Trump’s DOJ Is Hiding the Epstein Files. Katie Phang Is Suing.

Welcome to the Oath and the Office. I am John Fugel saying, and I am so pleased and proud to welcome the star of our show, the Mac, the Alpha and the Omega, the Ayah Toola of Rock and ROLLA the man who enriches the lives of students in the poly side apartment at Brown but only because he was kicked out of Wu Tang clan for being too hardcore.

People of Earth.

You wanted the best, you got the best I give you, Professor Corey Bretschneider, How was that was that?

An okay intro? Professor?

I love this, John, I mean honestly, I'll come to do the show to talk about the constitutional issues, the threat to democracy. But the thing that really gives me pleasure is that each week these intros get more and more absurd and brilliant.

So think I listened.

I'm sure that if I find the right code to being your hype man, I can get into law school.

It seems like that's how it works. Professor.

It's good to see you. It's been a pretty crazy couple of days. And one of the themes that you often cover in your work is that democracies don't usually collapse through one awful dramatic event. Instead, leaders gradually turn institutions designed to serve the public into tools that serve themselves.

And let's talk.

About America the sweet Cory, because nothing says the intel community is in good hands, like Donald Trump getting up at three point fifty four in the morning and changing his Director of National Intelligence nominee on social media like he's rearranging his fantasy football lineups. I don't know, professor. I have many questions about what's going on here.

I think I.

Understand the Office of Director of National Intelligence. It impacts all of our lives. It oversees seventeen intel agencies, handles classified information, and coordinates counter terrorism, cyber threats, and foreign espionage and nuclear risks. So logically, Donald Trump puts Bill Pulty, a mortgage official with no national security experience, in that job. I've got it right, so far right. And then he says, okay, well, it's temporary. Here's my nominee, and it's going to be Jay Clayton. But just before he's nominated, Jake Clayton goes on CNBC two weeks ago and suggested there might be possible opportunities where conceivably, you never know, it could have happened. California engaged in election fraud, and within days of saying that, because you know, again, if you're in MAGA and you say California election fraud, that's like having a PhD.

Right.

So then Trump announces he's the nominee to oversee our satellite intel and our covert opts this guy because he thinks they cheated in California, or at least he's willing to lie about that. So last week Jake Clayton was the future of American Intelligence professor. This week Bill Pulti, who never left, is back from the G seven. Trump canceled his own nominee Senate hearing, and I guess said the quiet part out loud. This country gets no confirmed intelligence chief unless the state passes the incredibly unpopular Save America Act with his Proof of Citizenship voter bill that takes rights away from Americans, makes it harder for women to vote, and reauthorizes FIZA on his term. So Bill Poulti, the mortgage guy with no national security experience, is back in the chair. Have I gotten this right?

Corey?

Have I gotten the facts right?

So far, there have been a lot of twist and turns. This episode, we're going to talk about Bill Poulty. We're going to go in depth on this FISA law and explain what it is, where it comes from, and why it's so dangerous at this moment. And our theme is going to be transparency, understanding what's happening more generally in this country when it comes to threats to democracy. And of course I don't want to miss the fact that Katie Fang, in this incredible lawsuit trying to get transparency in the Epstein files, is going to be our guest in the second half. And the connection to this theme is really about understanding the secrecy that exists within the exact A branch, not just in regard to the Epstein files. We've been focused on that, but I just want to set this up. You know, we have an apparatus, a national intelligence apparatus, which has a court, its own court, the PIES, a court which isn't subject to the exact same rules as normal Article three courts. And there are powers that have been granted not just through the nineteen seventy eight FIS A law, but through its extension by George W. Bush to really give the ability to intelligence officers without a warrant to spy in American citizens.

Now there are rules, you know, it.

Has to be in regard to people outside the country who are suspected of possible threats to the US government.

But I don't want to lose the bottom line.

What this law does in its current form is that it gives this administration the ability to skip the Fourth Amendment, to skip the protection against Unreasonable Search and Seizure, to skip the warrant process, and to spy in American citizens.

Now, you know, you could say George W.

Bus or Obama or Clinton, maybe it wasn't so bad. But now we're talking about and not just Trump, but this Bill Poulty, somebody without national security clearance through Senators are rightly worried, is going to spy on American citizens in order to shut down Trump's opponents and to help him.

Because how did Trump go after Letitia James? How did Trump go after the New York State Attorney General going after mortgage payments? And He's hired the mortgage guy to go after to use that, to use the National security apparatus to go after his perceived enemies for their real estate dealings.

That's what it comes down.

And this from a guy who launders money for the Russians with New York State real estate. I mean, Republicans wanted to quickly confirm this guy Clayton because they're trying to solve the surveillance, you know, and intelligence operations. So Trump's trying everything now to this voter I D.

Bill.

He's essentially blackmailing the Republicans on his own side, right, That's that's not going to work. This is a very I mean, the Same of America Act is deeply unpopular. This is the one that says if women have changed their names in their lifetimes, gotten married, or for whatever reason, you're become widowed, you might not be able to vote. You better find your birth certificate. I mean, we have intelligence leadership and national security surveillance, an election administration all becoming LinkedIn here. This seems like a really potentially dangerous fusion.

Professor, you know, it's a great topic for this podcast. We're willing to go on depth and to unpack things. Look at all the different balls in the air that we have. We have the possible nomination of Jake Clayton, who was the SEC chair, who was the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, whose past Senate confirmation is seen, as you know, despite what you rightly pointed out in the horrible statements, not part of Trump world in the way Trump wants. And then you have a pure loyalist and Bill Poulti, somebody that couldn't know way could be confirmed by the Senate. And yet he's you know, toying which one am I going to give you and what the Senate.

