[0:00]And joining me now is Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch. Mr. Blanch, welcome to Meet the Press. >> Good morning. >> Thank you so much for being here. Let's
[0:11]dive right in. The Epstein Files Transparency Act called for all files with limited exceptions to be released within 30 days. On Friday, the Justice Department released just a fraction of
[0:23]the overall Epstein files. Why didn't the Justice Department meet that Friday deadline? Um good morning. So it's very simple and
[0:33]very and and very clear. The statute also requires us to protect victims and and so the reason why we are still reviewing documents and still continuing
[0:43]our process is simply that to protect victims. So the same individuals that are out there complaining about the lack of documents that were produced on Friday are the same individuals who
[0:55]apparently don't want us to protect victims. So, we're going through a very methodical process with hundreds of lawyers looking at every single document and making sure that that victim's names
[1:06]and any of their information from victims is protected and redacted, which is exactly what the Transparency Act expects. That's exactly what Attorney General Bondi expects. It's exactly what President Trump expects. So, that's what
[1:18]we're doing. >> Well, you're talking about protecting the victims. The law directed the Justice Department to quote, "release internal DOJ communications, including
[1:27]emails, memos, meeting notes concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or declined to investigate Epstein or his associates." That's the
[1:37]crux of what many of the victims or the survivors say they want to see. Why wasn't that information prioritized in the first release, Mr. Blanch?
[1:49]Well, first of all, it was and there are numerous documents released on Friday that address what you just um quoted from from the statute that address internal communications within the Department of Justice um and internal
[2:00]communications between law enforcement and the Department of Justice. But it's for the same reason because many of those internal communications talk about victims. Many of those internal back and forth between prosecutors and law
[2:12]enforcement talk about victims and their stories. And that has to be redacted. And by the way, everybody expects us to redact that. So the same complaints that we're hearing yesterday and even this
[2:23]morning from Democrats and from others screaming loudly from a hill about lack of production on Friday. Imagine if we had released tons of information around
[2:33]victims. That would be the true crime. That would be the true wrong. And if anybody out there, I I heard Congressman Rascin, um the the Democrats on the on the House Oversight Committee releasing
[2:44]statements accusing Attorney General Bondi, Director Patel, and myself of not doing our jobs. If they have an issue with me protecting victims, they know how to get a hold of me, but we're not going to stop doing it.
[2:55]>> Well, let's talk about the redactions, which you raised. The Epstein Files Transparency Act prohibits redactions, quote, on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political
[3:06]sensitivity. Has anything been redacted on that basis? >> Absolutely, positively not. And that's
[3:16]and that's another trend that that is just simply false. There were a number of photographs that were pulled down after being released on Friday. That's
[3:25]because a judge in New York has ordered us to listen to any victim or victim rights group if they have any concerns about the material that we're putting up. And so when we hear concerns,
[3:36]whether it's photographs of women that we do not believe are victims or we didn't have information to show that they were victims, but we learn that there are concerns, of course, we're taking that photograph down and we're
[3:47]going to address it. If we need to redact faces or other information, we will. And then we'll put it back up. So, we are in every way, shape, and form complying with the statute, which by the
[3:57]way is what President Trump has been asking us to do since before he was elected. There is nothing that he has to hide in the Epstein files. There never was. And even though there's repeated
[4:08]attempts by Democrats to paint him as being part of the Epstein saga, it's failing over and over again. And so you should not be surprised that the material that we released on Friday or the material that we're going to release
[4:19]over the next couple of weeks is exactly what the the the statute requires us to release, which is everything that we have um from this case with the
[4:28]exception of redacting personal information from victims and other um statutes, you know, privileges and things like that. Otherwise, everything's getting produced. >> Mr. Blanch, I want to follow up with you
[4:39]on what you just said. You were referencing the 15 files released Friday. They disappeared from DOJ's uh website uh yesterday. Uh including this
[4:49]photo of what looks like a desk with a drawer open containing photos of Donald Trump. Just to be very clear, to put a fine point on it. Why were these files taken down? You're saying it was at the
[5:01]direction of a judge. >> Well, you you can see in that photo there's photographs of women. And so we learned after releasing that photograph that there were concerns about those
[5:12]about th those women and the fact that we had put that photo up. So we pulled that photo down. It has nothing to do with President Trump. There are dozens of photos of President Trump already
[5:22]released to the public seeing him with Mr. Epstein. He has said that in the 90s and early 2000s he socialized with him. So, the absurdity of us pulling down a
[5:32]photo, a single photo, u because President Trump was in it is laughable. And the fact that everybody's trying to act like that's the case is a reflection of of their true motivation. But, but
[5:43]the reality is anybody, any victim, any victim's lawyers, any victim rights group can reach out to us and say, "Hey, Department of Justice, there's there's a document, there's a photo, there's
[5:53]something within the Epstein files that identifies me." and we will then of course pull that off and and investigate it. >> Are you saying that one or more of the women in one of the photos or or several
[6:05]of the photos is a victim or a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein and that's why you took the those files down and will they be put back up?
