Speaker 1: We've got some exclusive news here at Katie Fang, a
Speaker 1: news channel about my lawsuit against Todd Blanch, the Attorney
Speaker 1: General of the United States, over the Epstein Files. I
Speaker 1: want to go through two filings that were just done
Speaker 1: late yesterday, and they kind of go together, but one
Speaker 1: is thirty eight pages and.
Speaker 2: One is four.
Speaker 1: Now your recall when we went to the status hearing
Speaker 1: last week Thursday, Judge Emmett Sullivan ordered us to submit
Speaker 1: proposed orders that addressed.
Speaker 2: Two specific issues.
Speaker 1: One the handwritten FBI interview notes of a woman who
Speaker 1: alleges that when she was thirteen years old, she was
Speaker 1: sexually abused and physically battered by convicted fellon Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Two the proposed language that would be used in a
Speaker 1: sworn declaration to be signed by Todd Blanche concerning the
Speaker 1: redaction log that we argue is required to be produced
Speaker 1: and published pursue it to the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Speaker 1: So we're going to break that up right now. We're
Speaker 1: going to walk through what we've submitted to the court
Speaker 1: before we do so, I want to.
Speaker 2: Note the following.
Speaker 1: What was an incredible outcome from that two hour status
Speaker 1: hearing last week is the judge didn't ask for what
Speaker 1: we call competing orders. A lot of times a judge
Speaker 1: will say, plaintiff, you submit an order, Defendant, you submit
Speaker 1: an order. They will be competing orders. And then the
Speaker 1: judge decides, maybe I like this, maybe I like that,
Speaker 1: and maybe puts together his own kind of Frankenstein of
Speaker 1: an order, if I may. In this instance, the judge
Speaker 1: didn't want to get anything from the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: slash Todd Lanche. He asked us, in my amazing legal
Speaker 1: team at Public Integrity Project, you know, I always want
Speaker 1: to give them credit because it is absolutely earned. And
Speaker 1: do Brendan Blow and Emily Gilman were in court with
Speaker 1: me and sam Ward Packard, who wasn't there but is
Speaker 1: also an amazing part of the legal team.
Speaker 2: You know, they have been doing great work.
Speaker 1: And so Judge Sullivan said, Miss Fang, your team submits
Speaker 1: these proposed orders, so let's.
Speaker 2: Walk through them now.
Speaker 1: So the four page document which appears on the docket
Speaker 1: is a proposed order, and so that's why you'll see
Speaker 1: the word proposed in front of the order. And as
Speaker 1: it is in federal court, you send this in and
Speaker 1: then the judge can either adopt it wholesale and agree
Speaker 1: with everything and sign it. Or the judge can make
Speaker 1: little slashes even like handwritten annotations no pun intended. Or
Speaker 1: he can draft his own and make some material changes.
Speaker 1: But either way, this is what the proposed order says.
Speaker 1: Todd Blanche shall, as in no choice, submit to the
Speaker 1: Court by no later than three pm Eastern on August
Speaker 1: twenty fifth, twenty twenty six. So for folks who don't
Speaker 1: have a calendar in front of you, that's next week Tuesday.
Speaker 1: You're hearing this on Friday, August twenty first. Next week
Speaker 1: Tuesday is the twenty fifth. So Todd Blanche shall submit
Speaker 1: to the court by no later than three pm Eastern
Speaker 1: on August twenty fifth, twenty twenty six. The underlying FBI
Speaker 1: interview notes that formed the basis for the FD three
Speaker 1: oh two interview reports bearing the following bait stamps numbers,
Speaker 1: and it lists those four to three O twos. Remember
Speaker 1: the three twos are the official reports that are generated
Speaker 1: by the FBI, and what are they predicated upon the
Speaker 1: handwritten interview notes that are done by an agent or
Speaker 1: agent's plural when they are conducting these interviews. What I
Speaker 1: have sought by way of my preliminary injunction, and what
Speaker 1: Judge Sullivan granted that I was allowed to receive are
Speaker 1: the unredacted interview notes were adacted only to PreTect victim confidentiality.
Speaker 1: Why do I say that, Well, the Epstein Files Transparency Act,
Speaker 1: as Judge Sullivan noted as well, does not have an
Speaker 1: exception for other redactions that the DOJ has attempted to
Speaker 1: do in this instance. So Blanche shall produce no later
Speaker 1: than three pm on August twenty fifth, twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: the underlying handwritten FBI interview notes for the four to
Speaker 1: three to oh two's that were generated as a result
Speaker 1: of them interviewing this woman who claims when she was
Speaker 1: thirteen years old she was sexually assaulted and physically battered
Speaker 1: by convicted fallon Donald Trump. Now let's take a detour
Speaker 1: to the other filing that we did yesterday late. This
Speaker 1: is the thirty eight page filing. And you may say,
Speaker 1: holy crap, Katie, why is it so big? Well, the
Speaker 1: notice to the Court as it is entitled itself, is
Speaker 1: only two pages that I have attached exhibits, and those
Speaker 1: are the important thing. We obtained the full transcript from
Speaker 1: that hearing. It is a doozy it's worth reading, but
Speaker 1: I'm looking for it right now to show it to you.
Speaker 1: But anyway, the transcipt was important because we wanted to
Speaker 1: make sure that we were accurate about what Udge Sullivan said,
Speaker 1: how he ruled, and what he asked us to do.