Is rightly doing.

And you know, that's the optimistic thing here is they're seeing the danger of Bill Poulti as the acting chief and they're especially seeing this is the thing I really don't want to lose that for so much of American history, our laws have been set up to delegate massive power out of trust to the executive branch to the president. Okay, we're going to skip warrants here.

There's a war on terror.

We're going to trust that whatever administration is isn't going to use it to shut down descent to spy on opponents. Now, with Bill Poultie, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he's going to do. And thankfully we have senators, including I mentioned Senator Widen, who will be our guest in a few weeks, who are recognizing this is a danger, not just because Bill Poulti is a danger, but because legislation that enables somebody in that position to skip warrants, it puts them in a perfect position if they want to destroy democracy, to spy on opponents, to shut down descent. It is scary, and that's.

What this fight is about.

And thankfully, you know, the story easily could have been skipped, this renewal of Fiza and the section that was added.

Y stuff to be at our show with Cory it really is.

But I'm telling you, man, if we don't recognize what's happening, this is the doorway in which it's just a little bit of democracy gets destroyed, a lot of it using the National Security Operatus to spy on opponents.

Well, and they said when they did this bizarre three o'clock in the morning lineup change, well, the president enjoys a slight bit of intrigue, that's what they said. The President enjoys like it's the finale of Survivor.

You know, there's a.

Slight bit of the apprentice American Intelligence apparatus.

He enjoys a slight bit of it.

Like he's still programming a reality show. One week it's Tulsi, that it's Bill Poulty, then it's Jay Clayton, then it's Bill Paulty again, and I guess next week it's.

Gonna be Kid Rock.

But Professor, what would the founders have thought about a chief executive effectively saying I refuse to move forward on intelligence leadership unless I get the election law.

I want you know what ties all of these different threads together.

You know, what do all this save act?

What does all this have to do with the confirmation of the Director of National Intelligence or the use of acting of acting DNI. What it has to do with is that Trump is thinking about one thing, how do I spy on my opponents?

How do I destroy them? How do I hang on to power? How do I not lose the mid terms?

And all of these things are his different mechanisms. That's the lens that he's seeing it all through to well, to shut down our civil liberties, shut down our democracy, and extend his own power. If you see it all through there, then it all makes complete sense. Those these are the bargaining ships that he's trying to use. You asked about the Founders, and we really need to pivot to history, because you know, the Founders were worried about the war powers that in England, the monarch had the ability to initiate war, to carry it out. And with those war powers came the danger of shutdown of national civil liberties, of civil liberties within the United States, and so they them up. They limited the president's power in Article two. And what we've done in the twentieth century over time, and even Carter, who in his signing statement Offiza talked about the need to balance, as he put it, human rights and his speech signing the law human rights on the one hand, and also the need for national security. That's what he was concerned to do. He created an apparatus which was.

Then extended during the G. W. Bush administration to.

Allow for undermining the very protections that the Framers put in there against the president that was going to shut down our civil liberties. And I'll just mention again the most important not just the limits in Article two, but the Fourth Amendment, which says government can't just spy on us with no reason. It needs reason in order to do what it's doing. And there's a restriction on unreasonable search, in seizure, the monarchist idea that king could simply just spy on or shut down his opposition. No, they were resisting that, but through a series of laws, including five. There's a danger of undermining that, especially and I can't emphasize this enough, especially in the hands of Director of National Intelligence, who's going to use all these tools that the government has to shut down opponents. I will say one other thing, which is a lot of the debate, is about Jake Clayton. Well, if Jake Clayton's in charge, maybe we can reauthorize FIZA, we can have all this. I met Jay Clayton, I got to shake his hand at Brown, been told by a lot of people he's a decent guy. You know. Maybe, but I don't think we can hand over this power to this administration, whether it's to a confirm Jake Clayton or not.

So I don't want to just.

Talk about the need for a confirmed Director of National Intelligence. One thing I'm very excited to talk to Senator Widen about is the reform of our laws to not trust that a president.

Is going to abide by the Fourth Amendment.

We need the actual protection and oversight of courts and so No, I don't like this idea of simply affirming FIS.

It needs to be reformed.

I believe why it is among those. I'm also hearing about people like Ram Paul joining.

This after love being on his side. That's great.

Well, we're going to take the help that we can get at this point because what we really need to do is to reform these laws.

No, we're gonna have to be awkward roommates with a lot of libertarians that make this work.

You know, I love that John awkward roommates.

It's everything that we've talked about though, because we keep expecting it's going to be like Star Wars episode three, right, like Revenge of the Sith, like some big thing's going to happen, and we will watch in real time as our republic becomes an empire in falls where it's going to and in reality, No, it's it's just gradual democratic erosion, and it's easy to miss it because it doesn't happen through big operatic events. It's just through boring, procedural maneuvering. And now our intel services are being run through like midnight social media posts and loyalty tests and Senate panic attacks.

What could possibly go wrong?

And I have to go a way to put it, John, And I'll just say one other thing, which is so much of the apparatus is already in place. Our democracy was eroded over time without knowing it, all with the belief that, oh, a president wouldn't survey his political opponents, wouldn't use this information to shut down so.

Both he would ever be so pathetic and thirs to do that in the open, My god, no president would have so little gain. They let themselves be seen doing that, they'd have dignity at least.

In the past they hit it.

But you know, I really think we've got to rethink the whole structure, this idea of trusting the executive branch when it comes to our civil liberties.

I don't think so.

The Framers put the Fourth Amendment there for a reason, and it has to be enforced.

Well.

