SPLC Replies to DOJ's Opposition to Disclosure of Grand Jury Transcripts

Ajouté : 2026-05-16

[00:00:01]Hey folks, how you doing? We have new filings in United States v SPLC. I have some coffee left in my thermos and I have a bit of time before I round up my kids and start doing house chores and making dinner and some other things. So, let's read these documents. It's a reply to uh it's it's the Southern Poverty Law Center's reply uh to the US's motion.

[00:00:29]Well, actually, let me start that over.

[00:00:31]So, you guys probably remember that a few days ago, if you're following this case with me, then you know that a few days ago, the S um the SPLC filed for one, a motion to to uh get grand jury transcripts. One, which is a pretty serious thing. And then two, a motion for the judge to order the DOJ to stop making prejuditial statements and to correct the alleged false statements that they had made the media.

[00:00:58]specifically that Todd Blanch had gone on an interview with Fox News, I believe it was, and had said some things that the SPLC said were false. So that we read that filing and then the US got their response. DOJ filed their responses to it and they said, "Hey, we didn't say anything wrong. Here's the full quote of what Todd Blanch said."

[00:01:18]And there haven't been any prejuditial statements made by Just Justice Department officials. So there doesn't need to be an order restricting our speech or an order telling us to correct the record when the record is already correct.

[00:01:30]And then they replied uh on to the more serious thing which is the uh disclosure of grand jury transcripts and possibly materials. Uh SPLC said they wanted either all the grand jury materials disclosed or they wanted at least the transcript from the instructions that were given by the prosecutor.

[00:01:50]uh because the grand jury may not have been informed that the SPLC regularly works with informants and communicates what those informants find to the jud find uh through their employment with SPLC as an undercover operator and informant. They then communicate that to law enforcement and they gave some examples of when the SPLC has done that and law enforcement has used their information to then make arrest. Um the thing is though that none of those examples had anything to do with the conduct that they're charged over here in this case.

[00:02:26]So we've gone through those two things.

[00:02:28]So the SPLC's motions two motions and then the US's um responses to those motions and which were their opposition to them. And now the SPLC has come back and they have a right of reply. Okay. So now they have a reply to the response that the DOJ gave. DOJ will get to reply if they want to to this and then the judge is going to have his say. All right. Now I got all that out. I hope that makes sense. It's kind of that's the back and forth play. We have two things we're dealing with here. Two subject matters. One is statements by DOJ officials, namely Todd Blanch about issues in this case and conduct of the SPLC and its informance and its relationship with law enforcement. And then the other thing is disclosure of grand jury materials. So it's important to keep those two things. There's two separate motions here. I'm going to deal with first the extrajudicial prejuditial statements and that is what it is. F stop the government prohibit judge. We want an order prohibiting DOJ from making any further prejuditial extrajudicial statements. So the prejuditial part is that he's saying things that make the SPLC look bad.

[00:03:44]Things that a a potential jury member might hear DOJ say on the news in an interview and an ex post or a true social post or whatever and that would prejudice unfairly a prospective juror.

[00:03:59]Extrajudicial means it's being said out of court. It's being said out of trial, out of a court hearing, out of documents that are filed on the docket, right? So, it's when he goes on Fox News media and the response that DOJ initially gave to this made a heck of a lot of sense. And after we read those on the last episode, which by the way, if you're just catching up with this, it's your first time here, welcome. I typically always have myself barely together and kind of stumble around at first and then we get flowing.

[00:04:31]The caffeine gets gets in my bloodstream and we read the documents and and chat about them. Uh I have playlist of all the cases I cover including United States v Southern Poverty Law Center where I have gone through the indictment. I've gone through the request for the grand jury transcripts and I've gone through the motions uh or the reply that DOJ had. And so now we're picking back up where with the with the next round of filings on this and I have that on Rumble and on YouTube these this is the main thing happening in this case right now is this argument SPLC is try I think the the stuff about trying to restrict DOJ statements and correct false statements. I think that's about narrative. I think that's about them trying to control the public narrative about uh their operation because this is damaging their donors.

[00:05:25]This is this is going to hurt the SPLC in the pock in their pocketbook very much so. And uh they're trying to g regain narrative control. That's what this is about. The disclosure of grand jury transcripts is very much about trying to undercut the the indictment here.

