Trump PANICS as Journalists OUTMANEUVER HIM in COURT!!!

Welcome to a special edition of Legal AF.In the Trump era, so many firsts.um coming out of the trump administration we just got through chronicling last week's disaster of a week for the department of justice oh for five and then some um but what i really wanted to focus on is something that sort of gone a little bit below the radar in that a couple of legal and political commentators that our audience knows well and follows have stepped out from just being the commentators and have filed their own lawsuits One, Allison Gill of Mueller, she wrote in the Daily Beans, filed a case, one of several, against the Anti -Weaponization Fund, which is pending in the Southern District of California, with some very unique arguments that only somebody like Allison can make.At the same time, our friend of the pod and personal friend of mine, Katie Fang, brought a case, first of its kind, against Todd Blanche, so similarities in defendants here, about the Epstein files that she believes she's being, along with the rest of the press spoon -fed information, which is making her job as a journalist increasingly difficult because they're withholding huge tranches of documents related to Epstein, whether it's things related to Donald Trump, whether it's things that's in a foreign language, and we know there were a lot of foreign language people that were involved in a child sex trafficking ring, and she brought the one and only case.So my question, as I bring on both Katie and Allison, and one of the top lawyers that's representing Allison, Nandan Joshi.Let's talk about what it's like, why you made the decision, and it is one of courage.

We just had the Profile of Courage Awards handed out in the last 24 hours.It is courageous to go from commentator and say, there is a hole inswing here.There is a case that's missing.There is a voice that needs to be heard, and it's mine.So let me start it off with Allison about the 1776 Anti -Weaponization Fund.

What made you decide, I got to bring this particular case?

Well, first of all, thanks for having me on.Legal AF, I'm a huge fan of everything that you do.And I think that your work is so very important in this political climate.So thank you for all of that.You know, it was kind of, it started out as sort of a tongue -in -cheek me filing a claim against the slush fund because I had been weaponized against in the first Trump administration when the government decided to investigate my Muller She Wrote podcast.And eventually that led to me being removed from my public service job at the Department of Veterans Affairs after over a decade.

And when I put that out, because I was specifically asking for $8 .647 million in that particular claim, it went viral.And I was contacted by the Public Citizen Litigation Group saying, because you're an interested party, and we're interested in perhaps providing comment or requiring notice and being able to provide comment as an interested party, would you be interested in a procedural type of a lawsuit as a plaintiff?"And I said, absolutely.You know, I already have open litigation against the government for my removal from my position.And I said, well, if I'm an interested party, and there's something I can do to help stop this slush fund, or at least question how it was being established, I would absolutelywant to be part of that.

One of the things I like about your lawsuit, and credit to your lawyers here, who we'll hear from in a minute, is that you say one of your concerns is that the fund is going to be depleted by people who are not entitled to get money from the fund, whether that's the insurrectionists or the 14th Amendment or otherwise.Like, it's a zero -sum game, folks.I want more money because I am a victim of this.It's such a great way to kind of get into it.And so, Did you have any hesitation, as a journalist, as a commentator, who does this now for a living, in stepping out of that role, this side of the glass, and saying, I'm gonna be a plaintiff, too?

Well, there are always those considerations, given the defendant in this lawsuit and the defendant's supporters in this lawsuit.And, you know, I've been sticking my neck out politically for a very long time.Katie can also speak to this just as a political commentator in this space.And so it's already sort of since my neck's already out there.I figured if there's something that we can do legally, you know, we might as well go forward with that.I think it's an excellent lawsuit.

And, you know, like you said, there are tons of concerns that I have.And in my lawsuit, you know, there are other groups suing Crewe and former Capitol Police and MPD officers, the former January 6th prosecutor, and they're bringing up all these concerns like about whether this fund is equitable, if it's gonna be doled out to only Trump administration, people who are weaponized against by only the Biden administration.There are questions about why is it capped at 1776?you know, and things like that.And I think that what's so impressive about what my lawyers have have brought up in this case is that these are all concerns I would raise in a notice and comment period under the Administrative Procedure Act.And this is should be considered a rule, the establishment of this fund.

