Trump DOJ ACCIDENTALLY Delivers Evidence to INDICT PAM BONDI?!

What this episode is about

The Trump administration inadvertently undermined its own efforts to conceal Epstein-related documents when the Department of Justice was ordered by Judge Angel Meer to produce records linked to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. As the DOJ sought to release grand jury transcripts in hopes of shifting blame to the judge for withholding Epstein files, Judge Meer countered by insisting that the release of these transcripts would be contingent upon the DOJ also disclosing the Epstein records, highlighting the complex legal battle over transparency in this controversial case.

Key takeaways

• Trump's DOJ just played poker with a federal judge and lost, exposing their cover-up strategy.
• Judge Angel Meer flipped the script: hand over the Epstein files, or no grand jury transcript for you!
• Transparency laws aren't optional; DOJ's delay opens the door to future prosecutions for potential cover-ups.
• The DOJ's admission of noncompliance? That’s a legal grenade they might regret pulling the pin on.
• In a game of legal chess, the Trump regimes underestimated a judge who knows how to checkmate.

Who speaks in this episode?

• Katie Fang (Guest) · 10 min speaking
• Unknown Host (Host) · 14 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 5:00: Department of Justice, Donald Trump
2. 10:00 – 15:00: Department of Justice, Donald Trump
3. 15:00 – 20:00: Donald Trump, Department of Justice
4. 20:00 – 24:02: Donald Trump

Notable quotes from "Trump DOJ ACCIDENTALLY Delivers Evidence to INDICT PAM BONDI?!"

• The Trump regime just made a major fatal error in their effort to try to cover up the Epstein files. Donald Trump may try to bury his dark past, but the DOJ is screwing that…

  about Donald Trump · at 0:00

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Donald Trump — Person · 6 mentions · first at 0:07

Companies & orgs

• Department of Justice — Company · 6 mentions · first at 0:37
  Meer. Judge Angel Meer was the judge now presiding over the Gilain Maxwell case and he has ordered the Department of Justice to provide periodic status updates based on his…

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 The Trump regime just made a major fatal error in their effort to try to cover up the Epstein files. Donald Trump may try to bury his dark past, but the DOJ is screwing that up. So, here's what went down. While the Trump regime is clearly covering up the Epstein files, Trump's DOJ had to respond with a status report to a federal judge in the Southern District of New York named Judge Angel Meer. Judge Angel Meer was the judge now presiding over the Gilain Maxwell case and he has ordered the Department of Justice to provide periodic status updates based on his order for the DOJ to produce records from the Southern District of New York. I mean the jurisdiction of Engle Meyer because he's a southern district of New York judge are the Gileain Mack involves the Gileain Maxwell files and the adjacent files. So possibly the Epstein records as they relate to SDNY. I don't think he has jurisdiction for example over the

1:09 Southern District of Florida. So what Judge Angle Meyer did when the Trump regime tried to call Judge Angle Meyer's bluff, they said, "Judge, we need you to release the grand jury transcripts of the Gilain Maxwell case." What the Trump regime was trying to do was set up Judge Angel Meer to blame him if he denied making public the grand jury transcript in Gileain Maxwell and say the judge is the one holding up the Epstein files. It's the judge's fault. Let's blame Angelmeer, everyone. Judge Angel Meer, though, is a brilliant jurist. And he's like, you know what? I'm happy to turn over the grand jury transcript now that the Epstein Transparency Act is law, but you have to then turn over the Epstein files as well. I'll turn over the grand jury transcript, you turn over the Epstein files, and we'll do it together.

2:05 You know, the judge was normally guarding grand jury secrecy, which exists in all federal cases, but the federal judge said, "A law has been passed, so we'll release the grand jury transcript." So, the judge also warned the victims, particularly the survivors, that the grand jury transcript was not going to add new information to the data that exists that's out there because it was one FBI agent testifying about hearsay. It wasn't the files. It wasn't a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the files, the grand jury transcript. And ultimately, there was a trial against Gain. So, the trial had more stuff than the grand jury transcript. Right? So, the judge calls the bluff of the DOJ and says, "I'll turn it over, but now you have to prepare periodic status reports. When I turn over the grand jury transcript, let me know that you've complied with the Epstein Transparency Act." Now, we all