[00:05:46]trying to find something where they can build an argument that says there shouldn't have been an indictment here because there was something improper done before the grand jury. Grand jury was erroneously instructed on the law or the grand jury was not informed of all the things that they needed to be informed of. something along those lines that would allow the SPLC to file a motion to dismiss based on something or some things that occurred before the grand jury and that could cause this case to get dismissed and that would help that would also help them regain some narrative control of course, but it's a defense of their client. So, don't mistake this even if um you think this is junk or this is uh I don't know I don't know what to characterize it as. This is this is uh I don't want to call it good lawyering or something. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a document nerd. But this is something I this is something that gets at the defense of their client. It makes sense for them to go for this. So, in that respect, I I completely understand what they're do what they're doing. Well, not maybe I shouldn't say completely because I'm not a lawyer, but I do understand as far as I can uh what they're doing here. And it it yeah it just it just makes sense to me what they're doing here. This is their reply having to do with the statements that Todd Blanch has made to media. Southern Poverty Law Center appreciates the government's admission that acting attorney general Todd Blanch made a false statement during his appearance on the Ingram angle. Of course, they didn't admit that. This is them putting some attitude in their filing. This admission makes painfully clear that the government knew at the time of the indictment that the SPLC provided information about its confidential informance program to law enforcement.

[00:07:36]However, the SPLC respectfully disagrees with the government's suggestion that Mr. Blanch's later statement on a different program cures the substantial prejudice caused by the false statement or obviates the need for an order prohibiting such statements in the future. The government first claims that Mr. Blanch has sufficiently clarified his original statement. That's not so.

[00:08:00]The Ingram angle, where he made the first false statement, is a weekn night program that reaches 2.9 million viewers. Mr. Blanch's appearance took place within a couple of hours of the government's press conference announcing the indictment. when interest in the case was naturally high. As noticed or sorry, as noted in the SPLC's motion, DOJ amplified this false statement by posting clips of Mr. Blanch's appearance on its social media platforms.

[00:08:29]Mr. Blanch made the clarification on Fox News Sunday with Shannon Bream 5 days later. This is a Sunday morning program with only 1.1 million viewers. Mr. Blanch's statement to a much smaller audience watching an entirely different show does not rectify the material prejudice of his initial false statement. Mr. Blanch did not explicitly refer to or correct the first false statement in that appearance and DOJ has neither remove the false statement from its exac account nor appended the clarification to the original post to ensure viewers are not misled. And I think maybe it's worth remind refreshing for for my sake and y'alls what uh what exactly he said. Okay. So it looks like there's three going through the previous filing and then also the clarification.

[00:09:21]It looks like there's three actually let me start again.

[00:09:26]It looks like there's three statements by DOJ officials that SPLC is drawing the court's attention to and are saying these are false statements that are prejuditial to our client. And I'm going to call it the first one because I think chron chronologically it happened first and that's at the press conference that DOJ put on. It is they say at the 41 about the 41 minute mark is when some false statements are made. I'm going to go to right here at about 40 minutes in and we're going to listen to this press conference a bit so we can hear some of those what they say are prejuditial statements >> much uh associated by uh you know the media with being sort of like u you know part of a right-wing kind of thing. You know they're like good people on both sides type of thing. I mean, is this are we seeing a uh sort of the Southern Poverty Law Center was trying to create narratives uh using these types of groups to uh you know, shape American public opinion?

[00:10:27]>> That's a really good question. I don't think I don't know that that's going to lead us to I think this first question is not an issue uh by the way, but that's a good question.

[00:10:37]>> Look, I think what what the Southern Poverty Law Center has has said over the years is available to the for the world to see. It's on their website. it's in other forms. Um, the indictment speaks for itself. I'm not going to talk outside the four corners of the indictment. It lays out what the what the grand jury found and and and obviously there's a whole body of public information around what the S Southern Poverty Law Center has done over the past uh uh you know, several decades.

[00:11:04]>> I mean, in some of these instances, these are groups that have been either their membership has been dismantled or they've definitely fallen out of public view. I'm just wondering the legal theory of how, you know, these payments allegedly went on to actually benefit the groups. Did you see the money go to the groups themselves rather than just the individuals who were paid informants essentially? And then I have an off topic after.