And those are all questions and along with the legal flaws that could be brought to light with this fund that should have had a notice and comment period and did not.And so Trump and Blanche has created a new agency.

out of whole cloth, right, in order to administer this particular fund.Nandan, I want to ask you about what it's like to represent somebody who's not only a victim, who has a right to challenge the victimization fund, but also somebody at Allison's level as a political commentator.But let me turn quickly to, or let me turn back to Katie, because, you know, Katie, you kind of broke the glass ceiling here on this type of lawsuit.You've been a chronicler and a follower of all things Epstein from almost from the very, very beginning.If it's not you, it's Ben Meiselas or both of you together, along with survivors and victims.But you can't do your job if you're being, if what's being withheld from you are the core key documents, including about Donald Trump.

So when you looked at the landscape of lawsuits that had been considered and Democrat, you know, trying to bring things in federal court to get federal judges to get involved, and that's sort of going nowhere, and no one really stepping in.Why did you decide, I got to file this lawsuit?

I thought the attempts to get the special master by Congressman Ro Khanna and Tom Massey was a spectacular move.I thought it was a wonderful example of bipartisan strategy, and it was going to adhere to the benefit of the victims and survivors who are continuously cheated to haveAnd I understood the judges ruling in that instance in the Southern District of New York that jurisdictionally.there was no standing for Congressman Massey and Khanna.And more specifically, the law itself, the Epstein -Files Transparency Act, explicitly did not provide for an enforcement mechanism.Now, we've talked about the fact, Mike, that Congressman Khanna has said that part of the reason why you don't see a private right to a cause of action in the Epstein -Files Transparency Act is it never would have gotten across the finish line with bipartisan support.

There was an articulated concern by Republicans, of course, that if you had given that particular enforcement mechanism in the law, that a slew of lawsuits would have ensued.But appropriately so, let's be honest, right?I mean, any victim or survivor who had their name illegally outed and had their confidential information illegally outed should have recourse against this Department of Justice and this government.When the special master effort failed, and again, not for any lack of effort, but simply because there was no jurisdiction by this judge that had been presiding over Glenn Maxwell's criminal case, I thought to myself, you know, there's got to be another way to be able to get there.And then I am being represented by the Public Integrity Law Project, which is Brendan Ballew and Sam Ward -Packer.And You know, it's been great to be able to work with fellow trial lawyers to say, look, there's we know where we want to go.

How do we get there?And the common refrain that they've heard from me, which everybody's really heard from me, is I can't go any farther than what I can do.mean, the gatekeepers of the information, as you noted, Mike, is the Department of Justice.And I refuse to allow them to continue to use me as a mere mouthpiece for what they want to have publicly disseminated, when in reality, it's the Department of Justice.For example, in my motion for preliminary injunction I just filed late Thursday, you have the names of four co -defendants on a draft indictment that was about to be presented to a grand jury in Florida in federal court in the mid -2000s.Why am I not allowed to see those names?

Because you know that I would doggedly keep on chasing down those names and their involvement.But that illegal redaction that's been done by the DOJ prevents me from doing so.So like I said, I just recently dropped this PI motion and included within it these five areas, one of which is that, this example of the four codefendants.But not only do I mention informational harm, I'm not able to be able to move forward from an informational standpoint to do my job as a journalist.But I also allege financial harm, because it's not a secret.When you are on YouTube, you get subscribers, you get views, and the Epstein coverage is very important.

People have an interest in it.And if I cannot do that, then I'm also impacted financially.I'm not looking for money.I'm looking for an injunction.I'm looking for declaratory relief in my lawsuit.But I do think it's important to note because We have a hearing that's coming up on June 16th.

We actually are asking for an expedited hearing before then, so maybe before June 16th now.But we really want to make sure that the court and the Department of Justice understands that I do have standing to be able to bring this lawsuit.

Well, that's the point.And for our audience, it's not that Katie's looking for money.It's that she needs to establish the harm in order to have standing to bring the case.Because, you know, even though Melania thinks, oh, well, we'll just make the victims payre -traumatized by giving congressional testimony in order to get the DOJ to do its job, you can see the survivors are not keen on filing this lawsuit.You had, what did you have, 43, they had their names outed?

But I don't know, blame them.This isn't recrimination against them.Why would they?So yes, you and I have had this discussion offline before.Their spoon feeding of the media has made us complicit in their scandal, in their cover up.And if we don't go the lengths that you've gone in your case, and Allison's gone in hers, then they look back on us and say, forget where were the lawyers and where were the judges, where were the reporters, where were the commentators who could have gone that last mile to for justice and didn't and that's not something that sounds like you're willing you're willing to tolerate do you do you um let me ask let me uh ask uh let me bring nandan here when you represent somebody like at the level of Alison in a case like this.

