“I will hold you in contempt!” Judge drops Epstein BOMB on Trump

Today's the day we've been waiting for. because today is the hearing where the. Trump administration was in court trying. to explain away why they did why they. didn't comply with the judge's order to. release the full Epstein files. I'm. joined now by Glenn. Glenn, you were in. the courtroom today in Judge Sullivan's. courtroom. Can you explain what happened. in court today? >> Yeah, let me not bury the lead, Brian. I'm glad I was in the courtroom because. I watched Judge Sullivan's frustration. rise. His voice never did, but boy did. his frustration rise. And here is the. money line.

After lecturing the Department of. Justice attorneys for 20 minutes on. contempt of court, he said, and he said. it twice, "I will hold you in contempt of court if. I have to, and that's not a threat. It's. a promise." So, you know, things got. real in a hurry. Now, Brian, I know our. viewers are probably already saying, "Well, it's wonderful that he is. threatening, or more accurately. promising, to hold them in contempt, but. what, you know, what results did it.

produce today?" So, let me back up and. talk about what happened in court today. And it was a long hearing. It lasted. about an hour and 40 minutes with a. short break. So, first of all, Judge. Sullivan had ordered Todd Blanche and. the Department of Justice to provide him. certain documents. Why? Because he would. not take their oral representations. for anything. He said, "Show me your. work. I want the documents that back up. what you're trying to claim." So, for. example,

you know, we know that DOJ made a whole. bunch of really strange redactions in. the Epstein files before releasing some. of them. It didn't seem like they were. necessarily victims' names that were. being redacted out. So, the judge said, "I don't care what you tell me. You show. me the supporting evidence, the. documents unredacted that prove to me. that what you redacted were legitimately. victims' names." Now, remember, Todd. Blanche was playing fast and loose. because he said, "Well, they're victims'.

names or they are people whose attorneys. asked us to redact out their names. claiming that in some way they were. victims." So, listen, the judge is. having none of Todd Blanche's oral. representations. Why? Because the. presumption of regularity is gone. In. other words, courts and federal judges. no longer are willing to credit things. federal prosecutors say. They want the. hard evidence supporting these. assertions. So, it was really.

interesting because that was the first. category of things that the judge took. up in this hearing. The unredacted. documents to prove you only redacted out. victims' names. So, after hemming and. hawing and hawing and hemming, there was. a lot of hemming and hawing that went on. from this guy named Andrew Block who I. think has been at the Department of. Justice for about a cup of coffee now, and they sent him in. And this is really. horrific, Brian. They sent him in to be. the willfully ignorant dupe because as.

Judge Sullivan went through and asked. him question after question after. question, questions that any competent. government DOJ lawyer should have been. able to answer and would have done his. homework to be prepared to answer it, he. kept saying, "Judge, I don't know. I. don't have that information. I don't. know. That's not available to me." And. the judge said, "Wait a minute. You knew. exactly what you were going to have to. tell me today because I issued an order. telling you what I wanted to know, and.

you're telling me you have no idea. Can. you get somebody on the phone at the. Department of Justice who can answer. these questions?" Again, his voice. didn't rise, Judge Sullivan, but his. frustration level did. So, finally, at. the end of the hemming and hawing, this. was unbelievable because Andrew Block. held out as long as he could, and then. when he saw the tide had completely. turned against him, he says, "Judge, I. have a binder here full of some of the. documents regarding these redactions of.

victims' names. Can I hand them up to. the court?" You know, to which I'm. saying to myself and the audience, "Why. didn't you open with that, sport?" So, that was like his last attempt to kind. of deflect and stave off a contempt. ruling. So, he handed them up to the. judge. The judge said, "Well, thank you. for providing this. I will look at it. and take it under advisement." They then. moved on to the second category. This is. going to take me a minute to lay out. because the second category is really. the danger zone for Donald Trump. The.

second category of documents that Judge. Sullivan ordered them to produce and. they failed to produce were the. handwritten notes, some 30 or 40 pages. of handwritten notes. uh documenting uh interviews by a. 13-year-old victim alleging that Donald. Trump sexually assaulted her and. physically assaulted her, battered her, punched her. And all they did was turn. over a typewritten summary, what's. called an FBI 302 report. He said, "I. want to see the handwritten notes cuz.

there's a ton more information in there. than they had than the typed-up summary. that you ultimately disclosed and you. have failed to provide it in violation. of my court order.". And the judge started asking Andrew. Block questions. "How many pages of. typewritten notes?" Uh "I don't know.". "What are you having problems redacting. out of the handwritten notes?" Uh "Your. Honor, I don't know." You know, and the. judge was having none of it. So, the. judge ultimately turned to the. plaintiffs' counsel, Katie Fang and her.