That leads us to Gavin Newsom over there in California saying that Donald Trump's DOJ is investigating both him and his wife. Now, you know, congrats Gavin Newsom. If that's true. I know it will help with the fundraising and getting the campaign kicked off. But whether those investigations produce any charges. The governor's point is that the investigation itself can become punishment. And we've talked about this. Donald Trump's not going after Jim Comby because he believes Comy's a risk to people for assembling seashells a certain way.

And he's not.

Going after Komy to try to put him in jail for He's trying to go after Coby to bankrupt Comy with legal costs. That's what he's done his entire life. He's got billions of dollars in inherited wealth, and we have learned that if you have the money, the court system, the judicial branch, can be a thing you use to hurt people. This is something I don't think the founders ever could have foreseen that you can just sue people, sue people, sue people because you know they can't. Oh, you don't pay your contractors, let him sue you, and if they sue you.

Sue them back.

This is this guy's whole life, and he's got an angle. He's trying to punish someone, and he's using the libres of our government to hurt people for telling the truth about him. You've talked so much about how authoritarian systems weaponize legal institutions. Do you agree that investigations like this themsel are the power abuse.

Yeah.

You know, in the seventeen ninety eight shutdown of the opposition, there were convictions for criticizing the president. They did it in the open, and they relied on the courts to imprison people. Well, this is a different technique because courts repeatedly are rejecting these lawsuits. They will when it comes to Gavin Newsom. And let's not leave out too that Gavin Newsom is saying that his wife is also a target of this investigation. And yet what we've seen is that and you know, Trump is expanding this power rep but what we've seen is courts refusing to act on these lawsuits. And I think that is what will happen in the case of Gavin Newsom. They refuse to move forward with the Letitia James case. I don't think this James comy ridiculous lawsuit is going anywhere. We'll see judges and if need be, juries pushed back. But as we talked about last week, and really this story is an extension of our discussion with Harry Linman, who was in the Department of justice for a long period of time. It's not about winning, it's about say people. It's about the chilling effect. And we talked on the Oath in the Office Substack last week about the chilling effect.

The idea is that you just have to threaten people. You don't have to actually carry out the threat to make them or.

You don't even need chargers to be filed.

And that's what's going on with these ridiculous lawsuits. And you add to the fact that this ridiculous acting Attorney General thinks that even if there's no basis in law that the president of the United States has the right the power to do that. You know, the first person to say, hey, you can't do that should be the Attorney general. This guy is the president's personal lawyer who sees Article two creating the presidency as a kind of dictatorship. The president can do anything he wants. Now, even if the lawsuits don't go anywhere, and I don't think they will, it doesn't matter because they're going to get the effect that they want. And when we saw universities backing down to Trump, when we saw those law firms, including firms that surprise me like Scatin Arms, backing down.

That was the chilling effect. They didn't wen't going to win in court.

It didn't matter.

People didn't want to deal with it. And that's what's going on here.

I mean, does the Constitution provide adequate safeguards against a president using his investigative powers against his political rivals? I mean, this show has kind of turned into, oh, here's something else the Founding fathers didn't think of.

I mean, all these.

Stress tests, does the Constitution provide any kind of safeguards against this sort of thing?

Well, you know some of the framers, Patrick Henry is I'm fond of quoting.

He did see the danger.

He was like, this presidency that you're creating an Article two is so powerful and the checks so weak, the courts, the Congress.

They're going to just blow through them. Now.

What has worked in the past is citizens, you know, on this show and others, and the election the midterms, standing up and saying no, we're not going to deal with this. Now there is another check, and that's jury's I talk in my book about the Nixon grand jury, the grand juries, and the Founding period who refused to indict political opponents of John Adams. What all of those have in common is that it was not public officials, it was citizens who pushed back. And here, I think that's going to be part of it. And let's not forget the heroism. You know, people like James Comy aren't backing down. Gavin Hoosome, of course, is not backing down. So you know, it's time for bravery. And that's what we're starting to see, and let's continue to celebrate that.

Corey.

Before we get to the break, I just want to ask what parallels scare you the most here? Is it Nixon or Hungary or Turkey or other democracies in decline.

Well, you know, democracy is so fragile, and I always go back to that John Adams period of seventeen ninety eight because the right to free speech is so precarious.

The Supreme Court is supposed to protect it.

But what scares me about seventeen ninety eight is that the Supreme Court lobbied Samuel Chase, lobbied for this Edition Act, and then sat on the trials to shut it down. So the idea that we're going to just have the Supreme Court protect us or the judiciary protect us, I'm worried about that both because there are ways through legislation. That's what we've been talking about in the fis of law and its extension to evade the Constitution. There are ways of shutting down free speech by ignoring courts. So we really need a revival in this country of our commitment to constitutionalism. And in the meantime, what we've got is Gavin Newsom and James call me and Letitia James and people refusing to back down. And that's why we're doing this podcast.

Yeah, I think the Constitution is like a dog. These people left locked in a hot car in August. We got to take a break. Professor back in a moment, and Katie Thing will be joining us very shortly.

Don't go away.

This is the Oath and the Office.

Hi everyone, it's Corey.

I'm jumping on here to let you know that Amazon Prime Days is featuring my book The Presidents and the People. Five leaders who threatened democracy and the citizens who fought to defend it. It's only two dollars and ninety nine cents on Kindle, so check it out. It's a book about why the presidency itself is a danger to democracy and why five times before Donald Trump we've seen presidents threaten democracy. Even some of the supposed hero people like John Adams and Woodrow Wilson, I argue, actually, we're deeply authoritarian in their understandings of the Constitution. But this isn't a book without hope. In fact, it's a book all about hope. It's a book about citizens who fought back, some of whom you've heard of, like Frederick Douglas, Others that you likely haven't, like Sadie Alexander. I interview Daniel Ellsberg for the book, and it's about his role. And my argument is that these citizens not just fought back against authoritarian presidents, but they prevailed. They prevailed by appealing to recovery presidents who put the constitution back.

