Justice Department pulls disgusting Epstein stunt in court - Brian Tyler Cohen

[TexasTowelie]

Legal Breakdown episode 654: Justice Department opposes special master for Epstein files in court.

====================

BTC: You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, I don't know if this Epstein update is more predictable or disgusting, but we now have an update as far as the DOJ is concerned. There was an instance where Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna were trying to get an independent monitor, a special master appointed to these files because the DOJ is clearly not interested in upholding their end of the law and actually releasing them. The DOJ has now responded to that request in court. Can you explain what just happened?

GK: Well, you know what, Brian? I'm going to follow your lead and say this was predictably disgusting. Yeah. From the Department of Justice, they filed their reply to a letter that two members of Congress, the two who co-sponsored the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie.

They sent a letter to New York federal court judge Engelmayer saying, "Listen, DOJ is obviously in violation of federal law in multiple ways, and we're seeking your help, judge. We would like you to appoint a special master, appoint a monitor, do something to get them to comply with the law." And when Judge Engelmayer got that letter, he directed DOJ to respond. And there was a little bit of a tell. I think we talked about this previously, Brian, in the judge's response to DOJ.

They said, "Listen, um, I want you to respond, but I also want you to tell me if you think these two members of Congress have standing." In other words, is this an appropriate vehicle for me to begin to weigh in and maybe order the Department of Justice to do something or refrain from doing something? That was a tell.

Well, we just got DOJ's reply. And there is one thing that's actually shocking to me, but I'm going to ask our viewers to put a pin in that because what DOJ said was, you know, judge, just as you had sort of foreshadowed, we do not believe these two members of Congress have standing to even make this request. Why? Because there's no litigation that is underway. There's no lawsuit that has been filed, you know, arguing that DOJ has violated federal law. Therefore, an aggrieved party, somebody with standing, somebody with a dog in the fight, would need to file a lawsuit and then we could litigate the issue about whether the judge should compel the Department of Justice to, I don't know, comply with the federal law.

That's sort of what the Department of Justice is supposed to be all about. But they, you know, the DOJ lawyers very predictably said there is no case or controversy, which is what is necessary for judges to begin litigating issues and ordering parties to do or refrain from doing something. And therefore, you know, we think you should just sort of reject this out of hand and take no further action. That was predictable.

What's disgusting, Brian, is at the bottom of it all, DOJ is in flagrant violation of a federal law, and they just don't seem to care. They don't seem to care about how it impacts the victims. They don't seem to care that they're protecting potential perpetrators, co-conspirators of Epstein and Maxwell's crimes of sex trafficking young girls. They just don't care. That's the disgusting part.

Here is the part that shocked me. This response filed by Pam Bondi's DOJ lawyers is actually respectful. It's measured. It's civil in its tone. They actually use the word respectfully three times in their response. They say, "Your honor, respectfully, we take the following position. Respectfully, we would urge the court to reject Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie's request for a special master.

Now, I have to tell you, Brian, that is dramatically different from other DOJ legal pleadings we have seen, even in recent days, like when Lindsey Halagan, Todd Blanche, and Pam Bondi filed a reply in the Eastern District of Virginia in a case where a judge basically ordered Lindsey Halligan to explain herself. Why is she still calling herself US attorney when a federal judge ruled that she's not because she was unlawfully and unconstitutionally appointed?

What DOJ filed was as nasty, as disrespectful, as uncivil a pleading as I have ever seen filed in any case federal or local. All of a sudden they have dramatically changed their tone. Now, it may be that there are different lawyers.

BTC: Can I offer up a theory as to why that is? It's because in those other cases, I think it was more of a show uh in the court of public opinion to show how strong and how tough and how defiant they could be.

But the reality is they are Trump is so afraid of somebody else compelling the release of the Epstein files or if this judge were to rule that he that Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie have standing and so they're basically offering up a charm offensive so that they can get the judge on their side, not wrinkle any feathers as far as the judge is concerned so that there's not any rulings as far as the Epstein files go because this is an issue that they're not screwing around with.

Like they know they've already lost on the Lindsay Halligan front and so now it's just a matter of vilifying the judge even if they can. But on this issue, they really don't want to like mess anything up because it is of the utmost importance that nobody rule against Trump as far as the Epstein files are concerned. Hence the charm offensive that we're seeing right now.

GK: Yeah, Brian, that's a great point and it's a great observation. Let me add I don't think I've ever heard anybody use the term charm offensive in connection with Pam Bondi's DOJ or anything Donald Trump has ever done. But, you know, but I think you're right when it came to the Lindsey Halligan litigation.

Frankly, I don't think they care if Lindsey Halligan can keep signing official government documents, US Attorney Lindsey Halligan or she can't. Um, but you know, first of all, DOJ comes to this issue whether a special monitor should be appointed to have them comply with the damn federal law with, you know, what I would call unclean hands. Why? Because they are violating the federal law all day, every day. And they have been since December 19th, which is when the federal law required them to make complete disclosures of the Epstein files with appropriate redaction.