3:02 know that the DOJ violated the Epstein Transparency Act. How? By not turning over the records. They were all due December 19th. Then 15 days later, the DOJ had to prepare a report to the federal judge Angle Meyer discussing the redactions that were made and confirming that the redactions well sorry. Under the Epstein Transparency Act, 15 days thereafter, the DOJ had to confirm that the redactions um were just of the survivors and the victim's names only and nothing else. And Angel Meyer wanted to get that information, confirm that you've complied. So, the DOJ four or five days ago submitted a status report and in their status report, they were just like, "Hey, judge, we're complying with your orders. Hey judge, we need an extension of time because we weren't able to get through all of the files.

3:55 So, here's where we're at. We've reviewed about uh uh to date, we've produced 125,000 pages, which constitute 12,000 documents. Part of our phase one, whatever they're calling it, review. We still have 2 million more documents to review, which could be 20 million pages, by the way. I think it's much more. We're working on a judge. We've got 125 lawyers at the United States Department of Justice office, the SDNY in New York. We've got lawyers at Maine Justice working on it. So, we'll keep preparing periodic status reports. Well, y'all just admitted in your status report that you violated the law. So now if the DOJ's, if these actors, whether it's Pam Bondi, whether it's Todd Blanch, whether it's anybody involved in this cover up of the child sex trafficking ring in the future when they could potentially be criminally prosecuted, a future prosecutor is going to hold up a status report and say, "You see right here,

4:58 this was signed by Pam Bondi. This was signed by Todd Blanch. and Bondi and Blanch are saying that they have not complied with the Transparency Act. They're saying that they have not reviewed all they've signed a document incriminating themselves in the violation of the Epstein Transparency Act because they've signed a status report saying they didn't comply with the mandatory obligations of the Epstein Transparency Act that required the documents to all be produced by December 19th and the report on redactions to be produced by 15 days later. So whereas you know in a normal case maybe they get sanctioned by a judge, maybe the judge issues a stern warning in an order, we'll see what federal judge Angle Meyer does here. But this document, this filing by Bondi and Blanch, which we'll go over in a moment, admits to the violation of the Epstein Transparency Act. So if they ever get criminally

5:56 prosecuted for the violations by a future DOJ, which in my humble opinion needs to happen, in my humble opinion, any Democrat running for president needs to confirm they will criminally prosecute the violators of the Epstein Transparency Act in addition to all of the other crimes that have been committed by this Trump regime. Blanch and Bondi admit it. Let me bring in Katie Fang from the Midas Touch Network. Subscribe to Katie Fang's YouTube channel. Subscribe to our Midas Touch YouTube channel. Right now, we're close to 6 million subscribers, but definitely subscribe to Katie Fang's YouTube channel. She is a superstar. We are honored to have her on the Midas Touch Network. Katie Fang, explain to us how Todd Blanch and Pam Bondi seem to have incriminated themselves in the cover up of Epstein. Explain it.

6:46 Let's take the word of Todd Blanch and Pamela Joe. in a letter dated January 5th, 2026 to the honorable federal judge Paul Ingram, who is the presiding judge over the United States versus Galain Maxwell case in the Southern District of New York. This was filed on January 5th publicly on the record. It's on the docket. Anybody can see it. And within this multi-page letter, this five-page letter, there's a lot of excuses and no mayulpas. Like really, like no, I'm sorry that we haven't met this deadline, but let me give you the dog ate my homework excuses as to why we continue to violate the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which lest they be confused as shitty lawyers what an act means, it's a [ __ ] law. It's not a suggestion, but hey, let's get into the contents of this letter because yes, there's a lot of stuff going on right now domestically and internationally, but this is important stuff to remind

7:50 people the facts and what's going on. So again, this letter is addressed to Judge Engelmmer and it basically says, "We are complying not only with the law, but we're also complying with this court's order that required a certification from the Southern District of New York that we had done a pre-publication victim privacy related review and redaction of certain of the materials that are required to be published pursuant to the Epstein Files Act." And again, lots of excuses. Since our last letter dated December 19th, we have done the following quote. The department has continued its efforts to identify, process, and review materials from various components of the department.

