LIVE: Trump BLINDSIDED as EPSTEIN Lawsuit FILED…by Meidas Host!!

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has allegedly failed to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated the release of a comprehensive range of documents, including photos, videos, and financial records, in a publicly searchable format. The released documents contain inconsistent bait stamps, duplicative pages, and redactions that appear to go beyond the legally permitted exemptions for victim/survivor confidentiality.

Katie Fang's lawsuit details specific examples, such as financial bank statements being blacked out entirely and duplicative documents where names are revealed in one instance but emails are redacted, and vice-versa, suggesting a haphazard and non-compliant release process.

Katie Fang, a journalist and legal analyst, has established standing for her lawsuit by demonstrating material harm to her ability to perform her job. Her inability to access, digest, synthesize, and investigate the full scope of the Epstein files due to unlawful redactions and withholdings prevents her from providing comprehensive reporting to her audience.

The lawsuit states, 'Fang's inability to report with substance on all the documents she should be able to access has hurt her ability to do her job and made it harder to fulfill her mission as a journalist and a legal analyst.' Fang emphasizes that she is currently only able to report on what the Trump administration 'wants us to have'.

The situation with the Epstein files mirrors the controversy surrounding the redactions of the Mueller report by Attorney General Bill Barr. In that case, a judge reviewed the unredacted report in camera and found that Barr had inappropriately redacted portions, ordering many to be lifted. This precedent supports the need for independent judicial oversight of the Epstein files.

Host Allison Gil recounts Judge Reggie Walton's finding that Attorney General Barr 'made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Muller report to the contrary.'

Given the DOJ's alleged non-compliance and the sheer volume of documents (claimed to be 3.2 million pages, with more withheld), a special master is requested to independently review the unredacted and withheld materials against the legal requirements of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. This independent review is crucial because the DOJ cannot be trusted to police itself.

Katie Fang states, 'I have no trust that this DOJ has done right by this law in any way, which is why the special master that I am seeking in this litigation is so important.' She argues that a special master, unlike a federal judge, has the capacity to go through the millions of documents piecemeal.

Todd Blanch, representing the DOJ, declared that the Department had completed its investigation and complied with the law, effectively issuing a 'final agency action.' This declaration, despite evidence of non-compliance, provided the legal basis for Katie Fang to bring her administrative procedure act claim.

Fang explains, 'what Blanch did by declaring that he was done, that the Department of Justice had completed its investigation and that it had complied with the law. He declared final agency action by that statement. And in doing so, he then pretty much laid the table or set the table for me to bring my administrative procedure act claim.'

Beyond redactions, the DOJ has withheld entire categories of documents, including FBI interviews and notes related to a 13-year-old accuser's allegations against Donald Trump, and the alleged Jeffrey Epstein suicide note. These omissions undermine the completeness of the public record.

Fang highlights, 'We know that there is a credible 13-year-old accuser... who at 13 years of age alleges that she had a trafficking incident or multiple incidents involving Donald Trump. And we also know that there have been FBI interviews... that are relevant to her allegations.' She also questions why the alleged Epstein suicide note was not turned over.

Congressional members who reviewed the files at DOJ terminals discovered 'double redactions,' where the FBI had redacted information, and the DOJ's subsequent redactions did not unredact the FBI's work, even when hovering a mouse over the text would typically reveal it. This indicates a deliberate or negligent effort to obscure information.

Katie Fang recounts Congressman Ro Khanna's experience: 'if you swiped your mouse or hovered your mouse over something right it would unredact what the DOJ had redacted but because the FBI had its run at it like you had reported the DOJ didn't unredact what the FBI had done.'