I'm sure it presents some interesting additional aspects in her present with a traditional plaintiff without revealing confidences in any way.How did you approach representing her and framing her case, understanding that she's in the business of being a commentator at the same time?

Well, thank you for having me on.I think you're absolutely right.There are Unfortunately, today, probably a number of commenters who could claim to be victims of weaponization and lawfare, but Allison did step up to be a plaintiff in this case.It is different and somewhat refreshing to have a client who is familiar with explaining what could be a very dry procedural issue in a way thatknow, hits home to regular folks about why this is important.I suppose the normal listener here does not is not steeped in the Administrative Procedure Act, but it's the basic check on government.

More so than you'd think after 19 months.

Yeah, but it is a basic check on governmental power, and it it is designed to prevent agencies from just exercising raw power by fiat to implement new programs or adopt new rules.And so that, you know, Allison is someone who is impacted by the decisions that Department of Justice will make with respect to this anti -weaponization fund, what they call the anti -weaponization fund.And she has a, you know, an interest and a right to be able to express her views through a proper notice and comment process.And so it's great not only that she was willing to step up and be a plaintiff in this lawsuit, but that she does have the background to go on podcasts like this and on social media and just explain what's at stake in very clear terms.

And tell our audience, while we have you, what your, you know, on our channel, on Katie's, on Allison's, we talk a lot about these public interest law firms or pro bono departments that are still existing of firms that focus on these types of cases.You know, Katie has one that's, you know, the Public Integrity Project that's also representing the Jan 6th officers in the other anti -weaponization fund, the one that's pending in D .C.Talk a little bit now, you've got a moment for our audience, tell us about your organization and what you do on a daily basis.in the era of Trump.

Sure.I'm with Public Citizen Litigation Group, which is a unit of Public Citizen, which has been around since 1971, basically fighting for the little guy.We work in the courts, but the rest of my organization works in Congress and administrative agencies, trying to hold power accountable.There are other public interest groups that are working on these issues in the, in the Crewe case.There are public interest group as well.And the Virginia case where the stay was recently issued on the weaponization fund.

You know, during Trump one, we did have a lot more help from pro bono law firms doing pro bono work.They've, I think, been somewhat intimidated during Trump two.So a lot of us are on our own or trying to fill the gaps.Many of us are like my organization is a nonprofit organization.We rely on donations and assorted other streams of revenue, but mostly we're member funded.And so it's, it's, you know, it's a struggle, because we are going against the largest, most well financed law firms and government in the world.

So it's, um, but it's, it's, you know, important work.That's why we've been around for so long.And it's just, it's just an honor to be able to fight this fight, where it's given how much it's needed right now.

Got it.And we'll put a link below for those that want to support your organization as well.Let me read one paragraph before I turn back to Katie from your filing for Allison.It's in paragraph 43.Plaintiff has an interest in ensuring that constitutionally ineligible claimants do not receive payment from the fund, thereby reducing the amount of funding available to pay the claims of eligibleclaimants.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U .S.Constitution provides that the United States shall not assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.Acting Attorney General Blanche has testified before Congress that individuals convicted of crimes related to the Jan 6th attack on Congress that delayed the certification of President Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election may apply to receive compensation from the fund.By failing to engage in the notice and comment process, defendants have deprived plaintiff of her ability to comment on defendant's position on this constitutional question.What a great way to use the APA.

to go after and through the 14th Amendment.Really, really great.Katie, on your end, you've got Judge Emmett Sullivan, right?Yeah.for your case, which is great.All right, that's all.

Good night, everybody.That's all good.That's a good poll, as we say.That's a good judge poll for you.But I'm looking through your papers, and we'll put them up on Legal AF Substack as well.You've got 37 pages where you detail all of the publicly known facts about Epstein, about the victims and survivors, things that you've been able to uncover, and then the known unknowns.

that they should be disclosing.Could be another three million pages for all we know.It's not the entirety of the executive branch or the entirety of the executive branch repository of documents.And for you, if you could write with your lawyers, which you will, the proposed order that you want the judge to issue?What is it, for our audience, what is it that you want the judge to do with a stroke of a pen?