8:30 Um, and the SDNY and the department have worked together, including with input from various council for victims to refine our review and redaction procedures. Footnote, we're going to get to it in a couple of minutes. The Epstein Files Transparency Act sets forth clearly what can qualify for purposes of redaction. Redaction of victims and survivors and any of their confidential privacy related information a no-brainer. But I'm going to explain to you that Todd Lanch, Pamela Joe, they've been taking liberties when it comes to redactions that y'all have also detected as well when you've looked at these various tranches of documents having been document dumped on the DOJ website and you have noticed that redactions have happened that were not supposed to be removed to date. And again, this letter is dated January 5th, 2026. The department has now posted to the DOJ Epstein library webpage approximately 12,285

9:30 documents comprising approximately 125,575 pages in response to the act and there are more than 2 million documents potentially responsive to the act that are in various phases of review. footnote one it refers to it then provides the letter then provides a definition of how they're referring to the term quote document and they're saying it refers to materials of various types and sizes including without limitation internal emails internal memoranda FBI interview notes draft charging documents Bureau of Prisons materials third-party subpoena returns court filings external communications and various forms of media And then here come the excuses again.

10:21 Some documents have multiple pages. As a result, document counts and page counts are different and the time required to review documents can vary substantially. They've known that the demand for the release of the Epstein files has been persistent. Heck, Donald Trump campaigned on it to get back to the Oval Office that he would turn over the entirety of the Epstein files for purposes of transparency to the American people. Pamela Joe claimed earlier in 2025 that the Epstein files were sitting on her desk. And yet, once again, the dog ate my homework excuses as to why they continue to violate the law.

11:04 This letter says that the prior letter of December 19th noted that there were quote hundreds of attorneys dedicated to the review at the time of that letter. Currently and anticipated for the next few weeks ahead in the range of over 400 lawyers across the department will dedicate all or a substantial portion of their workday to the department's efforts to comply with the act. These efforts include over 125 lawyers in the Southern District of New York, as well as dozens of lawyers from each of the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, and the National Security Division of the Department. She also, and they, excuse me, Blanch and Bondi go on to say that there's more than 100 specially trained document analysts with experience in handling sensitive victim materials that are assisting the FBI.

11:52 like we're supposed to gain any type of asurances or comfort seeing how they've already [ __ ] up the roll out of what they've done so far. The the 125,000 pages they've already screwed up the victim related redactions and we're supposed to feel better knowing that there are quote more than 100 specially trained document and analysts with experience in handling sensitive victim materials. I don't think so. The letter says more than two million documents remain as potentially responsive to the act in various phases of review and redaction. This is a large volume of materials and they remain to be reviewed in widely varied ways.

12:35 Bondi and Blanch say that they are trying to protect victim privacy. So they have recently modified the ways by which they are reviewing these materials. They have provided information and footnotes in this letter that if her victims are seeking to have their information redacted, they are able to submit that request to a website efta@usdogj.gov. They have admitted that prior releases have included tens of thousands of manual redactions of victim identifying information. But even with these efforts and related quality control checks, unfortunately, information that victims believe should have been redacted has been posted. I'm going to stop right now because this is such victim blaming.

13:19 It's disgusting. Information that victims believe should have been redacted has been posted. How about you [ __ ] posted the names of the victims? How about when you cut and paste from the redactions onto a clean sheet, you can actually see and remove the redactions. It's basic a Ad Adobe Acrobat, right? 101, but you're able to do it anyway. So, don't blame the victims, Pamela Joe and Todd, when you have screwed up the roll out in compliance with the law. The letter then says, "The Department of Justice intends to incorporate the following procedures as it completes its review. As always, the government is available to respond to any questions from the court." And again, it's Pamela Joe, Todd Blanch, and hey, Jay Clayton, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York. It is just excuses.