[00:11:25]>> So the the look, I I want to be careful to keep any comments that that we make um inside the indictment. And so what the indictment lays out is is uh payments to individuals who had leadership positions within these organizations. Um if if that's what the grand jury found. And so to the extent that that those individuals receiving one received over a million dollars, okay, to the extent over over several years, to the extent that that there's any link between that individual receiving the money and benefits to that organization, uh that's not in the indictment. But the the because again it's not that that individual who's charged with a crime. It's that individual was a informant or or what have you. Um and and it's Southern Poverty Law Center that made those payments to the individual. But it wasn't the you know look the payments were not made to these individuals um in exchange for a service separate and apart from their um work within these organizations. So you know that's that's I think speaks for itself.

[00:12:28]Just on an off topic, >> I think that's the part that they're taking issue with >> and and it's Southern Poverty Law Center that made those payments to the individual, but it wasn't, you know, look, the payments were not made to these individuals um in exchange for a service separate and apart from their um work within these organizations. So, you know that.

[00:12:51]>> So, the SPLC is arguing it was made separate and apart and it was supposed to be they're doing they were being informants for the SPLC and they was they were feeding them information that the SPLC would then turn over to law enforcement and so that they could then help combat these violent extremist groups. Right? So, that's one of the statements that they want corrected. The other one is from the Ingram angle which the I think the whole interview is right here. It's over nine minutes long. We're not going to watch it, but it is on the Fox website, and they do link it in their motion. Their first one right here, and it's also right here on the Department of Justice's the clip is on the Department of Justice website or X X page. So, we're going to listen to this one. It's 2 minutes and 31 seconds long.

[00:13:41]And within this, it's going to be comments, I believe, that the SPLC say is false. And they want the judge to order Todd Blanch to correct his statements here. And he want they want the judge to prohibit him from fur making any further statements about the case.

[00:14:00]And I should probably unmute it.

[00:14:02]>> They get away with this for so long.

[00:14:04]>> I mean, it's a great question. I said today during the press conference, >> if you didn't catch it, Laura Ingram asked, "How did they get away with this for so long?"

[00:14:12]>> Said, "We know that this investigation was open during the Biden administration and then mysteriously closed. I really don't have any information about why it was closed and then we started again last year. The FBI did working with the US attorney in Alabama.

[00:14:25]>> By the way, it could be I when he says he doesn't have any information about why it was closed. I kind of half believe that.

[00:14:37]Um, not saying that he's being dishonest, but I think he's saying that because he doesn't have the full picture of why it was closed cuz it I take that to mean it didn't go over to DOJ.

[00:14:50]So, the FBI would be who you would ask as to why it was closed cuz maybe it was an FBI decision to pause that investigation or close it or maybe they they weren't able to develop it very well. Um, maybe it got started and then it just kind of left in a drawer. I don't know. But I I think he's I think it's honest enough him saying that. But I'm pretty sure he's pro it's probably been communicated to him a few sentences about why it didn't go anywhere under Biden administration.

[00:15:28]That's just a side comment for me and it's speculation. It's just my speculation >> and it's extraordinarily egregious. You just talked about it, but imagine a donor to the SPLC if they were told, "By the way, we're going to give the money you're giving us to the Klux Clan."

[00:15:44]Okay? Like in some cases over a million dollars. I mean, it's incredible. Now, they say they're no longer using these informants in this way and that it was necessary because they had all sorts of threats against the organization, firebombing, threats, and uh other um acts of purported violence. And that's why they had to use these informants.

[00:16:03]And to that, you say?

[00:16:04]>> Well, to that I say for one, the indictment charges all the way through 2023. So, I'm not I'm here to speak about what they're doing right now, but that indictment charge is a long period of time through 2023. And second, and more importantly, there's no allegation or information in the indictment that suggests they shared that information with law enforcement. They have communicated.

[00:16:23]>> They said they did.

[00:16:24]>> Well, they have communicated when they so chose.

[00:16:27]>> That's the part that the SPC wants corrected, but Todd Blanch is right.