Speaker 1: And in the course of that two hour status hearing,
Speaker 1: there was an inquiry that was made by Judge Sullivan
Speaker 1: to the DOJ lawyer who appeared that day, this Andrew
Speaker 1: block Guy. And it's a thirty eight page hearing transcript,
Speaker 1: and on page five, the judge starts with I want
Speaker 1: to focus on the FBI interview.
Speaker 2: Notes at this time, okay, And this is important, right,
Speaker 2: I said.
Speaker 1: It has to do with what the order is that
Speaker 1: we just sent into Judge Sullivan that we proposed the
Speaker 1: Judge Sullivan sign. Judge Sullivan then goes into the procedural
Speaker 1: history of how he granted the preliminary injunction ordered Blanche
Speaker 1: to produce the underlying FBI notes, and in response, Blanche
Speaker 1: said he didn't produce the notes for two reasons. One
Speaker 1: they's substantially similar to the Tye Britton reports, which were
Speaker 1: the three O twos, and two there's a risk of
Speaker 1: inavertent disclosure of victim information because the notes are hand written.
Speaker 1: So then Andrew Block, the lawyer for Blanche, says, this,
Speaker 1: your honor, to the point of that I will somewhat
Speaker 1: reiterate our briefing here, but the determination have been made
Speaker 1: that the handwritten notes were duplicative and materials already produced. Now,
Speaker 1: as I've explained to you last week after this hearing,
Speaker 1: there has never been an argument raised until that hearing
Speaker 1: by Todd Blanche that the interview notes, the handwritten ones
Speaker 1: are duplicative, meaning that they're identical to the three oz twos.
Speaker 1: That's physically impossible, it's literally not happening. Duplicative is different
Speaker 1: than substantially similar. Now Blanche has raised that as an excuse,
Speaker 1: but as Judge Sullivan noted, there is no exception in
Speaker 1: the Epstein Files Transparency Act for things that are quote
Speaker 1: substantially similar as grounds or excuses for not producing them
Speaker 1: to the public. And then Block conflates things and if
Speaker 1: you're not paying attention, there's a whole lot of word
Speaker 1: solid that goes on there, comes out of the doj
Speaker 1: and in that mumba jumbo they try to confuse in.
Speaker 2: That word salad.
Speaker 1: Block says, that someone reviewed a draft indictment and said
Speaker 1: there is no additional harm or risk of victim information
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense, right, because it's irrelevant. The draft indictment
Speaker 1: is different than the handwritten FBI notes. But Block was
Speaker 1: trying to play fast and loose, right, He's like, let
Speaker 1: me just bring this, let me do this word salad,
Speaker 1: and then let me talk about a draft indictment and
Speaker 1: let me talk about No, Sullivan wasn't buying it. This
Speaker 1: is what Sullivan said. So you have no additional information?
Speaker 1: Is that what you're saying? Block says, yeah, I think so,
Speaker 1: the court there must be some information. Block, well, I
Speaker 1: think again. It's to the court's point about Sullivan interrupts,
Speaker 1: how many pages of interview notes are we talking about? Block,
Speaker 1: I don't have that information, the court approximately, Block, I
Speaker 1: don't know what the volume of handwritten material underlying three
Speaker 1: twos is. Judge Sullivan says, have other handwritten notes been published?
Speaker 1: And this is where Andrew Block steps in it. To
Speaker 1: my knowledge, not with respect to the three zero twos.
Speaker 1: The court, so, what would the cause be? The defendant
Speaker 1: was directed to show cause why it should not be produced.
Speaker 1: What's the answer, Block says. The answer, your honor is
Speaker 1: that they are duplicative documents, and Sullivan says, well, that's
Speaker 1: what the defendant says.
Speaker 2: The court doesn't know that.
Speaker 1: All the court is looking for is a means by
Speaker 1: which the Court can conclude that what's been provided as
Speaker 1: evidence is indeed consistent with three or two reports.
Speaker 2: That's all.
Speaker 1: But just to take it at face value that the
Speaker 1: notes are substantially similar doesn't really address the court's responsibility.
Speaker 1: The court has to determine that that's correct. I'm just
Speaker 1: looking for a way to do that. And the mumba jumbo,
Speaker 1: I'm not entirely sure what your honor is looking for.
Speaker 1: Is there a specific direction? And the court responds, I'm
Speaker 1: just looking for cooperation. I'm just looking for evidence that
Speaker 1: supports the defendant's representations that indeed the handwritten notes are
Speaker 1: consistent with the three h two reports.
Speaker 2: That's all.
Speaker 1: And then the court goes on, I mean it's simple.
Speaker 1: I know these are difficult questions, but the court needs
Speaker 1: to have a time frame for getting that information. I'm
Speaker 1: willing to work with you. I'm willing to work with
Speaker 1: the parties both sides. All I need is proof that
Speaker 1: what the three or two reports say is actually true
Speaker 1: and consistent with the FBI notes.
Speaker 2: And then Bloc has no response. So what did we
Speaker 2: do well?
Speaker 1: As I said, a couple of minutes ago, Block misrepresented
Speaker 1: to the court that there have not been hand written
Speaker 1: interview notes produced reacted to the public that have been
Speaker 1: produced in conjunction.
Speaker 2: With FBI three oh two's. So what did we do well?