14:09 It's worth nothing. But it references a few things, right? It references not only the fact that they still have at least 2 million more documents that they have to review. So again, continued non-compliance from the Department of Justice of all agencies, but the Miami Herald had an accompanying piece entitled, "Dozens of South Florida prosecutors reviewing Epstein files filing reveals." So this filing that you and I just walked through, acknowledged that the Southern District of Florida, headed up by Jason Reading Quinonus, as the US attorney of the Southern District of Florida, has suddenly now become even involved in the review of it. Should make you nervous, frankly. Right. the stonewalling, you know, extraordinary stonewalling that's happening just got a little bit more of a heavier touch because you got Jason Reading who's [ __ ] buddies with not only Donald Trump, Pamela Joe, um, but

15:00 also a lot of people that are in the MAGA movement. So, apparently, uh, dozens of lawyers from the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida have begun reviewing files as well. Bondi says that these attorneys have been pulled from the SDFL's criminal and national security divisions. But oh wait, the US attorney for the Southern District of Florida is still pretty damn busy in paneling grand juries in front of uh you know the Fort Pierce division in front of Judge Ailen Cannon as I have covered here at the Katy Fang News Channel and and you know sending out you know dozens of subpoenas to people like John Brennan the former CI director, Peter Struck and Lisa Page. I mean, they still have time to do that, though. They still have time to pursue politicized prosecutions and persecutions of enemies and opponents um that Donald Trump thinks are his enemies and opponents.

15:51 But, you know, again, don't have to tell you that Brennan struck Paige and others just doing their jobs, following the law. So, the Miami Herald also dealing with that. And remember, we said we were going to get to the Epstein File Transparency Act. I I have this thing printed out and it just sits on my desk because I'm always having to reference it. And the reason why I want to reference it right now quickly with you is I always go back to what folks I always go back to subsection C of the Epstein Files Transparency Act because that is where it defines in the statute what is permitted to be withheld or redacted from disclosure by the Department of Justice. And again, personally identifiable information of victims or victim's personal medical files. Yeah, we get it, right? And then things that depict or contain child sexual abuse materials. Yes, obviously images of death, physical abuse, injury,

16:42 if anything's classified, and if it jeopardizes an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution. Folks, nobody is being prosecuted. That's the [ __ ] problem. Other than Maxwell and Epstein, nobody else has been prosecuted. But anyway, none of this allows for the following redactions that Blanch is doing. Blanch has claimed now that he is redacting and blacking out information otherwise covered by quote various privileges including deliberative process privilege, work product privilege, and attorney client privilege end quote. Again, not included in the laws allowed for redactions.

17:21 So, yet more non-compliance with the law, yet more stonewalling and excuses by the DOJ, yet more efforts to protect child sex predators, child sex traffickers, and others that are identified in the Epstein files. I want to take a small quick but related detour before we part ways, folks. One, like and subscribe. Please, if you can spread this video far and wide to let others subscribe. I'm trying to do the work to bring transparency that clearly we don't get from this administration. So I appreciate the support always. But you know on Instagram there is an account uh for the gentleman who's an incredibly talented I'm going to go to my Instagram account right now. He's an incredibly talented photographer and he was the photographer that was involved in that um uh amazing amazing two-part Vanity Fair piece that was the you know sit down with Susie Wilds over 11 interviews and remember I had the chance to be able

18:21 to speak to the journalist that handled that uh Chris and you know it was an amazing interview and Susie Wilds just kind of you know letting the cats all out of the bag concerning everybody and then some. But Christopher Anderson is the incredible photojournalist and photographer that did the photographs that the Trump administration lost their [ __ ] over. We saw uh Caroline Levit's uh lip filler. We saw the un, you know, according to them, the unflattering photographs, but the very real photographs of JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and others. Anyway, Christopher Anderson, I follow him on Instagram, and he posted this yesterday. It's a picture of Jeffrey Epste, but it's a carousel of pictures, and the caption is amazing.

