaker 1: nobody violated know anybody's First Amendment activities, But every person
Speaker 1: we've investigating that there's a criminal predicate to investigating them.
Speaker 1: What's the criminal predicate for going to a No King's protest?
Speaker 2: I don't know. It doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: So again, the premise of being able to do this
Speaker 1: was this NSPM, this National Security Presidents on Random seven
Speaker 1: from September of twenty twenty five, and this and other
Speaker 1: prosecutors are using this as a blueprint to be able
Speaker 1: to prosecute and harass people that are anti ICE or
Speaker 1: that are anti this administration. And this motion seeks the
Speaker 1: disclosure of a lot of the underlying information that would
Speaker 1: support not support underlying information that would give more full context.
Speaker 1: It would fill out these initial government disclosures. They're also
Speaker 1: seeking Brady and Giglio, So Brady is and Giglio's information
Speaker 1: is pretty much information that is exculpatory, that would be
Speaker 1: helpful to a defendant, that would also deal with the
Speaker 1: credibility of a witness that is being sought, that is
Speaker 1: required to be turned over, and so the fact that
Speaker 1: that's having to be asked for, I think is a
Speaker 1: huge red flag that the government's prosecution in this case
Speaker 1: is not on the straight and narrow. The motion concludes
Speaker 1: that the government is admitting to withholding specific information, stating
Speaker 1: that it's not applicable to this particular prosecution. Again, another
Speaker 1: very big red flag in my opinion, especially as a
Speaker 1: formal prosecutor. You know, you not only have the obligation
Speaker 1: to turn over anything and pretty much that you have,
Speaker 1: but you should be because there's no trial by ambush
Speaker 1: that exists here, and especially in a criminal case when
Speaker 1: people's liberty is at stake, you have to error on
Speaker 1: the side of giving everything you are required to do
Speaker 1: and then some, in.
Speaker 2: My humble opinion.
Speaker 1: Furthermore, I think this is a real test case of
Speaker 1: this NSPM seven, because using that as the authority to
Speaker 1: be able to invade people's privacy and to violate their
Speaker 1: First Amendment rights is offensive to the core of the Constitution,
Speaker 1: and so we really need to be watching what happens.
Speaker 1: I'm not surprised that this happened under the tenure of
Speaker 1: the US attorney there, This guy, Dan Rosen, He is
Speaker 1: a abomination of a US attorney. There has been so
Speaker 1: much bad activity that has been happening on his watch.
Speaker 1: I did an entire subsect about this guy being like
Speaker 1: a gutless coward. You have people that worked in that
Speaker 1: office that resigned after the murders of Alex Pretting and
Speaker 1: Renaana cole Good because they knew that the US Attorney's
Speaker 1: office there was investigating the wrong damn people. You don't
Speaker 1: investigate Renana cole Good's widow, you don't investigate her wife.
Speaker 2: You don't do that.
Speaker 1: And right now there's still this black box in terms
Speaker 1: of anything that deals with these murders, right I mean,
Speaker 1: that tells you the tone of what is happening with
Speaker 1: this US Attorney's office. So I thought this was incredibly
Speaker 1: important information to share with you because we continue to
Speaker 1: fight back in opposition to ice and to this illegal
Speaker 1: and horrible draconian conduct that comes under the guise of
Speaker 1: immigration enforcement in this Trump regime, and to think that
Speaker 1: they want to cow people into silence or intimidate them
Speaker 1: by doing this. They know they have to do it
Speaker 1: secretly because they know that they would get excoriated appropriately.
Speaker 1: So and this is why I want you to know.
Speaker 1: I want you to know what they are doing. I
Speaker 1: want you to understand what their tactics are, because this
Speaker 1: is where they've sunk so low to be able to
Speaker 1: do it in this fashion. It's dirty, They're playing dirty,
Speaker 1: and hopefully this judge will force them to have to
Speaker 1: disclose this requested information because these are the types of
Speaker 1: tactics that are McCarthyism and that are frankly fascist.
Speaker 2: Has to be said.
Speaker 1: Be mad, be outraged, man accountability like they are doing
Speaker 1: in this case, and be aware, be very aware of
Speaker 1: what they're up to. I'm off to rattle more fascist cages.