Trump’s DARK PAST Surfaces as HE Files EMERGENCY MOTION!!

Donald Trump's dark past continues to surface and Trump's corrupt Department of Justice made an emergency filing late last night in response to the lawsuit filed by Midas Touch host Katie Fang in Washington, D.C. federal court where a federal judge ordered the Trump regime to produce certain categories of documents that are being concealed under the Epstein Transparency Act and the federal judge ordered the Trump regime to produce a redaction log describing each of the millions of documents the Trump regime continues to hide. So the federal judge ordered the Trump regime to produce these records by close of business on July 2nd. The Trump regime with minutes to spare filed a motion basically saying we're not turning everything over. We don't believe you have jurisdiction. We need 60 more days to determine our ability to appeal your ruling. They waited until the last minute to then beg for a delay after the Midas Touch host Katie Fang's lawsuit prevailed and the judge ordered these documents to be turned over. As Midas Touch Washington bureau chief Scott McFarland posted and there it is with just hours remaining until the deadline to release more Epstein files under the lawsuit filed by Midas Touch host Katie Fang. The Justice Department asks the federal judge for a two-month delay claiming it risks revealing victims identities which the Trump regime already did. They already leaked the victims identities. So one of the arguments that the Trump regime made in this motion is that the, I kid you not, the co-conspirators are actually the victims and because the co-conspirators are the victims under the Epstein Transparency Act they are withholding the victims names because the victims are the co-conspirators. That's how the Trump regime characterizes some of the people who were involved in this child sex trafficking ring as the victims. I'll go through this with you so you can just see it for yourself. We'll bring the receipts as always here on the Midas Touch network. And then the Trump regime says with respect to the redaction log we are not going to tell you judge how many millions of documents we have not produced. We sent a short letter to Congress back in February where we just explained the reasons why we are withholding documents and records and videos and photos. We don't have to go through the specific number of documents, photos and videos and information and electronically stored data that we are withholding. It's enough for us to just say we're withholding an unspecified number of documents based on deliberative process privilege, executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, work product privilege. You all recall as we covered here on the Midas Touch network the deposition or supposed to be a deposition, the informal interview of Pam Bondi where the DOJ objected to each and every question that the Democrats were asking her. She refused to be under oath and the DOJ was objecting saying executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, outside of the scope. So we know the DOJ is withholding millions of documents and the most damning and damaging documents that directly link Donald Trump or include Donald Trump are likely, in my opinion, being withheld. And I could make that supposition because every time the Democrats in the House Oversight Committee were asking questions, so what were your communications with Trump? What did Trump say about this or that? There was an immediate DOJ objection, executive privilege, deliberative process privilege outside the scope. And so those are the types of privileges that the DOJ is claiming. And they don't want to produce a log which would list all of the millions of documents and they'd have to make a claim to each document and list some general information about the document on a redaction log so that we could determine, wait a minute, why is that document being withheld? That doesn't seem like it's executive privilege or deliberative process privilege. That seems like a bogus privilege assertion. So millions of documents are being withheld. But let's just dig into the data so you can read it for yourself. And when people ask you what the Trump regime is doing, it's not about some debate where we shout at each other. It's just we read the filing. I'll show you the Trump regime's filing in response to Katie Fang, a Midas Touch host, lawsuit where a judge ordered, you all know the judge ordered them turn the documents over, produce a privilege and redaction log. And the Trump regime said, judge, we don't actually think that that's what you've ordered. We are going to just convert your order into what we interpret your order as, which is just for us to explain why we're not going to produce it. And then we want 60 days to file an appeal versus just turning over the documents and producing a log. Look, here's what it says. We believe that the court has not ordered, quote, the immediate production of documents, but rather has ordered the department to show cause if it declines to do so. The government thus treats this as a response to a show cause order. As discussed in more detail below, the department has devoted incredible time and resources to complying with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Although the government strongly disagrees with this court's ruling that the Epstein Transparency Act is enforceable by private parties through the Administrative Procedures Act, the government welcomes the opportunity to resolve any confusion regarding the records at issue in this case. Although the court stated that the department conceded that it is in violation of the act, the court elsewhere recognized the department did not expressly concede anything of the sort. No, the court said that you conceded it. We're now just interpreting what the court said and changing the words of the order. But let's just go to page 14 of the Trump regime's emergency motion that they filed with minutes, actually, before the deadline. And here's what it says. I want to go to sub five because to me, this is perhaps the most egregious. The court has ordered the department to either publish in the federal register the redaction log required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act and update it concurrently with each future release of redacted materials or show cause why the department cannot do so. The department has provided Congress information about the categories of records related and withheld and a summary of redactions made, including the legal justification for those redactions as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The department will submit the notice for publication in the federal register as required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. They did not produce a redaction log. They produced a summary that says we're withholding documents on the basis of executive privilege, deliberative process privilege, attorney-client privilege, classified information privileges. If that's what you're doing, I've done privilege logs in cases involving terabytes of information. That's what I used to do as a litigator before starting the Midas Touch Network. I handled cases that had five, eight terabytes of documents. It was a tedious task to produce a privilege log or redaction log because there were a lot of documents. I had about three lawyers on my team. The DOJ has thousands of lawyers. You go through, you go document, Bates number, whatever it is, why it's being withheld, you assert the privilege, you give some descriptive information, and that's what you do. I could never give a summary and be like, this is why I'm withholding it. Attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, work product privilege, deliberative process privilege, and I'm not going to just turn it over. Just trust me, bro. Again, a clear violation of the court order right there. Let's dig a little bit deeper into this