Speaker 1: We brought notice to the court and we said defendants
Speaker 1: Council is not correct in what he represented. Defendant has
Speaker 1: in fact produce handwritten FBI interview notes underlying the three
Speaker 1: to two reports, for example. And then we cite two
Speaker 1: Epstein files Transparency Act bait stamps attached as Exhibit B.
Speaker 1: These are handwritten notes underlying the three or two inter
Speaker 1: review interview report that's produced at a specific Epstein Foles
Speaker 1: Transparency Act bait stamp that is attached as Exhibits C.
Speaker 1: In addition, what we did too is we identified nearly
Speaker 1: one hundred additional examples of handwritten interview notes produced by
Speaker 1: the defendant Todd Blanche in Exhibit D. And then this
Speaker 1: is what we asked Judge Sullivan to do. Plaintiff Katie
Speaker 1: Fang respectfully requests that the Court consider whether defendants stated
Speaker 1: justification for withholding the handwritten FBI interview notes is consistent
Speaker 1: with defendant's production of other handwritten materials when when conducting
Speaker 1: it's in camera review of those notes. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: what we're asking Judge Sullivan to do is take notice
Speaker 1: from this filing where we gave him evidence that on
Speaker 1: prior occasions, Todd Blanche and the Trump DOJ produced hand
Speaker 1: written interview notes from an FBI agent redacted in some places.
Speaker 2: That correlated to give me a second, please.
Speaker 1: An FBI three oh two report redacted, and just in
Speaker 1: case Todd Blanch in the DOJ seems to forget the
Speaker 1: work that they purportedly did when they were doing this work,
Speaker 1: we provided the following five plus page list of examples
Speaker 1: of when handwritten notes have been produced by Blanche Slashed
Speaker 1: the Trump DOJ in compliance with the Epstein Foules Transparency Act.
Speaker 1: We're just reminding Judge Sullivan that when there's a will,
Speaker 1: there's a way, and Todd Blanche has done it before.
Speaker 1: So his lame ass excuse that it's duplicative or substantially similar,
Speaker 1: not only is it not recognized of the Epstein Files
Speaker 1: Transparency Act, but it's a crocod shit. And by the way,
Speaker 1: we all know too, it's not voluminous documents. It's what
Speaker 1: thirty something pages is what we know. So spare me,
Speaker 1: Spare me the drama, spare me the lies, spare me
Speaker 1: the bullshit. Blanche should turn them over, and he is
Speaker 1: because Judge Sullivan says you're gonna have to turn them
Speaker 1: over in camera, and we said by August twenty fifth, judge,
Speaker 1: and then the Judge's gonna look at them and be like, okay,
Speaker 1: just redact to the names of the victims.
Speaker 2: What's the issue here?
Speaker 1: I don't sleep well unless I have my cozy earth
Speaker 1: bamboo sheets guaranteed for you to have a comfortable night sleep.
Speaker 1: These sheets naturally wick away the heat and the moisture
Speaker 1: so your body feels cooler, helping you sleep those cooler temperatures.
Speaker 1: They help your body's temperature experience a natural drop at night,
Speaker 1: promoting the release of melatonin, a hormone that regulates your sleep.
Speaker 1: This means you're gonna fall asleep faster and your sleep
Speaker 1: quality improves. Discover how care and every detail transforms simple
Speaker 1: routines into moments of true comfort and ease. Had to
Speaker 1: come tho dot com and use my code fang phang
Speaker 1: for up to twenty percent off. That's code fang for
Speaker 1: up to twenty percent off. And if you get a
Speaker 1: post purchase survey, be sure to mention you heard about
Speaker 1: Cozy Earth right here. Experience the craft behind the comfort
Speaker 1: and make every day feel intentional.
Speaker 2: I think it's worthwhile doing a footnote here as well.
Speaker 1: I have seen they have been sent to me, I've read,
Speaker 1: I have looked at these leaked handwritten notes that have
Speaker 1: been put out on Reddit and on other places. I
Speaker 1: want to be clear the authenticity of those notes remains
Speaker 1: at issue. I am not comfortable putting my name behind
Speaker 1: them saying that this is what they are. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: guess I could have just said, look, this has been found.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if they're authentic. I just don't know
Speaker 1: if that helps putting them into the ether by doing so.
Speaker 1: I would prefer to wait and actually get the handwritten
Speaker 1: notes from the DOJ that coincide with the three H
Speaker 1: two's that are specific to this thirteen year old girl
Speaker 1: and her allegations against Trump. This thirteen year old goal
Speaker 1: from South Carolina. I'd rather do that than make a
Speaker 1: big assumption when I'm not quite sure about the authentication
Speaker 1: of those documents, and so that is the reason why
Speaker 1: I haven't pushed them out and done anything with them.
Speaker 1: All Right, the rest of this proposed order, the four
Speaker 1: page thing that we did is giving information to the
Speaker 1: judge of what the declaration should be that assigned by Blanche,
Speaker 1: and that no later than September third, Blanche or a
Speaker 1: DOJ representative with personal knowledge of the facts has to
Speaker 1: submit a written declaration under penalties of perjury, setting forth
Speaker 1: the information of the process behind the redaction log. Now,
Speaker 1: the Epstein File Transparency Act requires two things to happen.