So in a dire time, check it out.

This is a book about hope, and I think it's really a remedy to what we're facing every week with Donald Trump.

At any rate.

I hope you liked the book, and thanks so much for listening to this podcast and for making it so successful. So once again, the name of the book is the Presidents and the people. Five leaders who threatened democracy and the citizens who fought to defend it. You can get it for only two dollars and ninety nine cents and Amazon Prime days on Kindle.

Welcome back to the Oath in the office, I'm John Fugel saying, hey, you know, Corey, with all the great ratings and reviews for this show, we should tell people to subscribe. I think I mean, what would be number three this week on Apple Government Podcasts?

Good lord, we.

Are number three last week on Apple podcast Government. And if you've been with us for a long time, as so many of our amazing listeners have been, thank you you've put us there. If you're new to the show, you're joining us for the first time, hit that subscribe button on Spotify or Apple or wherever you listen to us.

Right on, Corey, I'm really sorry we have to talk about Pete hag Seth.

You've been so good to me.

I hate to make you do this, but Secretary of Jaegermeister is back to his old tricks. He doesn't like it when military brass say, hey, these black men and women are due to be promoted as generals because of merit. That really up sets them. DEI was there to keep unqualified white men from getting jobs they don't deserve. Light Pete Hegseth. So once again we have reports that he has delayed it or blocked even more promotions for senior military officers, and they just so happened to be African American or female.

Corey, I don't even know what to say.

I mean, there is a difference between changing military policy and changing who is allowed to rise within the military hierarchy. Right for them to come in and say, we don't want a woke military, we don't want a dei military, that's one thing, but it appears that was just the code we knew for we don't want anyone other than white heterosexual males to advance in this military.

Yes, and you know, I'd love to talk endlessly about Pete Hegseth and his ridiculous costplaying of exercise and business.

Interesting person and spirituality is great too.

And as much as I'd like to do that, I also want to talk about the ideology that this is revealing, which is the supposed ideology of what sometimes called meritocracy. Who's not for meritocracy that sounds like a great thing, or color blindness, which.

Also could be a good thing and.

Some but when you don't want to, when your racism is threatened by the idea of being color conscious. You'd much rather talk about color blindness.

So let's look at the context that they're using these words in, and as benign as they sound, that's what's going on here. This supposed Secretary of War really Secretary of Defense, because the name, my understanding is is still the Secretary of Defense, despite what he might call themself.

I call them the Secretary of America because I'm a past go on.

But you know this, this meritocracy idea is just being used as a mass for racism, and the same I'll say for color blindness, whether it's Pete Hegseth or Clarence Thomas. And the white supremacy that we're seeing here that again and again in these news stories that people of merit Let's not lose that word to the claiming people claiming meritocracy are being denied women because or because of their race. It is blunt discrimination. Let's call it what it is, white supremacy, an attempt to create second class citizenship for women and Black Americans who are part of the military. And he's doing it in the open, and the reporting again and again shows that how disgusting. Let's not let him claim that word meritocracy.

I mean professional militaries, unlike politics, are designed to reward competence. It's like sports or dance, Like you can't fake some things. You can't fake it through. And I mean what happens when military advestment becomes tied to ideological conformity or white supremacy. I mean, how do authoritarian governments typically reshape military leadership. I've read plenty about how angry they were when Harry Truman desegregated our troops after World War Two.

Yeah, I should say too.

You know that there's a long history, of course, of white supremacy in the military, although we had an integrated military. Woodrow Wilson resegregated the American military, was called out in real time by William and Roe Trotter and others. And it finally was at the behalse of the Civil Rights Committee during the Truman era that Harry Truman, through an executive order, desegregated the American military.

Over the opposition of a lot of members of that military.

But yet it was done successfully and we got to the point and I think the most important document actually in all of this, despite the importance of those two other historical periods. Is the military's brief in the Michigan case, which was about whether or not we could continue to have and I'll use the phrase that you use race conscious admissions in college. And what the military said in their brief in the Michigan case it was so important, was to function, we can't have discrimination in the top ranks. We need to have diversity, Yes, diversity in the top ranks of the military. And we're not going to go back to a period of all white male officers and an integrated core of enlisted military. And that idea that the military needed to be integrated at all levels was such a profound reason why the Supreme Court in the Michigan case upheld color conscious policy. Clarence Thomas has long hated that decision and finally has destroyed it through the Harvard case and the UNC case. And we now have color blind understanding of our constitution. And now in the military we're seeing what that really means. Color blindness means white supremacy.

And the end.

Of what was the military's policy finally of a strong you want a strong fighting for us, don't have an all white male officer corps. That was their point and Pete Hegg said, sees it a very different way.

Oh, there's such idiots and our military why just Winata has become a real hero over the years in terms of fighting for affirmative action, filing briefs and court cases about affirmative action, because our military has gone on the record many times saying that having a more diversified caret a pool has been good for America's national defense. We got to hit a break or Katie Philk's going to get mad at us. Back in just a moment with our very special guests. This is the Oath in the Office.

Hi everyone, it's Corey again.

This time I'm jumping on to let you know about the Oath in the Office substack. If you're not on substack, you should be and check it out. What we're doing every week is taking our stories that we're talking about, taking the interviews that we're talking about, and we're providing some context, and we're also providing links to different articles that really explain the issues. So the Oath in the Office Substack, check it out.