19:08 So, Christopher Anderson explains that in 2015, he was assigned by New York Magazine to do a portrait of Epstein to accompany an article that was being written by Michael Wolf, who we know has also been delivering a lot of information. and somebody who was exposed in the emails with Jeffrey Epste to have been in contact with Jeffrey Epste relating to notably information about Donald Trump, his relationship with and Donald Trump's knowledge about what Epstein was doing. And Christopher Anderson notes in his Instagram post that Epstein wanted to meet Christopher before that photo shoot to negotiate buying out the pictures after the publication of the piece by Michael Wolf. When Christopher went to Epstein's home, quote, "A young woman with an Eastern European accent answered the door. I would later see the same girl setting up a massage table in a room just off one of his offices." I followed

20:04 quickly by his private secretary, Leslie Grath. Epstein quizzed me about my pictures and how the shoot would go and how much I thought my pictures were worth. He said he didn't want anyone else to have the pictures after the magazine published them and offered me $20,000 to own them after publication. He wrote a personal check and handed it to me. The magazine had already given me permission to make such an arrangement, and we made it clear that Epste wouldn't see any of the pictures until after publication. Several days later, Epstein decided to pull out of the story and started calling me to demand the pictures. I reiterated that the pictures were not his until after publication.

20:38 Then the threats started. Epstein sent his bodyguard/driver Merwin, a massive guy in a long black overcoat and black leather gloves to my studio to intimidate me. It worked. The magazine killed the story, too. So, I cashed the check. Merwin came by again to collect the hard drive and make sure I didn't have any more copies of the photos. Today I found the copy on a very old hard drive. And again, there's a photo carousel on Instagram, meaning there's a series of photos on Instagram. And there's one of Epstein. Epste um very tacky. Not surprised he's friends with Donald Trump. Uh you know, uh upholstered decorations, wallpaper. a picture of Epstein at the now kind of famous desk we've seen him at in his office. There is a stuffed tiger at the front of it. I invite you to go and check out these photographs. But here, this is what's interesting. On Epstein's desk, we see photos of Epstein with um

21:36 could be looks like Galain Maxwell maybe and Bill Clinton. Uh Richard Branson, uh Woody Allen, his wife, I think it's Suni Preven, I want to say. But then there's also the photograph of an email on Epstein's desk. And that email appears to be an exchange between Epstein and the Royal Government Office concerning payment from the Duke and Duchess. Um, I mean, you got to go and read it. It's a settlement. John O Sullivan is the subject. Settlement. John Oullivan. Dear Amanda, who apparently works for the royal government office, despite all our considered efforts, I still remain unpaid. I mean, there's a whole thing about not being paid. The financial arrangements have been agreed directly between the Duke and the Duchess and I for some two months. From what I understand, there is no plan in place to pay me the $59,933 I am clearly owed. This email is from Thursday, February 17th, and there's no

22:35 Oh 2011. And there's a back and forth and it includes the Duke. But I don't know if this is actually from Epstein because it says stuff about the resulting struggle I have endured to try and support myself and pay for my MBA course at Columbia. I don't know. I invite you to go and read the email. I mean, and and you know what? And and we're gonna and we're going to put it up here right now while I'm talking about this. You can see it. I mean, folks, the reason why I want to do this with y'all is because the Epstein files are not going to go away despite Trump's slow walking of getting it out despite the continued violation of the Epstein files transparency act by the DOJ. I mean, these are the things that we still have to talk about. We still have to talk about tax subsidies being terminated for affordable care. We need to talk about Venezuela, Greenland, Denmark, Cuba, I mean, Russia. I mean,

23:32 you name it. But we can walk and chew gum. We can do that. And we can also be mad, be outraged, demand accountability. We can do that, folks. It is just January 7th, 2026. It's going to be yet another long year, but we're going to get through it together.

23:45 Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipowski, ad free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Trump DOJ ACCIDENTALLY Delivers Evidence to INDICT PAM BONDI?!"?

Katie Fang (Guest), Unknown Host (Host).

What is "Trump DOJ ACCIDENTALLY Delivers Evidence to INDICT PAM BONDI?!" about?

The Trump administration inadvertently undermined its own efforts to conceal Epstein-related documents when the Department of Justice was ordered by Judge Angel Meer to produce records linked to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. As the DOJ sought to release grand jury transcripts in hopes of shifting blame to the judge for withholding Epstein files, Judge Meer countered by insisting that the release…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

2 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Donald Trump, Department of Justice. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Trump DOJ ACCIDENTALLY Delivers Evidence to INDICT PAM BONDI?!"?

The episode runs 24 min; the transcript is about 3,923 words in 29 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

• All analyzed episodes
• Books mentioned on MeidasTouch
• People mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Sponsors mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Topics mentioned on MeidasTouch