Speaker 1: One that a summary be produced that is given to
Speaker 1: Congress that says we withheld and redacted under these particular categories. However,
Speaker 1: there's also another part of the Epstein Files Transparent the
Speaker 1: Act that says that for every individual reaction that has
Speaker 1: been done, there has to be a log of it
Speaker 1: so that understandably people understand why and if they can
Speaker 1: challenge it, they should.
Speaker 2: So unless you're.
Speaker 1: Reacting stuff and withholding stuff you're not supposed to, you
Speaker 1: should be comfortable with creating, as the law requires a
Speaker 1: redaction log that explains this information to the American people.
Speaker 2: Blanches, he doesn't have to do it.
Speaker 1: So what we've said in our proposed order to the
Speaker 1: judge is for this sworn declaration under penalties of perjury,
Speaker 1: to explain if the Department of Justice has completed that
Speaker 1: redaction log for publication in the Federal Register, when was
Speaker 1: it done, whether it explains the individual reactions that are required,
Speaker 1: whether the Department has submitted it for publication yet, et cetera.
Speaker 1: If the Department has begun preparing that hasn't yet completed
Speaker 1: that redaction log, tell us when did you actually start,
Speaker 1: how many people are involved in doing it, what steps
Speaker 1: have been taked to prepare it, etc. And then, finally,
Speaker 1: if the DOJ has not even begun preparing that redaction log,
Speaker 1: provide a detailed explanation as to why why the DOJ
Speaker 1: hasn't begun preparing that redaction log, including but not limited to,
Speaker 1: whether the DOJ has made an affirmative decision not to
Speaker 1: do it, and if so, who was responsible for making
Speaker 1: that decision, so we know who'd blame for not complying
Speaker 1: with the law. This, my friends, is what Judge Sullivan
Speaker 1: ordered us to do, and that is what the transcript reflects.
Speaker 2: From that hearing.
Speaker 1: There are other issues that remain at large, including the
Speaker 1: fact that Blanche has blown through the deadline to answer
Speaker 1: and respond to my lawsuit, including some other things that
Speaker 1: deal with the foreign language translations. As you know, I'm
Speaker 1: very hell bent on getting those documents. These things are
Speaker 1: also being managed, but at this point we are complying
Speaker 1: with what Judge Sullivan ordered us to do, and that
Speaker 1: is what I have just walked you through. This is
Speaker 1: exclusive to you here at Case News. Please like and subscribe,
Speaker 1: and please share this episode far and wide and get
Speaker 1: other people to follow so that they understand what is
Speaker 1: happening in this suit. I like you want things to
Speaker 1: move faster. However, there are deadlines, rules, and other things
Speaker 1: that apply here that are kind of having to rain
Speaker 1: me in a little bit. But rest assured, I am
Speaker 1: doggedly pursuing this case to the best and the most
Speaker 1: of my ability, as are my lawyers, who are incredible
Speaker 1: and hardworking and they care.
Speaker 2: Be mad, be outrage, demand accountability.
Speaker 1: Leave a comment below this episode letting me know what
Speaker 1: you think about what is happening so far in this case.
Speaker 2: I'm off to rattle more. 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. Operation Metro Surge was a
Speaker 1: disaster for the Trump regime because it just lit a
Speaker 1: fire under the people.
Speaker 2: It gave them a purpose.
Speaker 1: It gave them a reason to want to step up
Speaker 1: and speak out over the atrocities that are be committed
Speaker 1: under the guise of immigration enforcement by this administration. Specifically,
Speaker 1: we witnessed the murders of Renanna Colegood and Alex pretty
Speaker 1: in broad daylight. But some things happened that didn't get
Speaker 1: as much attention, and yet they should. For example, there
Speaker 1: is a man who was shot in the leg by
Speaker 1: an ICE agent by the name of Christian Cashow. That's
Speaker 1: the name of the ICE agent, and the man who
Speaker 1: was shot was Julio's Sosa Salisse. Now it'd be bad
Speaker 1: enough that this ICE agent shot into a home, a
Speaker 1: residence when the door was closed. He shot through the
Speaker 1: closed door, striking mister Salise in the leg. And the
Speaker 1: bullet got lodged in a child's bedroom. Yes, there were
Speaker 1: children present, that.
Speaker 2: Would be bad enough.
Speaker 1: Oh but what is the icing on that proverbial shit cake.
Speaker 1: This Ice agent, Christian Castro, then lied to the FBI
Speaker 1: and claimed that he was under attack and fear for
Speaker 1: his life and that's why he ended up firing into
Speaker 1: the residents. Well, the truth came out, and after the
Speaker 1: truth came out, Christian Castro was appropriately indicted for four
Speaker 1: accounts of assault as well as one count of lying
Speaker 1: making a false report. Those charges brought by the Hennepin
Speaker 1: County Attorney Mary Moriarty with the support of the Attorney
Speaker 1: General of Minnesota, Keith Allison. But that's not the end
Speaker 1: of the story. And arrest warrant was issued for this
Speaker 1: Ice agent, Christian Castro, who, of course, like spent the
Speaker 1: fuck out of Minnesota after he committed these crimes. And
Speaker 1: where do they find him h in Texas of course,
Speaker 1: probably on his way to the border. And now the
Speaker 1: Governor of Texas, Grid Abbott, refuses to sign the extradition
Speaker 1: paperwork so that he can be sent back to Minnesota
Speaker 1: to face the concert of his illegal actions. So the
Speaker 1: Minnesota Attorney General Keith Allison said, not on my watch.