In the immediate sense, the granting of my motion for preliminary injunction, which would force the Department of Justice to address some of the most egregious violations on the face of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.One example that has escaped everybody's notice that we've brought up is the fact that Blanche admitted at the end of January that They never even bothered to translate the foreign language documents, which is just mind boggling.Because as you said, this is a multi -decade international sex trafficking ring.So what is the excuse for them not doing it?He said it wasn't practicable.Whatever.

The point is, I would like the judge to immediately grant the PI and give me access to illegally redacted names, email addresses, the names of the co -defendants.I also would like the FBI interview notes for the Donald Trump alleger, the accuser.She was alleged to have only been 13 years old when she was sexually battered and physically abused by Donald Trump.And also, part of the thing, and Alice and I talked about this on her channel, there was supposed to be a law, pretty much a redaction, a privilege law almost, that was supposed to have been done and recorded with the Federal Register.And that, if you can imagine, is such a great roadmap for us to figure out if the DOJ properly or improperly did redactions.But Blanche wiped his ass with it and said, you're not going to do it.

So that's part of my preliminary injunction.I want the judge to order them to do that.And look, I'm not making it out of whole cloth, right?I'm not picking it out of the air.It's a part of the Epstein -Fowles Transparency Act.And the thing that's interesting, and then ultimately, I want my special master.

I need somebody who's going to call the balls and strikes here and say, Blanche says he's redacting this.Let me look at it unredacted.Katie, it is properly redacted because it's the name.of a victim.Or it isn't properly redacted.Blanche, you have to turn it over to Katie.

And I also want to underscore this always.Not doing this for money, number one.Number two, not doing this just for me. I'm not gatekeeping this.As soon as I get anything from the court, I just blast it out to everybody in the world, right?I mean, that's the point of me doing this as a journalist.But I want to underscore something really quickly.

What Alice and I have both done as private citizens by bringing our lawsuits is we're literally just asking the court to force the federal government to do what the law requires it to do.It's amazing because any of us as average people, as just citizens of the United States, we'd be hauled into court on our cabooses in a hot second if we didn't do what we were supposed to do.And in this instance, they're not doing what they're supposed to do.In Allison's litigation, as Nandan just said, right, and as you read, they were supposed to do a notice and comment period for this, right?They didn't do it.In my instance, they were supposed to do the redaction log, for example.

Didn't do it.So, I mean, we're not asking for the moon.we're not asking for something that should be necessarily so revolutionary, we're just asking for them to actually do what they are supposed to be doing.I like to say in my lawsuit, and actually in Allison's lawsuit, we're just asking lawyers to follow the law.Shocking, shocking ask, I know, but I feel like that has to be really underscored here because we're not, you know, shit -stirring to be, like, controversial.We're just doing what the law says that we're allowed to do, and we're seeking the justice and the relief that the law says we're allowed to seek.

And that's really what Alice and I have decided is the most important thing for Americans right now.

Yeah, that's a great way to combine it.Before I go back to Alice for a minute, I mean, I think that's what our audience is so impressed by, is the courage of you two, because we watch a Trump administration that calls the pressthe enemy of the people.That has a weird relationship with the press, right?You've got the people that are work -a -day in the press who have access, for whatever it's worth, to Trump, and they don't want to lose their jobs, and they want to have content, so they're willing to put up with a lot of shit, including having their fellow colleagues, many of them female, being bashed in misogynist ways.misogynistic ways.

Nobody stands up for them.They go after the press, you know, from FBI investigations, Department of Justice investigations.They go after the press and their equipment and their computers in order to find out who they're talking to for leaks.And here we have two members of the First Amendment Brigade, right, of the press, who have said, not only are we not scared by that, But we're going to be plaintiffs to fill a need in the hierarchy of cases that need to be brought against the Trump administration, as you said, in order to hold them accountable.But you're doing it from such unique perspectives that no one else can.I mean, I'm sure somebody else could file, but nobody else I think has the gravitas that both of you have in your respective arenas to bring this type of case.

Let me let me ask both of you.We'll go kind of back and forth here to end the segment.Do you have real fear having brought it?that there's going to be uh that you that you'll be that well you know real real trump retaliation will be visited upon you and how did that go into your decision as to whether to bring it at all because you could you know katie you could never have brought it an msnbc right that would have been your last day on the job but but but uh you know this gives you the freedom that's the one good thing about what we do on youtube and independent journalism through midas and otherwise is we get to do this But do you worry about it when you bring the cases up?I'll be frank.I would.

I'd like to be involved.but I would also think long and hard about the right case at the right moment to do it.