Welcome back to the Oath in the Office. I'm John Fiegel, Sang Professor. I'm very excited about our guest and I'd be excited about this guest even if they weren't suing Todd Blanche over access to Epstein related records.

What a pleasure to welcome Katie Fang. You know her, of course from her show on MSNBC, and she's in addition to being a television host and a legal analyst, and now she is just especially excited to have her on the Oath in the Office to talk about this really pioneering lawsuit that she's bringing against Todd Blanche using this legislation that's passed that was supposed to get us access to the Epstein files, and listeners will be interested to know, of course, you know, how can we get access? And we've talked so much on this show about the role of citizens, not just public officials and courts, and here we have a citizen who's trying to answer that question to actually do it in real time to get us access to this material.

So Katie was the world of media type. She's one of our great journalists as well.

So Katie, welcome to the Oath in the Office. We're so excited to talk to you. I have a lot of questions. Can you just start off by telling us about this lawsuit.

Yeah, so thanks for having me. It really is a thrill to be here first time.

Long time. Oh let's see.

So obviously a lot of us had been slogging through the various tranches of information that had been dropped by the Department of Justice, and we were all getting collectively frustrated. And I had noticed that part of what was happening is I would kind of like a dog picking up on a trail of a scent of something, right, I would start following it, and then I'd keep on hitting specific roadblocks, and part of it was I'll give you.

Actually, this is a great example.

Like yesterday, I did this big episode on my YouTube channel about a woman named Kathy Rummler who just had some bullshit apologist fluff piece in The Times come out in advance. I think of her trying to launder and whitewash her reputation before she appears in front of House Oversight for her transcribed interview in a few weeks. And I saw this text exchange between a redacted name and Jeffrey Epstein, and I she got the gender totally wrong for who this person is, Like, I eventually sleuthed it with the help of other enterprising you know, viewers and subscribers. I was not only wrong about gender, it was actually a woman who her name is Melanie Walker, and she was like asshole buddies with Bill Gates and kind of was one of the people who facilitated the Gates Epstein connection. And to make a long story short, I was just wrong, right, So I'm talking about this text exchange, and the focus wasn't Melanie Walker or Gates per se, although part of this text exchange between Epstein and Walker was her saying, oh, hey, by the way, you know, I think I can try to help out with Melinda French Gates, who most certainly doesn't want to eat you. And we know that Melinda's spidery sense started tingling and that was actually part of the reason why she ended up getting divorced frankly from Bill Gates. But I guess this is such a quintessential example of how these improper reactions have led it to become very hard for me as a journalist and just as a public citizen, but specifically as a journalist to report on things with not only accuracy or but with depth. Right, Because I'd like to keep on chasing this down and So these brilliant lawyers at the Public Integrity Project, Brendan Ballou and sam Ward Packer, people that are doing the God's work, God's work right on earth right now. Brendan is one of the former J six prosecutors who represents Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges and their lawsuit because Congress passed a law but wouldn't put the J six plack up like they were supposed to to honor the law enforcement officers and put it in some random mass location intentionally, and Speaker Johnson has his head up his ass about why he can't do it right. So they're representing them, and they're also representing in a slew of lawsuits involving the billion dollar one point eight billion dollar slush fund. Anyway, these lawyers and I got together and we're are like, look, if you look at the Epstein Files Transparency Act, it was never written to give people a cause of action like you and me and others. In fact, you know, it doesn't even have a private right to a cause of action for the survivors whose confidentiality has been violated, which has now necessitated them trying to propose a law, which is ridiculous these poor people now have to go through a whole other you know, hoops to jump.

Through for justice. But I was like, okay.

So we looked at this and we're like, okay, no private right to a cause of action. But under the Administrative Procedure Act, if you don't do what you're supposed to do under the law in your federal agency, then you can sue. And I was like, you know what, So we kind of cabbled something together, and it's the very first lawsuit of its kind pursuing into the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And to be clear, it asks for most importantly a special Master who would sit there and the DOJ would come forward and say, oh hey, look, here's a redacted piece of paper. I have like a whole pile of redactions over here. Here's a REDACTEDS from yesterday.

This is an exact example, right.

So this is a text message between text message emails between Kathy Rumbler and Jeffrey Epstein, where she castigates Cigaret McCauley, who's a longtime advocate and lawyer for the Epstein survivors, and calls her victims rights. My ass is what this woman says, His former Obama Council Kathy Rumbler. Anyway, her email address is redacted. It's like the dumbest shit, And I'm.

Like, okay, so dumb, it's very deliberate.

Well yeah, yeah, Listen, the violation of the laws here is either just gross negligence to absolutely intentional misconduct, right, I mean, it runs that spectrum. But anyway, special Master would get this from the DOJ and they'd say this is shit and you can't do this, and it would be able to rectify that right, among other things.

So that's kind of the gist of the lawsuits.

And then it helps me as a journalist, be able to chase down more information in story.

Yeah, I wanted to follow up on that.

I mean, we're used to journalists, of course, having access to information through FOYA or through other techniques. But part of what you're saying is this law that was passed, the Epstein Transparency Act. Although it doesn't say that journalists have standing to sue, you're saying I do have standing to sue because I've been.

Harmed as a journalist. I can't do my job.

So tell me more about the standing obstacle, because I could imagine one of the questions that you're trying to answer in all this is it doesn't look like there was standing for journalists written into the law, but you're trying to say that under the Administrative Procedure Act and also because I am harmed as a journalist that I have standing, So say more about that. Why are you harmed as a journalist and have standing under the law? I mean, I think that's part of what's so pioneering and brilliant about this that you have this law, Well, who's going to enforce it?

