Katie Phang's lawsuit over DOJ's handling of the Epstein files could be another opportunity for Todd Blanche to show his loyalty to Donald Trump, but Judge Emmet Sullivan doesn't seem inclined to let that happen

(CNN International, Facebook)

Federal judges in the District of Columbia reportedly have been reluctant over the years to hold lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in contempt of court. But the judge overseeing a lawsuit about the DOJ's alleged failure to turn over documents from the Epstein files made it clear at a status hearing yesterday he had no such qualms. In fact, Judge Emmet Sullivan made a special point of noting he has held government lawyers in contempt before.

The warning that he was ready and willing to hold Attorney General (AG) Todd Blanche and his department in contempt probably was the No. 1 takeaway from a case that might hold the key to powerful individuals, possibly including President Donald Trump, being identified as alleged conspirators with the late convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Trump has not formally been designated a co-conspirator in the matter, but U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) raised his name in documents released last December while demanding answers about possible co-conspirators who have been investigated and accusing members of the Trump administration -- including former Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel -- of "hiding" information in the case.

A key question that emerged from yesterday's hearing: Is Todd Blanche now engaged in a similar effort to keep Epstein-files documents under wraps? It was hard to reach an answer on that because Blanche did no attend the hearing -- and that itself could be seen as a stalling tactic. But Judge Sullivan gave the distinct impression that he is serious about holding Blanche and the DOJ to their obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), which Congress passed and Trump signed into law last November.  A jointly published article at NBC News and Yahoo! shines a spotlight on key moments from the status hearing under the headline "Judge shows signs of frustration with DOJ attorneys over handling of Epstein files." Ryan J. Reilly reports:

A federal judge overseeing a case focused on the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files pressed government attorneys Thursday about their compliance with his court orders and warned that he has held lawyers in contempt before.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, a 41-year veteran of the bench, convened the hearing seeking answers about whether the Trump administration had complied with his previous orders in the case, including one about the need for the Justice Department to publish justifications for the numerous redactions in the released Epstein files.

Justice Department official Andrew Block told Sullivan he was not in a position to commit to a time frame, saying that it was out of his control and that information would be "forthcoming."

"Christmas is forthcoming," Sullivan quipped. 

Handling the high-profile case clearly has not caused Judge Sullivan to lose his sense of humor. But his tone during the hearing could not be described as "light-hearted" either. Reilly writes:

Sullivan called his orders "straightforward" and said he was willing to work with the government to obtain compliance.

"You want me to issue another order and say, 'I really mean it this time'?" Sullivan said at one point.

Of all the courtroom matters the Epstein files have produced, history might ultimately hold that the one currently before Sullivan was the most important of all, as Reilly explains:

The case stems from a lawsuit journalist Katie Phang filed against Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, arguing that the Justice Department had failed to comply in full with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law last year. The suit alleges the government failed to make some key redactions, inappropriately redacted other information and improperly withheld documents that referred to President Donald Trump.

The Justice Department had argued that Phang lacked standing to bring the case, and it has said it is "absurd" to claim the Justice Department violated Sullivan's order in June requiring more information surrounding specific redacted files.

Former Attorney General Pam Bondi, who led the Justice Department when millions of Epstein files were made public, told lawmakers after Trump fired her that "redaction errors" occurred during the records' release. 

Perhaps concerned that the DOJ's Block and others in attendance might not have been intimately familiar with his background, Judge Sullivan made a special effort to fill them in. Reilly writes:

At Thursday's hearing, Sullivan embarked on a history lesson about a previous case before him in which the Justice Department withheld exculpatory evidence: the prosecution of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, whose conviction the Justice Department moved to reverse in 2009 not long before Stevens died in a plane crash. Sullivan recalled that he held government attorneys in contempt for withholding information and that an appeals court upheld his decision.

Sullivan said it was important for attorneys to know he was a judge willing to "enforce legitimate judicial orders" with the means available to him. 

"I'm not in a habit of blindsiding people," he said.

He added that he had "absolutely no desire to go down that road again" but wanted to make sure the attorneys were aware that it has happened before. 

Will Todd Blanche go "Gulp!" when he reads that in the hearing transcript? Maybe, but it remains unclear just how far Blanche is willing to go to keep information about Trump (and possibly some of his billionaire allies) away from the prying eyes of the public. Evidence so far suggests he is willing to go pretty darned far. From the NBC/Yahoo report:

Attorney Brendan Ballou, who is representing Phang, said in a statement after the hearing that Blanche had "failed to follow the law."

"He has failed to produce its redaction log. He has failed to begin producing foreign language documents. He has failed to produce notes concerning Donald Trump," Ballou said. "The Justice Department's strategy here is endless delay, and we're glad that the Court appears to recognize this. Our next step is to file a proposed order for how to handle the Attorney General's noncompliance, which we plan to do shortly."

The hearing took place shortly after Blanche, who was recently confirmed as attorney general, addressed Justice Department employees at headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue.

"We will always respect the role of the judiciary. We will not engage in or stand for any sort of performative attacks that undermine the institutions that we are sworn to uphold," he said. "At the same time, we're not going to be intimidated."

Was Blanche suggesting that a judge taking proper steps to ensure compliance with the EFTA is an act of intimidation? It certainly could be taken that way, and that likely will not sit well with members of the D.C. Judiciary, including Sullivan.

A number of observers have noted that Blanche seems intent on turning the DOJ into Donald Ttump's personal law firm -- that Blanche's No. 1 priority is to do anything Trump tells him to do -- the hell with the department's history of acting independently of the White House. 

The Katie Phang matter almost certainly is the most important court case in the United States at the moment -- and it likely will come down to a battle of wills between Todd Blanche and Emmet Sullivan. If our republic is to survive the horror show of Donald Trump's second term, it is imperative that Todd Blanche come out on the short end of that battle of wills.