Yeah, I'll let Allison have the last word on that.But you're right.It is kind of interesting that nobody in mainstream media, with regards to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, brought a lawsuit.You would think they'd have the financial wherewithal and the the bigger corporate ability to be able to withstand the heat.Of course, I thought about it because I have a family.I have, you know, I like doing what I am doing.

Some factors, for example, have been so far, what has been the reaction from DOJ?Have they been particularly virulent in the way they've responded?Who is the prosecutor that's on my case?Who's responding?I mean, these are things that you would always think about as a trial lawyer, but I think have a little bit more moments now because of what's happening.But I will say something that's been very interesting.

Unlike the other stuff that I do on Katie Fang News or whatever, on social media, et cetera, this particular lawsuit and my role as a plaintiff hasn't generated the type of vitriol that I normally get.I get the death threats, I get the horrible racist gender sexist stuff all the time.It's very boring because it's all the same shit.None of it's original anymore.But the thing is, I have not heard from a single MAGA Republican who's been like, you dumb biatch, what are you doing with your lawsuit?It has been like crickets, which in my mind, I think sends a very clear message to me, which is people want to know.

Regardless of your party affiliation, they have a very, very invested interestin finding out what is behind those black redactions on those papers.And so I have been pleasantly surprised to see that that has been at least the public response.I mean, you knew it was going to be Overwhelmingly positive for us on our side, but I haven't heard anything crazy.

Yeah.Yeah, I don't yeah on that point even a presidential connection to a child sex trafficking ring seems to be the great uniter in america and in which of course has been lost completely on on donald trump and let's let's end with alice and so You know, you've been on the receiving end of of something That you didn't plan on happening.You know, you're when you started out in the Veterans Administration.You didn't expect to be such an amazing podcaster and media star many years later.So maybe it turned out for the best.Maybe you don't have damage.

But that was not the career path that you were on and you were retaliated against as a result.So you had to, I'm sure you had to have some thoughts about, do I really want to be the plaintiff in this case?How did you work through that?

Yeah, well, let me piggyback off of what Katie said.Same, Katie, like you're not seeing the vitriol because we're kind of all on the same side when it comes to the Epstein files.Nobody likes this slush fund either.In fact, there are at least a dozen Republican senators who are holding ICE funding hostage in order to get this thing killed.So I don't think it's going to be long for this world, this fund.But I am looking forward to what Judge Williams in Miami does with this, because that continues.

regardless of whether or not Donald Trump walks away from this fund.But I'm not afraid of Donald Trump.He already, what is he going to do, fire me again?I don't work for him anymore.I didn't work for him.I just worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I started in 2009.But what are you going to do that you have toto me already?He took away my career, my livelihood, the place I was going to retire, something I had, I got my PhD in public health because I wanted to finish my career at the Department of Veterans Affairs serving veterans, something that he knows nothing about and would never do himself and can't really speak to because according to him, we're all suckers and losers as veterans.So, you know, okay, you know what, fire me again.I don't think so.

So I'm kind of okay with all this.And like Katie said, I think that they aren't really coming after me as much.I think it's braver for the two, the former Capitol Police officer, our friends, Harry Dunn and Danny Hodges, who constantly receive death threats from actual January 6th insurrectionists, right?Because they want to be able to take part in this weaponization fund.But for me, you already did all the damage that you could possibly do to me in the world.Let's see what you got on the Administrative Procedure Act.

Well, I love, I love having you all here on this kind of roundtable discussion about what it's like to be a political and legal commentator and take on the Trump administration and what you're experiencing.And of course, having great counsel here to help guide us through this conversation.You're here on Legal AF.You have to subscribe if you're not already to everything that Allison Gill is doing.The Daily Beans and Buller She Wrote and come on, Katie Fang, Katie Fang News Channel.She's going to She's going to break open another three million Epstein files any moment now at the rate she's going.

And so she's a close friend and so glad that she's here together.And of course, support everything that public interest law firms do.There's a link below to help the one that's helping Alison get through this time, this era of Trump.Take a moment, hit the free subscribe button here on Legal AF.Until my next report, I'm Michael Popock.Can't get your fill of Legal AF?

Me neither.That's why we formed the Legal AF Substack.Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the Substack.You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, Morning AF.What else?All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well.

We got some new reporting.We got interviews.We got ad -free versions of the podcast and hot takes.Where?Legal AF.F on some stack come over now to free subscribe