[00:16:32]They communicated that information when they so chose. I'm going to back that up just a little bit because this is the relevant part to our motion right here.

[00:16:41]>> These informants. to that you say?

[00:16:43]>> Well, to that I say for one, the indictment charge is all the way through 2023. So, I'm not I'm here to speak about what they're doing right now, but that indictment charges a long period of time through 2023. And second, and more importantly, there's no allegation or information in the indictment that suggests they shared that information with law enforcement. They have communicated.

[00:17:02]>> They said they did.

[00:17:03]>> Well, they have communicated when they so chose with law enforcement over the years. There is no information that we have that suggests that the money that they were paying to these informants and these members of these organizations, they then turned around and shared what they learned with law enforcement. To the contrary, or else we would have known from their own words that they had given this money to uh to these guys and we didn't know it.

[00:17:23]>> What about Charlottesville?

[00:17:25]>> See, the SPLC leaves those last words out that otherwise DOJ would have known that they were paying these individuals and then he didn't he let he didn't go this far. But why did they disguise the payments to the individuals through fake businesses in in these fictitious bank accounts?

[00:17:44]Why did they go through all all that they did to disguise the payments if everything was above board? They didn't tell the DOJ or or law enforcement um or at least DOJ didn't know about these specific informants and these specific payments.

[00:18:00]And so that's the that's the rub as far as building the indictment, the charges against them. This is this DOJ's response, their first Yeah. their initial response to the motion from SPLC about these extrajudicial statements is just two pages and they say right here, they quote Blanch from the Fox News Sunday show with Shannon Bream. Quote, "It is true that over the years they have selectively shared information with law enforcement. That's well documented and there's no dispute there. They aren't charged with any of that conduct.

[00:18:36]Bam. All right. Got that. Now, back to the most recent filing. The government also states that the United States of America has no intention of making any false or misleading statements in this case or any other case. It is well aware of its obligations under the law and applicable rules and will act accordingly to ensure that the SPLC can seek effective recourse from the court.

[00:18:57]If DOJ does not follow the rules, the SPLC requests that the court order the government, including DOJ lawyers not on the prosecution team in this district, to not make any such statements in the future.

[00:19:10]Signed, SPLC's attorneys, which include, remember, Abby Abby LOL.

[00:19:18]At this time, I do not think the SPLC wins on this. Although, it could be the judge takes a moment in a hearing and reminds DOJ and prosecution team of their their duty and what he expects from them and like he could just give them a light talking to I guess, but I don't see the judge putting in an order that's like a gag order on DOJ.

[00:19:43]I don't see that happening. And I don't see that DOJ said anything false.

[00:19:49]SPLC, like I said, is looking for a narrative win. All right. Now, we have the more more important filing, I think, in the more sign the one that could develop in a way that's way more impactful to the case.

[00:20:01]All right. This is their reply in support of their motion, the SPLC's to disclose grand jury transcripts, uh, which they're finding if it's they're asking for at a minimum what the prosecution said to the grand jury and how they instructed them on the law. All right. The SPLC has demonstrated that its request is both compelling and particularized. They really haven't. The government rest its response on the premise that the SPC is merely merely speculating that the grand jury may have been misinformed. And because it cannot offer direct evidence of misinstruction, disclosure is not warranted and its quest should be deni request should be denied. But that assertion overlooks the statements made by Justice Department officials about the SPLC in these charges and fails to address the deficiencies that exist on the face of the indictment. Ah, so I may be giving I may not be giving the uh the the filing for to prohibit their statements the credit it's due.

[00:21:02]Not because I think they're right, but because what they want is if the judge buys into their argument that Todd Blanch made misstatements to media, that could lead the judge to buy into their argument.

[00:21:15]They need to see the grand jury transcripts because perhaps DOJ also made false statements to the grand jury.

[00:21:21]See how that connects together?

[00:21:24]Okay. Previous public statements by administration officials and certain flaws in the charging element themselves suggest the case did result from misleading both the public and grand jury that voted on the charges.

[00:21:37]Deficiencies include, for example, the omission of essential elements of intent and charging four counts of false statements to fally insured banks, as well as a failure to reconcile the charges with recent Supreme Court precedent. And that's not speculation.