filing by the would contravene the settled application of the Epstein-Files Transparency Act for the department to produce unredacted versions of many of the records at issue. Nothing requires that result because they go on to say the real victims right here are the co-conspirators. They release the information of the real victims and then the co-conspirators. There's all these documents. This is what Katie Fang was asking for. It says co-conspirators. They're saying, yeah, those are the victims that we really need to protect right here. It goes on to say below the government shows cause why we're not producing any documents, why the court should not order it to take any mandatory action requested by plaintiff. Look at the extent and the effort to which they go not to produce documents. They go on to talk about this February 14, 2026 letter. We sent it to the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter included a summary of redactions made and a legal basis and quote, a list of all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the release materials. Remember when they did one and it was like Janice Joplin and it was like, who'd they list? They listed like Thomas Massey's name. Remember they created that list and they put all of the individuals who were investigating them and put them in the files themselves. She was saying, see, we complied. We made the list that we called the politically exposed persons list. And so we did our job. Then it goes on to say the following. It says this court, this is in the Trump regime's motion. This court concluded that private litigants may enforce the provision of the Epstein Files Transparency Act through the Administrative Procedures Act. The government must reiterate its strong disagreement with that conclusion, which threatens to disrupt the interdependence and reciprocity that has characterized the relationship between Congress and the executive branch as the department implements the Epstein Files Transparency Act. So the court said individual reporters like Midas Touch host Katie Fang is permitted to file a case against the Trump regime to say, produce the documents. And here the Trump regime is saying, we don't have to do that. There's no private cause of action. Nobody can tell us that we need to produce the documents. And we're just going to say, trust me, bro, when it comes to the documents we produce and we won't do an actual redaction log. And then they say here, the Freedom of Information Act FOIA provides an adequate remedy as Congress was well aware when it omitted a right of action under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Indeed, courts have held time and time again that FOIA is the exclusive remedy for obtaining purportedly improperly withheld agency records. Now, in response to FOIA requests regarding the Epstein Files, the Trump regime said, no, you need to bring it under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. That's why they were not complying with FOIA. And Katie Fang raised that issue in a supplemental filing. The federal judge asked the Trump regime to respond. Why were you putting in FOIA responses that the best way to respond would be through the Epstein Transparency Act case to not produce under FOIA? And the Trump regime refused to court order. Although here, the Trump regime puts that even though FOIA, the possibility that a plaintiff might fare worse under FOIA does not entitle her to bring a claim here. So, the fact that we're not going to produce under FOIA, we're just going to ask her to produce under FOIA. The fact that she'll get less information under FOIA than here does not preclude us from demanding that she use FOIA. So, they're saying, do FOIA and we won't produce it. So what? That's what our position is. Okay. Do you see the lack of transparency over here? And I just want to show you in their own words where they say, the co-conspirators are the victims. They say, how consistent with the statutory authority, the department has sought to prevent victims from becoming public, even in instances where the victims eventually became complicit or engaged in reprehensible activity or communications. So, they say the court has ordered that these documents that are framed as potential co-conspirators, and it says three of the four names that are listed under DOJ files as co-conspirator headings actually belong to individuals who are in fact victims. Look, page 12. The redactions applied to the name of Leslie Groff have been removed as she has not asserted victim status. That's very, very telling. So, asserting victim status. So, if the co-conspirators, do you see what they just admitted to? If the co-conspirators tell the DOJ that they believe they are victims, then their information was not produced. How do I know that? Because over here, it says that redactions to Leslie Groff have been removed as she has not asserted victim status. And it took the Democrats to bring her in front of the oversight committee to question her on that. But I'm sure you have all these other co-conspirators who are out there telling Todd Blanche we're victims. And as a result, they get the benefit of the redactions because they're claiming a victim status. The perpetrators, did you see how warped it is? The actual victims had their names leaked. And the co-conspirators said, hey, Trump, hey, Blanche, we're victims. Okay, we're going to go protect you. And now the Epstein Transparency Act protects you because you say you are victims. Then it goes on to talk about how the department is not producing underlying handwritten notes from our investigation because the underlying notes are substantially similar to the ultimate reports and have accordingly been deemed duplicative of the typewritten reports. Who are you to make that decision? Turn over the handwritten notes and turn over the typewritten notes. Okay, if the typewritten notes are duplicative of typewritten notes, then I get it. You don't need to produce the exact same. You could de-dupe it as we would call it in our review. De-dupe, just show us one of them. But the handwritten notes, I've never heard in any of my litigation. The handwritten notes were then memorialized into typewritten notes. So, therefore, we don't have to produce it. No, produce both. And we can make that determination. We don't trust anything that you are saying. So, as Donald Trump's dark past is surfacing, that's the emergency filing that was made. I wanted to read it to you so you can see it for yourself. And then in the conclusion, it says, for these reasons, this court should not order the department to take further action as requested by plaintiff. As noted, the government can share additional details regarding specific records in camera or with appropriate protections in place. In light of the information provided above, including the need to protect victims, law enforcement personnel, and the department's resources, should the court order the department to take further action, the government respectfully requests that the court grant a stay of 60 days so that the solicitor general has the time to consider whether further appellate review is warranted. At a minimum, any such order should be stayed for at least seven days to allow the government to determine whether to seek emergency appellate review. The court's previous rationale for denying a stay would be inapplicable because the government does not concede that any Epstein File Transparency Act violation, and the court would be ordering the department to take an action without a show-cause alternative. So now they beg for a delay. I know that took a long time for us to go through, but I wanted to share with you each of the pages. That's what the Trump DOJ wrote, so you can see for yourself the nefariousness of it. Anyway, everybody hit subscribe. Great work, Katie Fang. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers, and thanks for watching, everybody. Let's get to 7 million.