DOJ defends Epstein release and Lemon indictment (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Here with me now is Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch. Thank you so much for joining me this morning. I want to start with the Epstein files. Elon Musk, who is mentioned in some of these files, wrote, quote, what matters is not the release of some subset of Epstein files, but rather the prosecution of those who committed heinous crimes with Epstein. When there is at least one arrest, some justice will have been done. If not, this is all performative, nothing but a distraction. Is the Department of Justice considering bringing any additional charges here?

[00:00:37] Speaker 2: Well, look, I can't talk about any investigations, but I will say the following, which is that in July, the Department of Justice said that we had reviewed the files, the, quote, Epstein files, and there was nothing in there that allowed us to prosecute anybody. We then released over three and a half million pieces of paper, which the entire world can look at now and see if we got it wrong. And so it's not performative. And I respectfully disagree with that statement. We were ordered to do so by Congress and then by the president of the United States. And that's what we did. And let me, you know, I said it on Friday. This justice department, the FBI, DHS, we have gone after more sex traffickers, more child pornographers, more men who have done harm to children and young women than any administration in history. And so we need to separate those two ideas, the fact that there's the Epstein files and whether there's anybody there that we can go after and the work that we are doing every day, which is extraordinary. And we will continue to do that.

[00:01:38] Speaker 1: Among these new files is a list compiled by the FBI just in August of numerous salacious and, to be really clear, unverified allegations about President Trump. Why did the FBI create this list last year? And have all of these claims been investigated by the DOJ?

[00:01:57] Speaker 2: So, look, it's not about President Trump. It's about a ton of people, multiple, multiple, multiple people that were, quote, in the Epstein files. And what I think folks will see when they review the materials we released is that there have been hundreds of calls made to the FBI where allegations are made by either anonymous individuals or people who are very quickly determined to not be credible, whether it's the nature of what they're saying or the fact they won't provide any information or corroboration. And that's part of the Epstein files.

[00:02:29] Speaker 1: I do want to move on. Former CNN anchor Don Lemon and another journalist, Georgia Fort, were arrested on Friday on charges they violated federal law during a tense protest at a Minnesota church. A conservative federal judge, somebody who clerked for Antonin Scalia, already had rejected those warrants and wrote that there is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so. Then an appeals court held up that decision. Why did you then bring this case to a grand jury after it already had been rejected by multiple judges?

[00:03:03] Speaker 2: So, first of all, that appeals court, that's right. The appeals court, a judge on the appeals court said that there was clearly probable cause and there was absolutely probable cause that a crime had been committed. OK, so so it's true that they rejected the mandamus petition, but yes, by Mr. Lemon and others, it's public. And so, yes, you're right. A judge in that court had said there wasn't probable cause. But guess what? Our system doesn't allow judges to make that decision. They can make that decision to get an arrest warrant on a complaint. But only a grand jury can can bring forth an indictment. And so that's what we did. We went to a grand jury, which, as you know, are 25 citizens from Minneapolis and around that decide whether there's probable cause. And that's what turned an indictment.

[00:03:44] Speaker 1: Mr. Blanche, I want to go. Actually, I went through the entire indictment, all 29 alleged overt acts of conspiracy. And there was a lot to ask you about. But I'm just going to pick a few Starting with overt act number 20, which says, quote, Defendant Lemon told his live stream audience about congregants leaving the church and about a young man who Lemon could see was frightened, scared and crying. And Lemon observed that the congregants reactions were understandable because the experience was traumatic and uncomfortable, which he said was the purpose. Overt Act 21 says, quote, As the operation continued, Defendant Lemon acknowledged the nature of it by expressing surprise that the police hadn't yet arrived at the church and admitted knowing that the whole point of the operation was to disrupt. Why wouldn't a jury at trial see this as a journalist observing what is happening, which is protected by the First Amendment?

[00:04:43] Speaker 2: Well, you conveniently left out multiple allegations in that indictment about what else Mr. Lemon did, including surreptitiously avoiding saying where they were going, being part of the planning, being part of the decisions to make sure the police didn't know this was happening and federal law enforcement didn't know this is happening. There are multiple allegations there. And guess what? He gets to have a lawyer and he gets to have a defense. And so if he wants to go forward with the defense that, oh, shucks, I was just a journalist. He can do that. But but obviously, as the indictment lays out and what you didn't read on the air, there's a lot of things that Mr. Lemon did that you would never do as a journalist. You would never do that.