[6:16]>> No, that's not that's not what I'm saying. We of course if we knew that if we had uh if we believed that that photograph contained a a survivor um we wouldn't have have put it up in the first place without redacting the the
[6:28]faces. But notwithsting what we believe we don't have perfect information. And so when when we hear from victim's rights groups about this type of photograph, we pull it down and investigate. We're still investigating
[6:40]that photo. The photo will go back up. Um and the only question is whether there will be redactions on the photo. And of course, if there are survivors in in any of the photos, we will redact
[6:50]them um as Congress expects us to do, as President Trump expects us to do, and as the attorney general and director Patel have directed the department to do. >> Okay, let's delve more deeply into the
[7:01]redactions. Is any information about President Trump redacted in any of the files that have or will be released?
[7:12]>> No. Not unless it's supposed to be redacted under the law, which means victim information or any sort of privilege like attorney client privilege. But I have no reason to believe that the lawyers that were
[7:23]working on this case were talking [snorts] about President Trump because he had nothing to do with the Epstein files. He had nothing to do with the horrific crimes that Mr. Epstein committed. And so I don't expect there
[7:33]will be anything redacted. The short answer is we are not redacting information around President Trump, around any other individual involved with um with Mr. Epstein and and that
[7:44]narrative which is not based on fact at all is completely false. >> The White House has said that President Trump is included in the files. Can you
[7:54]guarantee that every mention and every photo of President Trump in the Epstein files will be released?
[8:03]>> Yes. Yes. I mean, I I've said it three, four times now. We've said it before and President Trump has said it repeatedly. Um, since before he was elected and since he was elected, all summer long,
[8:14]he said the same thing. I have nothing to hide. And so, of course, that's the case. But let me just make sure everybody understands something. To the extent that he is quote in the Epstein
[8:24]files, it's not because he had anything to do with the horrific crimes. Full stop. But yes, if if President Trump is mentioned, if there's photographs that we have of President Trump or anybody
[8:36]else, they of course will be released with the exception of any victims or survivors that we've identified, which of which we will either not release that photograph, if it's just a photograph of
[8:46]of a survivor, or if we do release the photograph because there's other individuals in the picture, the survivor's uh face or or in her entire body in some cases um will will be
[8:57]redacted. And we're talking about President Trump in in relation to this. For months, he urged Republicans to stop pushing for the files to be released. Uh he dismissed the Epstein files as a hoax. I want to play a little bit of
[9:08]what he has said about the Epstein files before he signed the law. Take a look. >> It's [clears throat] all been a big hoax. It's perpetrated by the Democrats and some stupid Republicans. >> I don't understand it why they would be
[9:20]so interested. He's dead for a long time. It's sorted, but it's boring. This is a Democrat hoax that never ends.
[9:30]>> Are the Epstein files a hoax, Mr. Blanch? >> Um, what President Trump is saying is not that the Epstein files are a hoax. It's this game that Democrats have been
[9:41]playing for the past nine months around the Epstein files. It is a complete and total hoax. >> Well, and some Republicans pushing for the release, too. Some of the Republicans were pushing for the release, too, >> just to be clear.
[9:53]>> Well, that's different. That's different. To be clear, releasing the files is not what President Trump has ever had an issue with. When he calls this a hoax, he's talking about the fact that there's this narrative out there
[10:05]that the Department of Justice is somehow hiding or protecting information about him, which is completely false as evidenced by the fact that the Epstein files existed for years and years and
[10:14]years. And you did not hear a peep out of a single Democrat for the past four years. And yet we're supposed to believe that lo and behold, out of all all of a sudden, out of the blue, Senator Schumer
[10:25]suddenly cares about the Epstein files. That's the hoax. And that's the hoax that that that has existed for months and months and months. This isn't about whether we would release or not release
[10:34]the Epstein files. As a general matter, we do not release the files of criminal investigations and prosecutions. There's laws around that. There's laws that protect um that protect victims, that
[10:46]protect the innocent. So, we're doing something here that is more transparent than we've done in any criminal investigation in the history of this country. Don't forget that.