Speaker 1: I'm suing suing the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott. I
Speaker 1: invited Attorney General Ellison to join me because I wanted
Speaker 1: to get into the details of this lawsuit. I also
Speaker 1: wanted to get an update on what's happening with the
Speaker 1: investigation into the murders of Renna Cole Good and Alex
Speaker 1: Pretty Take a listen. Joining me now is the Attorney
Speaker 1: General of Minnesota, Keith Ellison.
Speaker 2: General.
Speaker 1: I am impressed because you consistently not just walk that
Speaker 1: walk or I got that I can say I that
Speaker 1: they's wrong. You don't just talk the talk, you walk
Speaker 1: it right. This lawsuit is incredible number one, but number two,
Speaker 1: I mean, what's.
Speaker 2: Good for the goose is good for the gander.
Speaker 1: I mean, the rule of law requires that it be
Speaker 1: applied to everybody. And it looks to me like Governor
Speaker 1: Abbott thinks that he's just gonna pretend like he never
Speaker 1: got the extradition.
Speaker 3: Notice that's right. I mean, so we filed this way
Speaker 3: back in June and it's been sitting there for literally months.
Speaker 3: Usually Texas responds back to Minnesota within thirty days, and
Speaker 3: they do routinely and we respond back within like three days.
Speaker 3: When people are in Minnesota but they're being extraduted to
Speaker 3: other states, we respond within three days. So for him
Speaker 3: to wait until the eleventh hour and make us sue
Speaker 3: him is extraordinary. When you build yourself as some law
Speaker 3: and order guy, Well, the law and the order are
Speaker 3: that the Constitution says you got to sign the extradition warrant.
Speaker 3: You have no discretion. It's not a discretionary thing. It's
Speaker 3: not like if you feel like it or if you agree,
Speaker 3: nothing like that. It is Minnesota wants this guy. He's
Speaker 3: a fugitive in your state. He must be returned to
Speaker 3: Minnesota and face justice. And he has all of his
Speaker 3: rights in Minnesota, right to confrontation, right to counsel, right
Speaker 3: to be presumed innocent, all the rights. I make no
Speaker 3: claim that he's totally guilty. We think he's there's probable
Speaker 3: cause that he's guilty, which is why we charged him.
Speaker 3: But he has every right any defendant ever has. It's
Speaker 3: not up to mister Abbott to decide whether he wants
Speaker 3: to do it or not. He must do it. And
Speaker 3: he's failed in his duty and obligation, and he is
Speaker 3: selective about law and order, because when he wants to
Speaker 3: prosecute somebody, he does it, and when he doesn't, he
Speaker 3: skips it. So that's really why we have to file
Speaker 3: the lawsuit. And while this is going to come to
Speaker 3: a hit on the twenty fifth of August next week.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So a couple of things here.
Speaker 1: Number one, I want people to understand there is no
Speaker 1: gray area in the law when it comes to the
Speaker 1: extradition clause of the United States Constitution, the Federal Extradition Act,
Speaker 1: in Texas's own law.
Speaker 2: Governor Abbot doesn't have.
Speaker 1: As you say, the discretion to reject this extradition request
Speaker 1: from Governor Walls from Minnesota. And what's also important about
Speaker 1: what you just said is there's no presumptions of guilt here.
Speaker 1: It's bring him to the jurisdiction of Minnesota to face
Speaker 1: the charges that were filed against him in an indictment
Speaker 1: here in Minnesota, right, and let him go through the
Speaker 1: process here. But to me, it's harboring a fugitive at
Speaker 1: this point. If Governor Abbott does not abide by the law, that.
Speaker 3: Is exactly right. And if I made Katie you know
Speaker 3: so this let me just tell folks a little bit
Speaker 3: about this case. So this is during Operation Metro Search.
Speaker 3: Operation Metro Search, as you know because you came here,
Speaker 3: thank you, was the largest deployment of immigration agents at
Speaker 3: one place at one time in Minneso. And it happened
Speaker 3: at Minnesota. Minnesota is not even in the top half
Speaker 3: of destinations for immigration and yet they targeted our state.
Speaker 3: We can get into why later. The point is, mister
Speaker 3: Soso Solise was being chased by these individuals who are
Speaker 3: immigration agents. Them was a man named Christian Castro. Christian
Speaker 3: Castro shoots through a closed door, wounds mister social Salice
Speaker 3: in the back of his leg. Bullet goes through and
Speaker 3: through lodges in another part of the house. There are
Speaker 3: children in the house. Okay, so he's what he did
Speaker 3: was dramatically reckless. Anyway, what he doesn't know is that
Speaker 3: there's a CCTV camera showing all this. He then lies
Speaker 3: to the FBI and says, I was attacked with weapons.
Speaker 3: I was in fear of my life. Oh my goodness.
Speaker 3: And then mister Solice is charged with assaulting a federal officer.
Speaker 3: Then when the CCTV comes out, it's shown that everything
Speaker 3: Castro said was a ball faced lie and that he
Speaker 3: was never attacked. He shot through a closed door and uh,
Speaker 3: and he in the case, and mister social solice was
Speaker 3: charged with a crime. That case is dismissed with prejudice.
Speaker 3: We then charge Castro not only for assault, but for
Speaker 3: lying and filing a false police report, and we charged him.