attorneys, and said, "I'm inviting you. to submit an order with respect to these. handwritten notes from the victim. And. we don't know what that proposed order. is going to be. I hope, Brian, it is a. proposed order for the judge to sign. that says, 'You will be in my chambers. Friday close of business with the. handwritten notes or else contempt is. coming your way." But, we have to see. because he didn't go that far. So, Brian, the third category, and there's a. lot to unpack here. The judge said,

"Listen, the Epstein Files Transparency. Act, the federal law, clearly states. that for any redaction you make, you. must uh that that redaction must be. {quote} accompanied by justification. that you publish in the Federal. Register, a publicly available register. for all to see, and you haven't done it. not once. For all the thousands of. redactions that appear in the documents.

that you did deign to disclose." They. actually said, "Well, but judge, the um. the Epstein Files Transparency Act. doesn't set a deadline." Well, the. language is if you redact something and. disclose it, it must be {quote}. accompanied by a justification in the. Federal Register. Tells me that those. things are supposed to happen at the. same time. Kind of what accompanied by. means to the layperson. And so, it. >> by the way, that that deadline was. December 19th, 2025.

>> It was. And and this this is one of the. lighter moments, and I'm going to look. down at my dozen or so pages of copious. notes. So, the judge pressed Andrew. Block over and over again saying, "How much time do you need? What would. you like me to set by way of a deadline? Do you need a week? Do you need 30 days? Do you need 60 days? How" And he. wouldn't answer the question. Not I. don't know, judge. I don't know. I don't. know. He finally said that, "Well, I am. told by some of my superiors at the. Department of Justice that they're.

working on it, and that, you know, these. um these justifications. that need to be published in the Federal. Register are {quote} forthcoming." And. Judge Sullivan snapped back. Yeah, Christmas is forthcoming. That doesn't. tell me anything. You can again, my. voice is rising cuz I get agitated at. the injustice of this all but but Judge. Emmet Sullivan's voice did not rise but. his frustration level did. So basically.

the judge is probably going to set a. hard and fast deadline and then Brian. the fourth and final category is foreign. documents. There are foreign language. documents in the FC files that by law. must be translated into English and this. DOJ attorney actually said, well, it. just wasn't all that practical for the. people reviewing these documents to. translate them into English and I think. by this time the judge was just fed up. He took a break. He said, I'm going to. go back to chambers and I'm going to.

kind of ruminate on some of this and. then I'll be back out to talk some more. When he came back out Brian, it was. story time. What he did was he said, I presided over. a case against the United States. Senator, Senator Ted Stevens. Some of. our viewers may remember that. prosecution of I believe the longest. serving Senator at the time, Ted Stevens. from Alaska who was prosecuted for. failing to disclose, you know, financial. benefits he was being given. And he said, you know what the.

prosecutors did in that case? And he was. clearly sending a message to the. prosecutors sitting in the courtroom. They failed to turn over some 33 or 34. exculpatory documents, documents that. could have been helpful to Ted Stevens. defense. They violated the Constitution. by failing to turn over those helpful. documents, that exculpatory. evidence which the Constitution requires. prosecutors to hand over to the defense. so they can use it to defend themselves. against the charges. He said, and they.

refused and they defied me and you know. what I did? I walked into court one day. and I said I'm holding you all in. contempt, period. And you know what? After I held them in contempt, the next. day they produced the documents to the. defense. This is the I will hold you in contempt. and that's not a threat, it's a promise. He kept saying I don't want to do it, but I will. So, that is the way he left it. It was.

kind of an ominous way to conclude the. hearing. He actually said, "I don't need. you to say anything in response. I just. don't want anybody to say they were. blindsided if contempt comes your way. because you're my words playing these. games and you can't even answer straight. factual questions that you knew I would. ask in today's hearing." And with that, he concluded the hearing and he walked. off the bench. >> So, what does contempt look like if. that's the avenue that's ultimately.

followed here? >> Civil contempt, which is what he was. talking about. He wasn't talking about. criminal contempt. Those are two. different things. I can touch on both of. them. He expressly was talking about. civil contempt. Civil contempt is. designed not to punish the person who is. in contempt, who's defied defied orders. It is designed to compel compliance with. the orders. So, civil contempt can look. like imposing a thousand-dollar-a-day. fine personally on the government.

lawyers. They might be reimbursed, but. let's set that aside until they purge. the contempt by complying with the. order. And that was the story he told. about the Ted Stevens case. He finally. held them in civil contempt and the next. day they complied with the order and he. vacated the contempt finding. But you. know what? He also made clear, Brian, that he is on what's called the Judicial. Tenure Committee and has been for 21. years. He's been on the federal bench. for 41 and a half years. I've appeared. before Judge Sullivan. You don't try his.

patience and you don't, you know, you. don't think you can talk your way out of. anything in front of Judge Sullivan. So, he was talking expressly about civil. contempt as a way to force, to compel. these lawyers to provide the damn. documents. In fact, at one point, he. actually said the American people want. to know what the hell is going on. That. is a quote. So, um that is what he is. contemplating, civil contempt to force.