[00:05:20] Speaker 1: OK, let's be honest. This is not this is not about me. This is about what happened. And this is about kind of the rules of the road. I mean, there are many. But let me finish my question. Let me finish my question. And then and then you have the floor. There are I think there are countless examples of when reporters are embedded with people with, you know, D.O.D. where we are told not to tell anybody where we're going. There are numerous examples of when we get embargoed information that we can't report from your agency, for example. And that has happened on with presidents in both parties. And we withhold reporting it until you say it's time to report it. That's not unusual. And it's not unlike what happened with Don Lemon in Georgia for it.

[00:06:12] Speaker 2: Well, listen, I you are you are totally correct that that happens every day and it's happened for decades. But if you watch what Mr. Lemon did, OK, and I I do not want to have a trial right here. It's not fair to him. But I will say that he if you watch the publicly available live streaming that he engaged in, the comments that he made, I mean, that's what it matters, right? It matters. Like, how do we balance the FACE Act? How do we balance freedom of religion, the right of people to worship on a Sunday morning? OK. And the freedom of the press. And it's a it's a balance that we have to engage in. I agree with you. But my point to you is that I promise you that neither you nor your colleagues can honestly with a straight face. If you watch everything that he did in the day before with the planning and the day of with with what happened when the comments he made while the kids were crying and screaming and racing away while the parents were were looking for their children upstairs. But he doesn't have a while they were just trying to have a church service.

[00:07:08] Speaker 1: OK, bottom line question for you is, is this was this really about what you just described or was it about trying to make a an example out of somebody who the president has sparred with?

[00:07:24] Speaker 2: I don't even know that the president's even ever thought of Don Lemon. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I will tell you, we're not making examples of people. The day after that happened, the attorney general flew to Minneapolis. She was there for three days. What we saw, there is no scenario under which the American people are comfortable or think that that was right. I'm sorry. So, no, it's not an example. I want to move on.

[00:07:44] Speaker 1: I want to move on. But the White House on the official Twitter handle celebrated his arrest with the media and a chain emoji. And it's so it's pretty clear that they're very well aware in the White House of this. I want to ask about Georgia. No, I didn't say they weren't aware.

[00:08:00] Speaker 2: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold on one second. I didn't say they weren't aware. That was afterwards. You said that. No, no. You said you said that President Trump had some vendetta or something against Mr. Lemon. I said, I don't know whether he even ever thought of Mr. Lemon. I have no idea. He called him a sleazebag. A tweet that went out.

[00:08:15] Speaker 1: Just so you know, he called him a sleazebag just yesterday. After his arrest.

[00:08:18] Speaker 2: But after his arrest.

[00:08:20] Speaker 1: OK, just you said a lot of things before that. And it's mutual. But let me start. Let me move on to Georgia. Earlier this week, the FBI went into the elections office in Fulton County, Georgia, to seize 2020 ballots, voter rolls, scanner images. And the president told reporters, quote, They got into the votes. You're going to see some interesting things happening. What interesting things is he talking about? And why was he so involved in an FBI and DOJ raid?

[00:08:50] Speaker 2: Well, just because he said that doesn't mean that he's involved. I don't believe he was involved. This is a criminal grand jury investigation. And and I can't comment on it beyond what you just said, which is that that there was a search warrant that was authorized by a federal judge, by a magistrate judge in Atlanta that allowed us to go and seize those records. And they they have been seized by the FBI as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

[00:09:14] Speaker 1: He said interesting things are happening. So it sounds like he was briefed on it.

[00:09:21] Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know. I'm not around when the president's briefed or not briefed. What I've said is that this is a criminal investigation. So it's a tightly held, as it must be under the law. It's a grand jury investigation. And that's how we're proceeding.

[00:09:34] Speaker 1: What what are they investigating?

[00:09:39] Speaker 2: I as as you know, we can't talk about about specifics of any grand jury investigation. I will tell you, as I said on Friday, as the president is in the White House, as the president has said, election integrity is of the highest importance to the American people, hopefully to everybody in this country, Democrats and Republicans alike. And so we are doing everything we can to make sure that we have free and fair elections.

[00:10:00] Speaker 1: OK. And as you well know, that when it comes to Georgia claims of voter fraud there because they got the 2020 ballots have been debunked over and over again. There were multiple recounts. Why was the director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, present at a an FBI raid?

[00:10:20] Speaker 2: First of all, it wasn't an FBI raid. It was a search warrant being executed by by FBI agents in the middle of the day. Why was she? Why was she there? And secondly, I don't I secondly, I don't know why the director was there. She is not part of the grand jury investigation, but she is for sure a key part of our efforts at election integrity and making sure that we have free and fair elections. She's an expert in that space. And it's a big part of what she and her team look at every day. But beyond that, I don't like I said before, this is a grand jury investigation being conducted by a U.S. attorney. And that's that's where we have to leave it for now.