You know?

I guess they didn't think about that. Well, that's the role of litigation. Come in and say, I.

Was sure, here's the thing they did.

So Rocanna Massey were the co sponsors of this law, and ro Kanna has said that when the iteration of the law went to Republicans for bipartisan support and it included enforcement mechanisms within the law, the Republicans said.

We won't sign off on it.

So, which makes sense for these Republicans, right, It's like they want the performative victory lap. We support you know, the victims, and we're all for transparency, but god forbid, you want to bake in to the law and.

Enforcement mechanism to give it teeth.

No, no, no, we can't do that, like to grab the smelling salts, because that's just one step too far for Republicans. So because there isn't a built in mechanism for enforcement, and because there isn't a built in mechanism for the cause of action to bring it, Like you said, you got to have standing to get through the door for a lawsuit. And I'm arguing that I have informational harm.

And economic harm.

The informational harm is the failure by them to abide by the law has created an inability for me to chase down more information and stories number one and number two.

The economic harm, which I do.

Sustain, but is not the point of the lawsuit because let me be clear, I'm not looking for money from the.

DOJ at all.

But the economic harm is, as we know, I have a YouTube channel and I have subscribers, and if I don't get the views or I'm going to get the subscribers, or if people on subsect don't read my pieces about Epstein because I can't push them even farther into what's been made available thus far by the DOJ, then I suffer economic harm and just really quickly. That is part of the problem, is it not. The DOJ is using the Epstein Fouls Transparency Act to be able to weaponize us as journalists to only give the information that they want us to give to the people. And that's a disgusting perversion of what this law was intended to do. This law has the word transparency and its title for a reason. But if you stop when you think about it, to allow the Trump DOJ to get keep in traffic cop the information that is disseminated means that I just end up just being a megaphone for them. Yeah, but it's not me as a reporter or journalist providing truth and evidence to the people that want to consume it in the media, like from the media, right, Yeah, I'm.

Just just parroting what they give me.

That's all. I mean.

They need a happy stnographer, that's what they want here. I mean, I'm so grateful you did it for so many reasons. I mean, because let's be honest, they have broken their own law every day since December nineteenth of twenty twenty five. That's right, they have been in violation of their own law. Pambondy, Todd Lanch Donald Trump have broken their own law every day since December nineteenth, and the DOJ is arguing that, oh, many of these redactions were necessary to protect the victims, including minors. We know that that is a lie, because they did not protect the victims. They protected the men who raped children. You know, I found out my name was in the file because someone subscribed to a Beacon Theater mailing list and I was doing a show there. But I tell everyone, you know, I didn't do anything wrong because my name's not redacted. That's how you know I'm innocent. It's the guilty people. It's the people that we're waiting for indictments on while we're indicting folks for picking paint chips out of a reflecting pool. Your complaint is beautiful because you're seeking the appointment of this independent Special Master, which I think just beautifully messages to the universe that we can't trust this DOJ to police their own compliance with the law. But between I have to ask, between the redactions and the seemingly deliberate miss deadlines and the crappy explanations the withdrawal of material it was already released, what part of this worries you?

The most that their stuff that's gone that we'll never know about. The spoliation of evidence, as we call it in the legal world, the destruction of documents and other evidence. That is particularly damning for not only people like convicted fellon Donald Trump, but also other people in the epstein elite and in that orbit, because you're going to ask me to eventually have to reverse engineer it to prove something's gone. But if you continue to allow these people to have unfettered access as the gatekeepers to this information, that's my greatest fear. My fear is not John Fugel saying being unfairly accused of having done something that's not it. Like, I know that there could be an investigation into your name and you would be clear right. But yeah, But here's the thing. Number one, there is an a wholesale absence of investigation in the file so far, which just goes to show that there was a failure of the system for law enforcement. Although I am corrected all the time by survivors in the survivor community that say, no, Katie, actually the system didn't fail.

It actually worked exactly the way it.

Was supposed to do, which was to protect I agree people that were wealthy and had power. But my greatest fear is having to verse engineer to prove that something's gone, because that ends up being exponentially more difficult for me to do as somebody who wants to investigatively look into something, and.

As a trial lawyer.

That hurts my heart too, right, because in my world, it's always based on evidence, and it's based on what you can prove. And so I'm hoping though, that by me always ringing the bell on a daily basis about Epstein, that I keep it at the top of the public discourse, and even through all the shit show of everything that's going on, I also know it's an incredibly powerful achilles heel for not only Trump this administration, but for other people like Kathy Rummler, who by all accounts was a you know Obama White House counsel and just like you know, elite, top of the cream of the crop when it came to the lawyers. But I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican or a no party affiliation independent. If you have done something wrong, my justice compass says that you have to pay the price for it.

And at this point, if there's no statue.

If the statue limitations has been blown criminally for whatever reason, then at a minimum there should be some measure of civil recourse. And even if that doesn't exist, then some measure of accountability should be that we find out the truth about what happened to these poor people.

Amen.

Yeah, and you know, just to reiterate, we have a law that did pass Congress, was signed by the President that then creates a right of Americans to see these files, to have transparency. When it comes to this lawsuit, you know, it's not easy to get legislation passed. That's what it does. And as you've been explaining what your lawsuit does so brilliantly, is say, well, you know, if there this isn't just some abstract right. Law isn't just a sort of symbolic statement that we have.

Some abstract right.

There are actual entitlements of actual people to receive this information.

Now, who are those people?