[00:21:53]In an effort to refute the compelling need articulated by the SPLC, the government relies heavily on rule 6E secrecy foundation, noting that grand jury secrecy is at its highest because the investigation into the SPLC is ongoing and involves the potential use of cooperating witnesses and the possibility of superseding charges.

[00:22:12]But even if that potential impossibility existed to some degree, that would not be enough to withhold disclosure in the case. First, government investigations are often ongoing in the literal sense of the word. And second, the possibility of bringing superseding charges exist in nearly every case as well. General notions of grand jury secrecy in the invocation of a hypothetical superseding indictment or cooperating witness are insufficient grounds to bar disclosure, particularly in the face of well-grounded concern about how the grand jury was instructed here.

[00:22:45]Additionally, the SPLC has already been indicted on 11 counts. The primary reasons for maintaining grand jury secrecy, meaning preventing the escape of the accused, ensuring utmost freedom of grand jury deliberations, contacting or tampering with witnesses or evidence and protecting the subject of the possible indict possible indictment are significantly diminished once a defendant has been charged. It's true.

[00:23:13]The government's reliance on United States v. Phillips in support of preserving grand jury secrecy here is also misplaced.

[00:23:21]Phillips concerned a dispute in which a defendant's financial records were obtained from a cooperating witness pursuant to a grand jury subpoena and were shared with investigators not authorized to receive them. However, those records were never presented to a grand jury and were not subject to the secrecy provisions. In rejecting the defendant's motion to suppress those records, the court found that the documents in question were not matters concerning occurring before a grand jury because they were they were never seen by or presented to the grand jury and thus could not be subject to rule 6E's restrictions. The government's reliance on Phillips to emphasize the sacrian nature of grand jury secrecy in this case is thus entirely misguided.

[00:24:07]Guys, they may have a point.

[00:24:13]They may have a point. Notwithstanding the government's claims, if the court has any lingering concerns about ongoing investigative details being prematurely revealed by the disclosing of material to defense council or because the grand jury's role is perhaps not yet over, the SPLC would respectfully urge the court as a preliminary step to conduct an inc camera review of the grand jury transcripts along with any audio recordings of the government's grand jury presentation.

[00:24:43]This would allow the court to scrutinize any possible incorrect legal instructions to grand jurors or mislication of the law without the kind of fishing expedition government is worried about. In addition, various provisions of the existing protective order would also address that concern as well as prevent defense council and/or the LPLC from publicly disclosing confidential information it may learn from the transcripts concerning any hypothetical ongoing investigation which the government repeatedly references without any specifics. It's just boilerplate justification for keeping the proceedings a secret from defense council.

[00:25:22]relatedly as it concerns inc camera review of any material. The government asserts that this case and Comey, which I covered extensively last fall. And if you're interested in what came of the first Comey case, I have an article on my Substack just.

[00:25:40]That takes you through all the things we learned from the Comey case and answers the question, what was the point of it all?

[00:25:48]I also have a video that does it. you can go to my video about it. Um, then I also have on Rumble and on YouTube I have a video that's uh on Rumble it's called the counter inelligence operational lead that never reached Director Comey.

[00:26:03]And on YouTube I don't actually remember if it's called that. I kind of think on YouTube I have it called something else which I should maybe correct that so they're called the same thing. Um, my Comey playlist is 28 videos long, and I'll be doing a new Comey playlist, of course, since he's been indicted again. Uh, right here. The critical Russia gate intelligence that someone stuffed in a closet at FBI headquarters.

[00:26:31]Yeah, they have that's the that's the same video over here on Rumble. I mean, on YouTube.

[00:26:38]So, as the SPLC says here, and I remember well, in the Comey case, the district court judge ordered inc camera review of grand jury transcripts, including audio, before disclosing those materials to the defense.

[00:26:54]But in this case, the same DOJ is arguing that that case and this one are hardly comparable. SPLC says no, they are comparable. In pre-trial motions to dismiss that indictment, defense council for Mr. Comey raised that certain aspects of the grand jury process were problematic there. The identity of the lone prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury and signed the indictment likely tainted the structural integrity of the grand jury process. It was it was and created a presumption that Mr. Comey was prejudiced. Yep.