Speaker 3: Then the extradition process begins. The federal government dismissed a
Speaker 3: criminal prosecution because Castro is a damn liar allegedly, and
Speaker 3: so you know, this is the this is the reality
Speaker 3: of the situation. And Ebbat says, I don't care. I
Speaker 3: don't care.
Speaker 1: Well, here's the other thing that I want to kind
Speaker 1: of add to your factual recitation here, which is important.
Speaker 1: Christian Castro, as an ice agent is not somebody from Minnesota, right.
Speaker 2: So he comes in, He.
Speaker 1: Enters the borders of a state that has sovereignty to
Speaker 1: take care of its people and its citizens. He comes
Speaker 1: in as a part of an incredibly, in my humble opinion,
Speaker 1: illegal immigration operation, comes in physically harms, assaults citizens of Minnesota.
Speaker 1: And then isn't it such an interesting consciousness of guilt
Speaker 1: sign He's gone just like the people who murdered Alex
Speaker 1: pretty renaining.
Speaker 2: Hole good poof gone.
Speaker 1: Right, So these federal authorities, these federal agents, they again
Speaker 1: enter borders of sovereign states like Minnesota, commit crimes and.
Speaker 2: Then they're gone.
Speaker 1: And isn't it such a isn't it such a tell
Speaker 1: that they go to a place and then he's found
Speaker 1: in Texas.
Speaker 2: That's the other thing.
Speaker 1: So there's an award issued for his arrest by the
Speaker 1: Henibon County DA Mary moriety regarding this case, and they
Speaker 1: find the Texas Rangers find him in Texas, which is
Speaker 1: very close to borders, right, that's a border state. And
Speaker 1: he's in custody right now in Texas. But I do
Speaker 1: think it's very interesting that this is what they do.
Speaker 1: They come into these states, they commit crimes, and they're
Speaker 1: like peace out and they don't stay because they know
Speaker 1: that something's up.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's very very concerning. And here's the other thing.
Speaker 3: You know, on the there's a statute in Texas which
Speaker 3: says we will hold him for ninety days. After that
Speaker 3: we might That's what I'm worried about, and so we've
Speaker 3: had to fight. We wrote three letters. Mary Moriarty, who
Speaker 3: you know, wrote a letter. I wrote a letter and said,
Speaker 3: here's the legal here's the law, and then he and
Speaker 3: then he has the warrant itself, and he's still not really,
Speaker 3: he's still not turning this guy over. He still has
Speaker 3: not signed the extradition warrant. There is no reason to
Speaker 3: believe anything other than he plans on trying to run
Speaker 3: out the clock, which is why we had to file
Speaker 3: the lawsuit. When we did, some people wonder, well, why
Speaker 3: did you wait? Well, the reason we waited is because
Speaker 3: we thought that he would honor the extradition warrant, just
Speaker 3: like they have before. He has signed extradition warrants for
Speaker 3: three times since Castro was arrested, and so he knows
Speaker 3: how to do it, you know, and it's a routine
Speaker 3: thing between states, but for political and performative reasons, he's
Speaker 3: blocking it. Can I add one more thing.
Speaker 2: Kadie here come highth sure?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So he was asked by some reporters, why haven't you
Speaker 3: signed the Minnesota extra dish warrant? Yeah? And you know
Speaker 3: what he said, You know what he said right here?
Speaker 2: You go ahead tell him? Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah. He said, oh, well, when they pay back all
Speaker 3: the money that Minnesota that was defrauded in Minnesota, then
Speaker 3: I'll do it.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Texas governor says, what about what I mean,
Speaker 1: really what it's like? Since when are you as responsible
Speaker 1: for that? And that's a whole other Krocky, you know
Speaker 1: what about the fraud stuff. I mean, there is fraud,
Speaker 1: but it's definitely not of what these guys are talking about. Look,
Speaker 1: this ninety day window is really important because the window
Speaker 1: runs on August twenty six, and for people who are
Speaker 1: following along here, once that ninety days is up, the
Speaker 1: guy Christian Castro, who's currently being held by the sheriff.
Speaker 2: He will be released.
Speaker 1: And so what are you seeking from a court, Because
Speaker 1: I saw you filed in federal court in Texas and Division.
Speaker 2: So what are you asking the court to do?
Speaker 3: We're asking we have we have two things. One we're saying,
Speaker 3: don't release them to the sheriff. We want the court
Speaker 3: we want the judge to issue a court order to
Speaker 3: tell the the the sheriff not to release him. And
Speaker 3: we have a and our motion is to make the
Speaker 3: governors sign the warrant to release him too Minnesota. So
Speaker 3: if so, if that happens, they may appeal, they may not.
Speaker 3: If they don't, he's on his way back to Minnesota.
Speaker 3: If they do then that's going to be in the
Speaker 3: Fifth Circuit. That's why we need the court the jail
Speaker 3: to hold on to him. Then. Uh, if the Fifth
Speaker 3: Circuit rules, you know, upholds the District court judge, which
Speaker 3: we believe will rule in our favor, then he's coming back.