[10:56]>> In November, President Trump directed the attorney general to investigate, speaking of investigations, high-profile Democrats with ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Is the Justice Department investigating
[11:07]only Democrats or everyone with a connection to Jeffrey Epstein? So Jay Clayton, the US attorney in the southern district of New York, which is
[11:18]the office that had the the most recent Epstein case, is investigating pursuant to um to the communication from President Trump. And by the way, this department will always investigate
[11:28]anybody and anything that we learn about sex trafficking or any victim of of of horrible sex crimes that that takes place. as as proof of that, the attorney
[11:38]general, the director of the FBI, we have charged and we are prosecuting more child predators >> just in the first 10 months of this administration than the entire four
[11:49]years of the Biden administration. So, this idea that that that there's some that we're protecting or doing something wrong when it comes to to protecting victims is not true. >> Well, in the directive, President Trump
[12:00]singled out former President Bill Clinton. Of course, a number of photos of President Clinton were released Friday. A Clinton spokesperson saying the White House hasn't been hiding these
[12:11]files for months only to dump them late on a Friday to protect Bill Clinton. This is about shielding themselves from what comes next or from what they'll try and hide forever. Let me ask you
[12:21]bluntly, is President Clinton under investigation? >> I I will never talk about ongoing criminal investigations, so I'm not going to answer that question. But but
[12:33]but let me address the the second part of the quote that you just gave us. Think about what how how patently absurd that position is. The idea that we have hundreds and hundreds of DOJ lawyers,
[12:44]these are not politicals. It's not me. It's not Attorney General Bondi looking at all of these files and determining whether they are responsive to the act. And we overcolcted, by the way. We went out to all of our components and we
[12:56]said, "Give us any document that you think in any way, shape, or form is connected to the Epstein case." And that's what we're going through. So the idea that we are hiding something or there's something that we have hidden
[13:07]under a rock around President Trump or other Republicans is not only false, but it's it's obviously false for anybody that's intelligent enough to think about what we're doing. >> Let me just put a fine point on this.
[13:18]Will the Justice Department bring any new charges against anyone based on the contents of these files?
[13:28]We we have continued to investigate anybody associated with Jeffrey Epstein for years and years. We we discussed this in our July memo and we continue.
[13:38]So So the answer is I don't know whether there'll be additional prosecutions based on the information that we had in July based upon the information that that I'm aware of now. We are not prepared to bring charges against
[13:50]anybody. But we are learning new information all the time. We learned the names of additional victims as recently as Wednesday of this week. Okay. So, so there's there's new names that we didn't
[14:00]have before that we ran across our database to understand whether they had ever met with law enforcement or ever talked to to the the FBI. And so, we're always investigating. And so, it would
[14:11]be um premature and and not fair for me to to unilaterally say yes or no to what future prosecutions there may be. >> Okay. Mr. Blanch, you talk about the
[14:21]reaction from Capitol Hill. Let me allow you to respond to some of it. Congressman Thomas Massie and Roana, the authors of the Epstein bill, say the partial release of files failed to
[14:31]comply with the law. They say they are considering looking into the possibility of impeachment proceedings contempt even criminal referrals for obstruction of
[14:41]justice for DOJ officials. Do you take these threats seriously? >> Not even a little bit. bring it on. We are doing everything we're supposed to
[14:52]be doing to comply with this statute. And and Congressman Massie and these other congressmen that are coming out speaking negatively about Director Patel and the attorney general have no idea
[15:03]what they're talking about. They know the work that we're going through. They know what we're doing to protect victims. I mean, just think about what we're doing. You're talking about a million or so pages of documents.
[15:14]Virtually all of them contain victim information. So listen, the idea that Attorney General Bondi would ever let a single piece of paper go out of this department that contains victim
[15:25]information is something they know we won't do. And the fact that they're threatening to impeach her for protecting victims is a reflection of where their head's at. It's not a
[15:35]reflection of this department. We are complying with the statute. We will continue to comply with the statute. And and if if if if by complying with the statute, we don't produce everything on
[15:45]Friday. we produce things next week and the week after. That's still compliance with the statute. There is well settled law as they should know that in a case like this where we're required to
[15:56]produce within a certain amount of time but also comply with other laws like redacting information that very much trumps redacting information very much trumps some deadline um in the statute.