You're arguing it's journalists who will be harmed by not getting access here. We've been talking more generally on the show about the debate about renewal of the FISA law and about transparency generally. One question I have for you, sort of big picture is, of course, have done a lot to limit the ability to sue in court, to have standing, to get access to really what those in power are doing.

And yet what we've seen not just in.

The Epstein matter, it's part of a wider phenomenon of the executive branch hiding what it's doing and what happens in the shadows. Well, it's all sorts of corruption and crime and nefarious activity. We know that from history and from this administration. So one question I have for you is even beyond the Epstein files, I mean, is this a part of a movement of journalists to gain access to see ways of getting information about what's going on behind closed doors? Or do you really just see it as a way of indicating the law and seeing entitlement to get this information protecting victims.

I mean, it's kind of yes, and yes, there is law.

The rule of law has to be respected in every facet of our society. If not, then it's chaos, is it not? Is it not anarchy? Is it not just lawlessness? Like the idea is the most powerful law firm in the world is the United States Department of Justice. If you contemplate as we've seen now on the negative side, the abuse of the power that exists in that federal agency. I've always said, it's the largest law firm in the world, and yet they're not required to abide by the law.

But you expect me to do so. That makes no sense.

That really destroys the idea of not only the rule of law and also the adage that no man is above the law.

Right number one.

But number two to the first part, what you're seeing here is a definitive movement, if we can call it that, of an approach by independent media.

Because let's be clear, no.

Mainstream legacy media outlet brought this law right, all of the power of their money and their legal teams and everything.

Not a single one of them did it.

You think they'd want the clicks, You'd think you.

Would think that they would want the information. And by the way, let me be clear, this is not an assault on mainstream legacy media. But there is a nuanced part of it that I am saying is a part of what I am doing here, which is I would like to think that I'm a part of really a group of independent journalists who have said that the price of selling your soul for access journalism isn't worth it? Thank you, the idea that you cannot ask a very just straightforward question and then you get this reactive you know what about ism, or this reactive lie and then you don't follow up on it because it is something of critical importance that people want to know about, because you have a fear that you'll never be invited back on air force, or you won't be able to go to the White House correspondence dinner, which we've all been to. Like that is what I would like to think is what this lawsuit is a part of a bigger movement of us saying it's just not worth it. It's okay to say it's not worth my soul to do this. I owe something bigger, and I'd like to think ory that that's what we're doing. I'd like to think that that's the huge part of this lawsuit amongst all the other work that's being done in independent media right now.

Yeah, I mean, say more about that. Why is corporate media not intervening? Because on the one hand, you're right that there's a worry about access journalism, but yet, I mean, isn't there, in the most crude terms of profit, motive to find out the truth to see what's out there, or have things become so broken that they are so worried about this administration. Now, you know, I understand that maybe CBS isn't going to be at the forefront of.

Yeah, I think it varies network to network professor why Disney Mojo this week than CBS.

But I do think, I mean, and let correct me if I'm wrong, that it really is that you are the one doing this. You and your team are pioneering this lawsuit, and I'm not seeing some of the groups that you might think would join you, The New York Times or MS.

Now, I mean, why is that?

Because you know, for them, I agree that it would be profitable to be able to bring more eyeballs to either the TV screens or to the Internet to be able to read this stuff. But I think that they, as I know, I mean, it's not a secret, you know, they're worried about backlash from this administration. And I sincerely believe that they think that Brendan Carr, the FCC or somebody else is going to come after them and materially affect their bottom line and they don't want to run that risk. And so for them, they're like oh look, here's this pioneering, first of it's kind law suit.

Let's see what happens.

And the reality is the relief I'm seeking would benefit everybody across the world, like it wouldn't.

Just be for me.

And so you know, look, they're like, sure, let Katie Fang be the sacrificial lamb on this and let her, you know, deal with the consequences of it. And so there was some measure of calculation on my part of Okay, what do I have to lose to do this?

And there is measure of risk here, But in.

My mind, it also sets the tone, like, for example, the Department of Justice responded to a motion for preliminary injunction that we have set for hearing on June thirtieth in front of this really strong federal judge in DC because while the suit is pending, I asked the court to intervene on five specific areas through this preliminary injunction motion because I said to the court, these are the most some of the most egregious violations of the Epstein Files Transparency Act that can be easily and immediately remedied while the case is pending.

And you know, the Department of Justice's response to me wasn't.

Predictably, it was you don't have standing, et cetera, et cetera, although that was super weak sauce their strongest argument that they're relying upon is, hey, Katie Foya, the Freedom of Information Act exists for you to come and get info. And yet they conveniently ignore all of the restrictions and limitations on FOYA that would prevent me from being able to see some of the stuff I currently see by way of this Transparency Act online. And so for them, they don't really appreciate the nuances of this lawsuit.

Look, that's not their job.

That's well, their job is to stonewall right, like this YearIn is supposed to happen a week ago on June sixteenth, and they're like, sorry, we can't do it, and so the judge is like, tough shit, you'll have to do it June thirtieth. Then, like he wasn't going to push it any farther out. But you know, for them, when you think about everything that's been going on, and then you think about that reporting about the situation room meetings over the Epstein files, you have to understand that there is something so much bigger going on that they're trying to actively conceal. And so why would you in mainstream legacy media flirt with danger of you know, getting.

Some type of that is exactly right, exactly right, I have to say, if you know, that's their best argument. And I think you said this is in front of Judge Sullivan, and I'm feeling pretty good about your argument because and it really does come down to democracy, because FOYA obviously predates the Sepstein Transparency Act and the democracy the Congress, the signature of the President made the decision that there was need for new legislation. If everything answered by oh, let's just look back at FOYA.