[00:27:31]Here, the government relies on Comey's case to support its view that the speculative assertions of the defense should not be given credence when in fact relying on the assertions by Mr. Comey's defense council in pre-trial motions is precisely what prompted the court in order to get the inc camera review of the grand jury of the material in the case. I disagree with their characterization of this. Additionally, inc camera review of grand jury proceedings in Comey led in part to the court's conclusion that the prosecutor made quote fundamental and highly prejuditial misstatement of the law to the grand jurors, thereby supporting disclosure of the transcripts to defense council for further scrutiny.

[00:28:10]Accordingly, the government's arguments about Comey carry little if any weight at all. totally disagree with this because what happened in Comey, it was apparent in the indictment itself and on the docket that things that proceedings around the grand jury were unusual because Halagan signed it herself and she was uh already a past due appointment u that and then of course it got dismissed on that basis that she wasn't lawfully appointed. So, her appointment was questionable to begin with. She had no experience as a prosecutor in all of her history of practicing law.

[00:28:53]She filed the failed indictment on the docket and then the judge had to instruct her that that wasn't normal and you need to file the other one. The first one they filed that was the failed indictment had um the same errors in it that the second one did and they just removed one of the pages.

[00:29:12]the statements, the quotes from the hearing between Comey and Senator Cruz that the the false statement charge was based on li in the indictment. It misqu what Senator Cruz said.

[00:29:26]Um there were a number of things that were primapaccia, irregular about the grand jury process. And then add on that there was media reporting from people who were there. uh they're part of the grand and you could see on the time stamp of the the grand jury filings that the grand jury was kept after hours. They were presented with it twice. And then there was the fact that there was only one witness who testified to the grand jury and he was pulled from the case because he was tainted by um having come across um privileged information that he never should have seen. So he got he testified to the grand jury, but then immediately after he was pulled off of the investigation team. There were so many things that the Comey's defense was able to point to very early on as these things cause concern and they were particular.

[00:30:22]It wasn't it's it wasn't as it's being characterized here. Right. I understand why SPLC's lawyers are trying to make it comparable.

[00:30:34]Uh but it was quite a bit different. All right. Finally, the government's assertion that speculation about misstatements to the grand jury made in this case would necessarily warrant disclosure in every case is equally unpersuasive. This case is extraordinary and stands alone in history.

[00:30:50]This is particularly true considering that just a few hours after this indictment, acting attorney general appeared on a public news program and admittedly made false statements about the SPLC. He did not admit to making false statements about the SPLC. The federal charges leveled against the SPLC are one of the boldest and most unprecedented set of charges brought against a civil rights group in the history of the United States justice system.

[00:31:16]The charges seek to criminalize some of the very investigative tools and programs that the SPLC has used for decades to infiltrate and dismantle violent extremist organizations.

[00:31:26]Information that has provided vital intelligence to US law enforcement and has saved lives. Moreover, should the grand jury have been misled in the first instance, that is more reason for the court to intervene to prevent any further possible misinstruction, particularly given the real possibility that this matter could again be presented to the grand jury for superseding charges. The government posits that the SPLC's burden to obtain the disclosure of grand jury materials exist regardless of whether the presumption of regularity applies. While that burden may fall on the SPLC, the weight of the burden is affected by the context of the unparalleled charges and timing in this case. The government does not meaningfully address the unusual series of events that calls into question the presumption of regularity in this case, which is a quote from USV.

[00:32:14]Comey or the documented political statements and pressure from the highest levels of the administration.

[00:32:22]For example, in the days immediately following the announcement of charges, whistleblower reports emerged through disclosures to House lawmakers accusing top justice department officials of pressuring prosecutors to rush to indict the SPLC despite concerns that the merits and strength of the evidence and the case.

[00:32:42]Additionally, the government sought and the grand jury returned this indictment just two business days after the US attorney's office received 15,000 pages of subpoenenaed records from the SPLC.

[00:32:56]The material the SPLC produced included substantial information gathered by and related to its now closed informant or F program. details about which the indictment and DOJ's press release announcing the charges make no reference.

[00:33:12]This rushed timeline combined with the amount of material produced to the government by the SPLC makes it highly improbable that the grand jury was presented with a complete view of the evidence in the government's motion. So, while the SPLC may have the burden here, as the government claims, when taking into account the broader context of these charges, minimal, if any, doubt remains that the SPLC has satisfied its burden to obtain grand jury transcripts.