So, you know, if they were to take this sort of nasty, uncivil, argumentative tone with Judge Engelmayer when they know they're violating the federal law all day every day, it probably would not have really persuaded Judge Engelmayer to rule their way. And I agree. I mean, the last thing Donald Trump wants is for the Epstein files to actually be released. However, let's remember Donald Trump signed it into law. the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but now, of course, his Department of Justice is violating the very statute Donald Trump signed into law.

So, you know, but here's what I have to say at the end of the day, because we've got to call it the way we see it, whether we like the result or not. When you read through both Representative Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie's request, their letter to intervene in this case, and when you read DOJ's reply, citing, frankly, a lot of uh actual precedent and applicable authority for the proposition that when there is no case being litigated, judges can't just start ordering things. It's kind of a bedrock principle of law. So, I think this was a bit of a Hail Mary passed by Ro Khanna and Massie.

In any event, you have to tend to side with the law as DOJ articulates it in this reply that they just filed with Judge Engelmayer. So, I have to believe Judge Engelmayer will probably issue either an opinion or maybe just send a letter back to both parties because again there is no litigation. And there is no active case at the moment involving this issue of whether DOJ has violated the law and if so what should the remedy be.

So I think it will be rejected what Khanna and Massie requested. But here is I think the next step in this you know process now that they have tried this Hail Mary pass and it you know it fell incomplete in the end zone. I think the next thing that I hope we see is people withstanding actually file a lawsuit because then Judge Engelmayer can take up the issue of DOJ's violation of federal law and what a federal judge might be willing to do about it. What they might order DOJ to do to comply with the law.

The most obvious people or parties are, and I am sorry to say this, the victims of Epstein's crimes, who shouldn't, you know, have to enter the fray again just to try to compel the nation's top law enforcement agency, DOJ, not to violate the damn federal law.

BTC: In terms of an actual lawsuit being filed at the hands of the Epstein survivors, you know, there have been some rumblings that that even that might not work because there's no enforcement mechanism in the law. But isn't the law in and of itself self-executing? Like, isn't that the whole point of the law? Like, why do you need to build in consequences in a law that in and of itself is the law? Like I don't know if what I'm saying is making sense, but it would seem to me that just having the law there in and of itself is enough to have to compel the DOJ to do this without them pointing to it and saying, "Well, you know, there's no enforcement mechanism. There's no consequences and so we can really defy it as much as we want.”

GK: You know, Brian, it's a great point. And I'm going to use this old saying that we hear from time to time. Maybe our viewers have heard it. The law is an ass. You know, that is really intended to convey that things that seem obvious to lay people, people who may have no knowledge of, you know, the ins and outs of federal legislation or criminal statutes.

When the law says that DOJ, the executive branch, is required, legally required to do something and DOJ just says, "We don't care. We're not doing it." You know, it makes a mockery of the rule of law because, as you say, it should be self-executing. Once there's a federal law on the books requiring DOJ or the executive branch to do something, we would like to think that our government officials would take that seriously and not just shrug it off, if not laugh it off. But that seems to be what they're doing.

So, no, unfortunately, it's not self-executing. It takes the good faith and the honor and the ethics and the integrity of the people who work within the system, you know, to make sure laws are complied with. And if they are not, unfortunately, it will often take private parties like the victims of Epstein and Maxwell and others crimes to file a lawsuit to intervene unfortunately and get the DOJ to comply with the law.

BTC: Last question here, Glenn. Do you think that the DOJ had any intention of ever complying with the law? Recognizing that with the way it was written, there was no enforcement mechanism and so Trump could view this thing as having it both ways. He could both get the credit for signing the law and beat his chest as some champion for transparency while at the same time recognizing that there's no chance in hell Pam Bondi would ever release the full breadth of the files as is the case right now.

GK: My opinion, Brian, based on the track record of Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, and other Trump, you know, sycophants and flunkies, is that they only intended to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act to the extent releasing Epstein Files did not damage Donald Trump. And I say that because they've released, I believe, less than 1% of the files and the files they have released thus far don't really hurt Donald Trump.

Shouldn't that be interpreted as you know what they'll pretend and they'll dance around the edges of minimal compliance, but I don't think we are ever going to see them voluntarily, which is an odd word to use when the law requires that they do it. I don't think we're ever going to see them voluntarily actually disclose all of the files with appropriate redactions. They haven't even made a good faith effort at it. And Brian, here we are about a month after the deadline has passed and DOJ seems to have given us no indication that they're actually moving in the direction of full disclosure.

BTC: Well, look, I can tell our audience that we will stay on top of this. I'll continue to talk to Ro Khanna. I'll continue to keep this in the spotlight. I know Glenn, you're doing the same thing. So, what I would ask of everybody who's watching right now is if you want to stay on top of this news, the best way to do that is to subscribe to our channels. This way, you can see all the updates when we bring them to you. I'm going to put the links to both of our channels right here on the screen. If you've not yet subscribed, please go ahead and hit the subscribe button. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen…

GK: …and I'm Glenn Kirschner.

BTC: You're watching the Legal Breakdown.