compliance. However, the next step, if. you violate civil contempt and you're. still not in compliance with the order, then you can be punished with criminal. contempt. Now, mind you, that's a whole. different process. You can A judge can. summarily hold somebody in civil. contempt literally with a bang of his or. her gavel, but criminal contempt. requires sort of a mini trial to be. held. A very abbreviated trial, but the. person who might be found guilty of.

criminal contempt, a crime, has those. wonderful rights that we've heard so. much about in, for example, the Abrego. Garcia case, notice and opportunity to be heard. So, they can mount a mini defense before the. judge decides if they are in criminal. contempt. And if they're in criminal. contempt, they can be jailed. So, you. know, there are different ways to compel. compliance. There are different ways to. punish people who are defying court. orders, but right now, as of right now, the judge is starting by not. threatening, but promising civil.

contempt. >> Now, contempt aside, based on your. vantage, because you were in the. courtroom today, does it feel like Judge. uh Sullivan is ensuring that we're. actually going to get some some uh. transparency on the Epstein files now? I. mean, it almost feels like a joke at. this point, because these things were. supposed to be released 9 months ago. Todd Blanche obviously has zero. intention of of releasing them. And, as. you mentioned, when when when Judge. Sullivan was asking how much time they. would need and the the flunky who was.

sent in from the DOJ wouldn't even give. a straight answer, it's not because he. didn't know, it's because they have no. intention of releasing these things. They didn't even do the accompanying. disclosure reports. And so, there was. never any intention of releasing the. Epstein files. So, they don't need 30 days or 60 days. They don't need any amount of days. because they don't want to release them. But, does it feel like Judge Sullivan is. going to ensure that they actually do. comply with the law or is there some way. from your vantage that they'll still try. to circumvent this stuff?

>> Yeah, it's a great question, Brian. This. feels like gamesmanship, which is. probably the nicest thing I can call it. by the Department of Justice. I agree. with you that and actually Katie Fang's. lawyers lawyers for the plaintiff stood. up and said, "We don't believe they have. any intent of complying with your. honor's orders." And so, it it feels. like it's a game being played. A couple. of things I'll say about whether we're. going to see full full transparency. One, I do think that this suit has only. been up and running for a a couple or a.

few months now, which I know sounds like. a long time, but in the life of civil. litigation in federal court, it's really. not. So, what Judge Sullivan kept saying. is, "I don't want to know what's in. these files for my own benefit. I am. here to make sure you comply with the. federal law and that the American people. and journalists like Katie Fang get. access to what the law provides they. should get access to." So, I think we're. probably going to begin to see some.

transparency with respect to whatever it. is these DOJ lawyers did deliver today, and I think very soon will be ordered to. deliver or be held in contempt for. failing to deliver. But, you know, that's just obviously a small subset of. the Epstein files. What I do think we're. moving in the direction of, albeit far. too slowly for my taste, your taste, and. the taste of the American people who. have been waiting since December 19th. for full transparency. I think.

eventually, Katie Fang asked the judge. to say, "Judge, you're going to have to appoint a. special master to review all of the. Epstein files because DOJ is playing. games and they can't be trusted. So, I. you know, listen, Judge Sullivan. understands that in in part he has to. give them enough rope to hang themselves. with, figuratively speaking, and that's. what he's trying to do by, among other. things, slow walking them in the. direction of criminal contempt, giving. them every opportunity to fully comply.

with his court orders. Do I think we're. going to see full transparency? Probably. not during the lifetime of the tenure of. Todd Blanche heading up the Department. of Justice because he is still acting as. Donald Trump's criminal defense. attorneys and he is there solely to. protect. Donald Trump's interest. I think the. most telling point, Brian, is the most. pitched battle is being fought over not. disclosing 30 or 40 pages of handwritten.

notes taken by FBI agents of four. interviews of a 13-year-old who alleged. Donald Trump sexually and physically. assaulted her. That should tell us. everything we need to know. And mind. you, there is no legitimate exception to. turning those over and Judge Sullivan. threw that right back at these DOJ. lawyers cuz all they could come up with. was, "Well, Judge, those notes are kind. of duplicative. of the typed-up reports and they're.

substantially verbatim." And the judge. said, "Yeah, and you know what? The Epstein Files Transparency Act does. not have an exception for duplicative or. substantially verbatim documents, so you. need to turn the handwritten notes over. first to me and then I suspect he will. disclose what he believes must be. disclosed in accordance with the federal. law. >> Well, obviously a lot to say on top of. here and more to come on this topic in. particular. So for those who are. watching, if you want to stay on top of.

this news, uh the best way to do that is. to subscribe to both of our channels. I'm going to put those links right here. on the screen and also in the post. description of this video. I'm Brian. Tyler Cohen. >> And I'm Glenn Kirschner. >> You're watching the Legal Breakdown. >> [music].