‘Condescending and PATRONIZING’： Epstein survivor TELLS ALL on Todd Blanche behavior during meeting

Would you say that Mr. Blanche exhibits a rather dismissive attitude toward all of you and the Epstein crimes? One thousand percent, yes. Hi again, everybody. It's now five o'clock in the east. After months and months of waiting now to meet with the Department of Justice, after its complete mishandling of the release of the Epstein files, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse finally have the chance to sit down with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche yesterday. But in that highly anticipated and long-awaited meeting, the survivors say they were met with the same dismissive attitude that Epstein survivor and friend of this program Danny Bensky testified to yesterday at Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing. For Todd Blanche, who's seeking to take on the role of Attorney General of the United States permanently, the meeting was just a check-the-box exercise, a necessary step that he was told he needed to take to gain the vote of a Republican senator named Tom Tillis. Survivors say the meeting was just that, Blanche checking the Tillis box to secure his job promotion, leaving them more hardened in their opposition to him. In a statement provided to MSNOW, Epstein survivor Annie Farmer says this, quote, After meeting with Todd Blanche, I feel even more confident in urging senators to vote against his confirmation as the United States Attorney General. I found him abrasive, condescending, and intentionally noncommittal to survivors, a marked contrast to his public testimony during his confirmation hearing. While quick to point out the failures of previous administrations, he refused to take accountability for mistakes made under his own leadership. His evasiveness felt like a deliberate attempt to claim the Attorney General's office is powerless in this matter. By passing the buck once again, he's leaving survivors trapped in the same endless loop of searching for answers and receiving none. Other survivors who were in the room with the for the meeting with Todd Blanche were left with the same impression, with Danny Bensky posting this in a statement online, quote, He danced around. His wording repeatedly interrupted us and could not commit to anything that would demonstrate good faith or begin to restore trust. He did not adequately account for the release of materials that exposed survivors identifying information and images, and he offered no credible plan to investigate and pursue accountability beyond Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And as for her message to the GOP senator who conditioned his yes vote to advance Todd Blanche's Attorney General nomination on this meeting with survivors, she addressed that by writing this, quote, I hope Senator Tillis will recognize that this meeting was insufficient. Todd Blanche is not qualified to serve as Attorney General. I urge Senator Tillis and every member of the Senate to vote no on his confirmation. A spokesperson for DOJ characterized the meeting this way, quote, productive to our colleagues at CNBC, claiming that Todd Blanche answered questions and walked through what is needed for investigations to proceed. That is where we start the hour with one of the survivors who met with Todd Blanche yesterday, who we have been fortunate enough to talk to on this program and get to know her as she bravely calls for accountability from the federal government. Jess Michaels is back. Also joining us, writer and editor for Protect Democracy and Amanda Carpenter is back with us as well. And the host of the Fast Politics podcast, contributing writer for The New York Times, Molly Jonfast is here as well. Jess, how are you? The short answer is disappointed, disturbed and undaunted because this is, uh, this seems par for the course. The way we were treated yesterday was no different than any other time. We were hoping it would be something different and, uh, it was not. What did you hope you would hear from Todd Blanche? Well, obviously, let's start with what Senator Tillis, we, we would imagine that Senator Tillis did not just want a face to face, like just at least show your face to these survivors, and then I'll give you my vote. I'm sure, I'm sure that that is not what the Senator meant. What we hoped and what we think Senator Tillis also would have wanted for us is that we would have gotten answers on why there are no investigations happening with these files and what happened with the egregious release of victims names, identifying information while perpetrators names were redacted. And, and so we hoped for some response that would have said, I hear you. Uh, I, I, I agree. I take responsibility for what happened. I, 1% of it, his, his words shouldn't have mattered because they, it's still human beings that were affected. I mean, I can't even tell you how many times and how many different ways it was explained to Todd Blanche in that meeting, the harm that was caused and it was not acknowledged. What did he, what was his demeanor like? I would call it patronizing. It felt very much like the attempt to appear empathetic and it It did not come off as, I am now applying to be the attorney general of the United States. You are victims of a crime. And I can assure you, we would never want harm like this to happen to anyone. And we're on top of it. No, that's not what happened. He very clearly stated that there was nothing to see in the files. And if, if there was going to be anything investigated, we were going to have to do more legwork. We're going to have to go back to the FBI, share our stories again. And, uh, I said, okay, but what about should, what if we, they're actually in the files? Do we just bring the files and point them out to FBI agents? And he basically said, yes, just tell us what files we should be looking at because there are no active investigative leads, um, investigations going on right now, except for New Mexico. What did he say, or was he asked to explain his meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell in the context of the new reporting in the New York Times, that he was participating in a meeting about public relations, not fact finding. He did not say that. He did say that the reason he went to go see Ghislaine Maxwell was that supposedly many victims had said that she had not given any testimony and that she should be able to speak. He, I don't know who those victims would be, but that was his reasoning for going to see her. Did he offer any explanation for why Mr. Letnik who's lied about his interactions with Jeffrey Epstein was still in the cabinet? He, he did not. And we didn't go into that subject of specific people. We really were taught. We went there initially at half an hour. We actually got an hour and a half and it was an extremely tense and emotional meeting. And we all had so many questions. And even though we came in with our lists, it was, it was, it was hard to feel heard by him. So we didn't even get through the questions that, that we wanted to try to get through. You know, one of the things I did ask him, I think this is extremely important. Nicole and I actually reached out to the New Mexico attorney general's office because I said to him, well, but there is a criminal investigation going on. And as far as we know, your office is not cooperating with them. And both he and his expert in child trafficking and human trafficking said, oh, we're cooperating. So I got a statement from them. If you don't mind, if I could read that. Please. The statement from New Mexico's attorney general's office was, I think our definitions of cooperating are very different. We got 30 documents that were redacted and new stories. That's not the files we're looking for. And they know it. It's been more than 150 days since we've seen, since we've asked for the unredacted Epstein files. We've also asked for their assistance in lifting protective orders. And they said, unlikely. What is your sense of whether he had any shame for saying the day before the meeting that he would not meet with all of you? But when Mr. Tillis's vote became contingent on having the meeting, he was there. Did he say, well, I just said that because I didn't want to get tripped up, but I'm actually happy. Did he answer for saying he didn't want to meet with you guys 24 hours earlier? No. That's actually a really good word that you brought up, Nicole, remorse. There was no remorse for any of the damage that was done. There was no remorse when we brought up, we've been trying to talk to you for eight months, nine months to tell you there are important files that should be looked at. There are plenty of investigative leads. There was no remorse in even when Annie said, hey, I know that my sister's report is missing part of the pages. Will you do an investigation? He said, no, there was not going to be any further investigations. And we had to go through proper channels now. We had to go back to the FBI or we could talk to this other specialist. But basically he wanted us to start all over again.