Speaker 3: If they don't, then we got to go to Supreme
Speaker 3: Court for an emergency red. So we're we've gained this
Speaker 3: thing out and I'm telling you this, mister Castro will
Speaker 3: face justice in Minnesota period. If somebody lets him out
Speaker 3: and they're not supposed to, I'm gonna we're gonna chase
Speaker 3: him to to Mexico. He's going to face justice. He
Speaker 3: is going to face justice. He might as well do
Speaker 3: it now. And let me just say this flight is
Speaker 3: consciousness of guilt and relevant from an evidentiary point of view,
Speaker 3: meaning that the jury may find out that you skid outled,
Speaker 3: you know, so if he follows the rules now, they won't.
Speaker 3: If he doesn't, they might.
Speaker 2: It's also relevant for people's bomb status too.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah. Oh, and he has contexts in Mexico.
Speaker 1: He has I mean that the irony's abound there, right.
Speaker 1: He wants to run around and round up migrants and
Speaker 1: then he wants to flee to Mexico fall place.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he wants to. Yeah. It's so it's so disgusting,
Speaker 3: it's even hard to believe. But one day we're all
Speaker 3: gonna have great books to write, Katie, you know, because
Speaker 3: you can believe some of the stuff that is going
Speaker 3: down right nowadays.
Speaker 1: You know, General Alison, one of the things I wanted
Speaker 1: to speak with you about too is this. I mean
Speaker 1: there I have a huge investment emotionally in what happens
Speaker 1: to Minneapolis Saint Paul.
Speaker 2: It has become a home away from home for me.
Speaker 2: I know a lot of people want to know.
Speaker 1: You know, it's great because Minneapolis, or more accurately, Minnesota
Speaker 1: is the only state that is taking action against federal
Speaker 1: agents that are doing things to its citizens, right, And
Speaker 1: I do know people have been asking, yes, but what
Speaker 1: about because we always get the one about it, but
Speaker 1: what about Renana cole Good?
Speaker 2: What about Alex Pretty right?
Speaker 1: I know you and the District Attorney Moriarty are trying
Speaker 1: so hard to be able to get some cooperation from
Speaker 1: the Feds. You were able to get some evidence over it,
Speaker 1: but I know people are gonna want to know if
Speaker 1: if there's any updates or anything that you could possibly
Speaker 1: share without of course disclosing anything or violating privileges, but
Speaker 1: just maybe some information to let them know what's going on.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I will say that we have received some cooperation.
Speaker 3: We've received more. We have more information that we had
Speaker 3: when they first told us no, and so we've received
Speaker 3: a lot, but we don't have it all yet and
Speaker 3: we're in the process of negotiating to get the rest
Speaker 3: of it now. In the meantime, we found a civil
Speaker 3: action to compel the federal government to give us the
Speaker 3: rest of the file, and so that is winding its
Speaker 3: way through the system. So we are working, I'm gonna
Speaker 3: tell you, Katie, and I want all your listeners to
Speaker 3: know we're working on this every day. We have a team,
Speaker 3: two teams, both the county attorney and the Attorney General
Speaker 3: teamed up working on this to get justice for Freddie
Speaker 3: and Good every day. So I don't want anybody to
Speaker 3: think we're not working hard. Just because you don't see
Speaker 3: it in the news doesn't mean we are not laboring
Speaker 3: with great effort every single day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is where I wanted to ask, because I
Speaker 1: know that that's what you're doing and oftentimes when it's
Speaker 1: not some marquee headline, A lot of people make assumptions
Speaker 1: that it's gone to the back burner. I mean, there
Speaker 1: is other work that you do tirelessly as the attorney general.
Speaker 1: But I do think it was important to ask because
Speaker 1: it's relevant. I mean, and then the bigger picture thing
Speaker 1: is this, right, I mean, at least you're doing something
Speaker 1: about it. I don't see any other states doing anything,
Speaker 1: and it's not because they don't have probably an interest
Speaker 1: in doing it. It's just as we're seeing here, you
Speaker 1: keep on hitting roadblocks that are created by either the
Speaker 1: federal administration or by Republican led states. I mean, to me,
Speaker 1: that is just an outrageous level of a disregard for
Speaker 1: the rule of law as well as just for just cooperation, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's going to come a day when they
Speaker 1: need your help, these other states. But you guys are
Speaker 1: not petty that way. You don't play petty partisan politics,
Speaker 1: as you noted Governor Wallace has signed extradition requests by
Speaker 1: Governor Abbott. You know, when you get a request for
Speaker 1: assistance or cooperation from other jurisdictions, even if they're quote
Speaker 1: red led.
Speaker 2: States, you do it. I mean, that's the way it's
Speaker 2: supposed to be.
Speaker 3: That is exactly how it's supposed to be. And I
Speaker 3: will tell you that the law is very simple. If
Speaker 3: you commit a crime in a state and then flee
Speaker 3: to another state, the governor in the other states supposed
Speaker 3: to sign their rendition warrant to bring you back to
Speaker 3: face justice in the original state where the crime was committed.
Speaker 3: Simple as that you have all of your rights. Why
Speaker 3: they're the fact that the Abbott won't won't sign the
Speaker 3: warrant suggests to me that he doesn't believe that Castro
Speaker 3: was doing the right thing as he apparently believes he was.
Speaker 3: I mean, it is an extraordinary moment in American history.
Speaker 3: We will prevail, I have no doubt about it, but
Speaker 3: we want It's a sad moment that we're living in.