You already have a rent. Well, what is the point of this thing?

And I used to teach a class at Fordham Law School on statutory interpretation and beauty. That's just a sort of basic idea of statutory interpretation that the new law isn't that same.

As the all law.

They got him to sign the law, though, Marge Green and Lauren Bobert. Marge Green and Lauren bober are gonna be the heroes of all of this at the end of the day because they helped get him to sign the law. He didn't want to sign. They put him in the corner, and now he's there. And Katie, to your excellent point, I don't expect legacy corporate media to do this kind of work. That's the job of journalists, not media. Media's job is to make money. Journalist's job is to seek the truth and make people.

In power uncomfortable.

So I so admire what you're doing because it's exactly what I expect the line, And I'm not a I don't hate corporate media. I've worked in corporate media my whole life. I do all the cable news shows. But it's not their job to go and pursue justice. It's their job to get eyeballs, to get ratings, to get clicks. It's the job of journalists to actually render us a decent society. And I got to ask the DOJ inspector General. Now they're launching their own audit of the department's compliance. I mean, it seems like this really strengthens your case. Yes, outside judicial oversight is still necessary, but I mean, if you prevail, what does success actually look like is the release every last remaining document, is the release of court ruling defining the limits of executive secrecy. How would you like to see the public trust restored from this suit?

Oh, I don't think it's ever going to be restored in this DOJ I think that sure? Yeah, I think the destruction of the integrity of and that's one of the saddest things. I mean, there is centuries of just institutional knowledge and experience that has gone from the Department of Justice, either due to people being summarily fired illegally or by them leaving because they couldn't in clear conscience stay there. But justice for me would be literal professor to your point, compliance with the statutory language of the law. Right, that is what justice should be defined as. And then what flows from that compliance with the federal law, which was enacted not as a supplement to FOYA, but as a totally separate, standalone law in.

Addition to FOYA.

You know, whatever flows there from, maybe that is justice. Maybe something comes out from an illegally redacted document that brings one survivor closer to being able to identify an assailant.

I'll give you an example.

In France, as a result of the Epstein files, drops of information we've done here in the United States, ten new victims have stepped forward. In France, one of them could not identify the name of the agent that was working for Jean Luke Brunnell, who was business partners with Jeffrey Epstein in his modeling agency, until she saw his name appear in the Epstein files and she was able.

To step forward.

I mean, for me, you know, when I was at the redacted reading room in New York and DC, they have a tribute to the survivors and it's these candles, and there's approximately twelve hundred of them, although by last count the DOJ itself acknowledged at least fourteen hundred. But Danny Bensky, who I've become close to who is an Epstein survivor, said, you know, Katie, it is visually beautiful done, but people need to remember each one of those candles is a life. So even if it's helping one person get one step closer to what they define as justice, And how are we not on the right side of history for this, Like, how are we not having done the right thing by it? There's a part of me as a lawyer who says restoration of rule of law.

There's a part of.

Me as a woman who says this is the right thing to do. There's a part of me, as the mom to an eleven year old girl, like, Okay, maybe we're creating a better, safer place where people can't think that they can hide behind their money means an influence. There's just so much to it that I feel like would be such an amazing step towards accountability. But right now, as we have this conversation amongst all of us, and no matter how well intentioned we are, we're going on six months of the law being broken. That's right, with nothing happening, nothing moving. It is the most stagnant sense of injustice, and so something has to be done.

And that's what we decided to do with this lawsuit.

Amen, thank you for being the one to do it.

What a profound place to end this amazing conversation. I have to say, you know, this podcast is all about the rule of law, the idea that a president takes an oath that puts him in an office that in many ways is supposed to be anyway above him, that the president doesn't control the law, the president is under the law, and yet we have a president and the Department of Justice who are trying to undermine that. Now, theses all sound like abstract ideas until you see that.

When it comes to a law passed to let all of us.

See these Epstein files, what's going on as a president trying to control that law, to make it all about himself and to have his toadies in the Department of Justice do the same. And what you're doing is such a common sense, simple vindication of democracy to say, there is this law, there are all sorts of reasons why it was passed, and we have a right. We have rights under that law, including the right of journalists to see this information and share it with the rest of us. So, Katie Fang, thanks so much for bringing this lawsuit, for explaining these wider issues on the oath in the office.

It was really a pleasure to have you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you guys so much for the ability to spend this time with you and with your viewers and listeners.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you, Thanks so much, professor.

Thank you as always, What is the best way for our listeners to keep up with you, Corey and You're brilliance the other six days of the week.

Well, what an episode we talked about the fives of law and the last of transparency there and then we had to somebody who really Katie Fang is fighting for transparency to see the full Epstein unredacted Epstein files a brilliant strategy in court. I hope it prevails, and so thanks to her for an amazing discussion. Thanks to you, John, as always for an amazing discussion as well of the wider issues in this week's attack on democracy. You can find me as Democracy prof that's on Blue Sky. You can find me on Twitter at Bretschneuer Exit Bretschneider C. Subscribe to our substack, The Oath in the Office substack. You can listen to us. If you haven't pushed that subscribe button, please do. Whether you listen to us on Apple or Spotify or watch us on YouTube, push that subscribe button.

We're growing every week and tell a friend.

Thanks so much, John for another amazing episode of The Oath in the Office.

I want to thank you, and I want to think Wendy and Beywolf and everyone who puts the show together. You can hear me every night on SiriusXM Progress. My book is called Separation of Church and Hate. Professor Bretschneider, thank you so much, and thank you Katie cleg and we will see you guys next time on the Oath and the Office