[16:07]>> All right, couple more and we're almost out of time. I do want to ask you about Galileain Maxwell, who was of course convicted in 2021 for her role in helping Jeffrey Epstein traffic his
[16:18]victims. In July, you interviewed her in Florida, where she was serving a 20year sentence in federal prison. Just a week later, Maxwell was moved to a more
[16:27]permissive prison camp in Texas. Why was she moved just days after you interviewed her, Mr. Blanch?
[16:37]So that's a Bureau of Prison Security issue that that I will not talk about. >> Did you have anything to do with it? Did you have anything to do with it?
[16:48]>> Let me finish. First of all, I am responsible for the Bureau of Prisons. So every decision that they make um lands on my desk um to the extent it needs to. But just let let me let me
[16:58]talk about the security issue. At the time that I met Miss Maxwell, there was a tremendous amount of of scrutiny and publicity towards her and and the institution she was in, she was
[17:09]suffering numerous and numerous threats against her life. So the BOP is not only responsible for putting people in jail and making sure they stay in jail, but also for their safety. And so so she was
[17:20]moved, she is in federal prison. She was in federal prison before, she's in federal prison now. She's doing 20 years because she was convicted. and the fact that she was she was moved she might be moved to another institution tomorrow if
[17:32]security requires it and that's that's true of any federal inmate across this country >> but as you know survivors were outraged by all of this especially the fact that
[17:42]she was moved why talk to Galileain Maxwell and not the survivors Mr. Blanch, >> what you just said is completely false.
[17:52]We will talk to any survivor at any time, which is something that we have talked to them from day one. >> But have you talked to them? >> Of course, the attorney Yes, the attorney they first of all, they have to
[18:04]want to speak with us. The attorney general and I spoke with a victim's rights group as recently as Thursday. Okay. And if if folks want to talk to us next week or the week after or in the coming months, they know how to get a
[18:14]hold of us. And we will always talk to survivors and victim's families. But ju but just backing up to your question about Ms. Maxwell, nobody ever talked to her. Nobody ever asked her questions
[18:25]about what she knew. So when she said that she had something she wanted to say, notwithstanding the fact she had been convicted, um, of course we went and talked to her. Imagine if we didn't talk to her. Imagine if she had said, "I
[18:36]want I have a story to tell and I would like to talk to the government." And I said, "No." The same outrage would be directed at this department for not speaking with her. So, so we're we're trying to do our job here and we are
[18:48]doing our job here. But, but any victim that wants to talk to the FBI, that wants to talk to the Department of Justice, they can call us anytime. >> [snorts] >> Let me ask you, President Trump in
[18:58]September urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Leticia James, and Senator Adam Schiff, saying in a social media post that was
[19:10]supposed to be private, quote, "They're all guilty as hell." Comey was indicted 5 days later. Does President Trump speak to you or to the attorney general
[19:21]directly about individual criminal cases and investigations, Mr. Blanch, >> I will never talk about the communications I have with President Trump and I don't expect attorney John
[19:31]Bondi will either. However, when it comes to the prosecutions that this department is is undertaking, um, we are following the facts and the law. Period. And so with the case of of of of James
[19:43]Comey and he was indicted, the case was was then dismissed by a judge because of a appointments issue. We we were already investigating which was which was very much available to the public at the time
[19:54]that President Trump sent that that that note. And so the fact that we continue to investigate and ultimately he was indicted is not a reflection of what President Trump put in that truth. It's
[20:04]a reflection of of the work that we're doing and have been doing long before September. >> Just very quickly, career prosecutor Eric Sebert was fired after refusing to
[20:14]prosecute these cases against James Comey. He was replaced by Lindseay Halligan, of course, the president's former personal lawyer who doesn't have prosecutorial experience, uh, who was found to be unconstitutionally
[20:26]appointed. And the cases were thrown out, as you say. To be clear, is the Justice Department taking directions about who to prosecute from President
[20:35]Trump? >> No, of course we're not. And also, Mr. Sbert wasn't fired because he refused to bring cases. He resigned. Okay. And so
[20:46]and and this narrative out there that somehow he it was because of James Comey. It was because of Leticia James. No, that's not true at all. And and Miss Hallagan went in there and did a great job. She's still doing a great job as as
[20:58]our US attorney in the EDVA. And you had a local judge um rule that that she was not validly appointed. We filed an appeal in that case. I expect that that eventually when appellet courts looks at
[21:08]this issue, we'll we'll win that issue. >> All right. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch, thank you so much for being here today. We really appreciate it. >> Thank you. Thank you very much.
[21:19]>> We thank you for watching and remember, stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app or watch live on our YouTube channel.