Speaker 3: Quite frankly, and U and An Abbot's response to the
Speaker 3: reporter about Minnesota fraud just really does prove that Republicans
Speaker 3: are trying to politicize a serious issue. That's what they're
Speaker 3: trying to do. They're trying to use an issue to
Speaker 3: get political leverage and that and that's pretty much it.
Speaker 3: But you know, Abbot's in a pretty self race himself
Speaker 3: tell Rico is looking good in Texas and so maybe
Speaker 3: this is some stunt that he thinks is going to
Speaker 3: help him generate energy in the base. I don't know
Speaker 3: that speculation on my part, but it's irrational, it's crazy,
Speaker 3: and it's unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: You know, before we part ways, it didn't want to
Speaker 1: ask you as a fellow lawyer and a fellow trial lawyer.
Speaker 1: You know, we're seeing number one, We're seeing outrageous statements
Speaker 1: from people that are saying things like Derek Chauvin should
Speaker 1: be should be pardoned and Derek Chauvin should be let
Speaker 1: out of prison. We're also seeing go at the same time,
Speaker 1: you know, a whole lot of people that are in
Speaker 1: positions of trust, like a federal law enforcement agent or
Speaker 1: you know, a United States attorney or an assistant US attorney.
Speaker 1: We're finding that they're.
Speaker 2: Getting in trouble, right, I mean, this is all coming
Speaker 2: to light.
Speaker 1: I mean, eventually it all comes to be transparent because
Speaker 1: people are doggedly still believing in the law and injustice.
Speaker 1: We're seeing that, you know, grand juries are either saying
Speaker 1: we won't return an indictment or we're finding out that
Speaker 1: there was misconduct by the prosecutors and security indictments. We're
Speaker 1: seeing that we're getting, you know, more and more information
Speaker 1: even in my lawsuit right for the Epstein files. Like
Speaker 1: I keep on pushing because I do believe that this
Speaker 1: is kind of a moment of recogning for bad lawyers.
Speaker 1: These are bad lawyers doing bad things. And so you know,
Speaker 1: Aviad should know better. You know he should know better.
Speaker 1: He's got an ag and Ken Paxson who should know better. Right,
Speaker 1: these people should be giving sage counsel as lawyers, but
Speaker 1: they're not because it serves a political purpose for them
Speaker 1: to turn a blind eye to the truth into the law.
Speaker 3: You are so spot on. I mean, one example is
Speaker 3: jan Pirou. Right now, there's no greater loyalist to Trump
Speaker 3: than Jean Piro. I mean she is, She is ten
Speaker 3: toes down with that guy. And yet and yet her
Speaker 3: she has an impulse of integrity where she says, you know,
Speaker 3: mister president, like a little one. You know, there's no
Speaker 3: case here, mister president. I cannot charge the guy for
Speaker 3: tampering with a reflecting pool. There's no evidence. And what
Speaker 3: does he do publicly reprimands her? You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: So now she has to ask yourself if she's gonna
Speaker 3: be still on staff, you know, and so Trump. The
Speaker 3: thing about Trump is that he's like, look, don't you
Speaker 3: obey the law. You obey me? And you got people
Speaker 3: who say yes or buss like Todd Blanch, and you
Speaker 3: got others who say no, I got a higher I
Speaker 3: got a higher set of loyalties than your personality. And
Speaker 3: these people are going to run a file of Trump.
Speaker 3: There's no way that they can get along with them.
Speaker 3: What didn't Pam BONDI do to get along with Trump?
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter. I have a theory.
Speaker 2: I have a theory.
Speaker 1: I think she was so bad at being bad that
Speaker 1: that's why she got canned. And that's why Todd Blanch
Speaker 1: is so good at being bad that you got rewarded
Speaker 1: for that.
Speaker 2: That's my fare.
Speaker 3: I think your theory is probably right. You know, she
Speaker 3: was bad at being bad and so far. I mean,
Speaker 3: but this guy, this is the same guy who goes
Speaker 3: to meet with Gleame Maxwell gives her a sweetheart deal
Speaker 3: in Texas, no less, and then stare and then you know.
Speaker 3: But I just want to say, as we wrap, thank
Speaker 3: you for your dogged pursuit of the truth in the
Speaker 3: Epstein matters. Thank you, my goodness. You know I'm going
Speaker 3: to tell you, Katie, one day, we're all going to
Speaker 3: look back and we're gonna know that there were people
Speaker 3: who stood up in this moment for the right ideals,
Speaker 3: and there were those who were who didn't, and you
Speaker 3: are among those who did what was right when it
Speaker 3: was hard.
Speaker 2: I appreciate that. Amen.
Speaker 1: Listen, this is every day we have a choice. Right
Speaker 1: we are either on the right side of history or
Speaker 1: we're not. And it doesn't make it easy for us,
Speaker 1: as you say, because we get assailed for the decisions
Speaker 1: that we make. But this is what we're supposed to do,
Speaker 1: and that's why I always appreciate the work you're doing.
Speaker 1: Attorney General Keith Els and thank you so much, and
Speaker 1: please share. Send my regards also to head it Pen
Speaker 1: County Attorney the District Attorney Mary Moriahy, who's also doggedly.
Speaker 2: In this fight with us. I really appreciate the work
Speaker 2: you're doing. Thank you so much. Thanks Katie Fang.
Speaker 1: Here we launched the Katie Fang News Channel in partnership
Speaker 1: with the Midas Touch Network, so we can bring you
Speaker 1: the latest in 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