[00:33:41]The prosecutor's charge and legal instructions do not go to the substance of the grand jury's deliberative pro process that 6E sought to protect. While the 11th Circuit has not expressly ruled or held that rule 6E does not cover the prosecutor's charge to the grand jury, several other courts have finding that the prosecutor's charge is not the type of material subject to the ordinary rule of grand jury secrecy. They want at least that at least what the what the instructions were just what the prosecutor told the grand jury. If the instructions give given to the grand jury are not wholly outside the bounds of rule 6. The SPLC has more than met its burden of showing a particularized need tailored to its very nar narrow request. Historically, grand jury secrecy laws have served specific identified interest. The legal instructions given to the grand jury reveal nothing about witness testimony, investigative direction, or grand jury deliberations. The heart of the material rule 60 is designed to protect particularized need showing to warrant disclosure of instructions if any should be far lower. This um it's not very compelling.

[00:34:54]Yeah, this is not very compelling. They do make a point like I said earlier that the government hiding behind the possibility of superseding in charges superseding charges and that the investigation is ongoing. Yep. DOJ always says that pretty much. Uh boy nerds know that. that still doesn't this isn't enough for them to get access.

[00:35:21]But it it does I think the thing we got out of this reading is that the SPLC what they're what they're aiming for here is they're aiming to convince the judge that the prejuditial and extrajudicial statements made by Todd Blanch at the press conference after SPLC was indicted and on the Laura Ingram show later on that since the the acting attorney general made these prejuditial statements to media that possibly the prosecutor in this case may also made prejuditial statements to the grand jury when presenting this case for indictment.

[00:36:05]So please let us at least see those statements the transcripts as far as what the prosecutor said to the grand jury. judge, please disclose those for income review, meaning the judge will look at them themselves. So, that's what they're trying to make happen here is for the judge to take a peek at what the prosecution said to the grand jury at a minimum, if not the whole transcript and audio recordings, if there are any.

[00:36:34]So, I don't think they I don't think they get this, but it is interesting.

[00:36:41]Um, by the way, the judge, the judge in this case is Emily Cudy Marx, and she was appointed by Trump in January of 2018. So, I wonder if at some point they might file to disqualify her, try to get a different judge because Trump has made a lot of prejuditial statements about the SPLC and Trump appointed this woman. So, I don't think that would I don't think it would work, but I would totally might be something we see them try. The prosecutor here is Davidson and he's been he's been in this office for years. And then they also put they just added a new um a new person.

[00:37:33]His last name is Fail um or feel I'm not I'm pretty sure he pronounces it fail.

[00:37:39]Where is his filing? Right here. Joel Fail. And I looked up some of the cases he's been part of and he's worked in this district for a while. He's also worked in the Eastern District of Virginia.

[00:37:51]And uh Davidson has a long history of cases, but I think it was Joel fail I was looking at and he had some experience with uh uh bank fraud stuff and Medicare fraud. I think maybe CO 19 fraud. I was looking through some of his cases to see if he'd ever pro been on a prosecution that involved things like financial statements and laundering of money and wire fraud and things like that. And he had. So, I just took that as a good sign. Anyway, all right. Thanks for watching and I'll keep watching this docket for more filings. See what happens. Now, we'll wait for DOJ to respond to these two things and then we'll see what the judge says about both of them.

[00:38:36]She give a time for them to reply. Let me see. Here it is. She didn't she didn't specifically say that DOJ could reply to this. So she may she may go ahead and give an order upon consideration of defendants's motion to address government's materally false statements.

[00:38:54]It is ordered that the government must file their response by May 5th which we read that and defendant may file a reply by May 12th which they did which they did. So, she may not DOJ may ask to have a follow-up reply. And it's the same thing for the uh motion to disclose.

[00:39:16]So, that and it was due by May 12th. So, and they did that. So, that might be it.

[00:39:21]DOJ may file and request to respond to this reply.

[00:39:27]I don't think they need to. I think it I I don't think they need to, but they still might.

[00:39:34]All right. Thanks, guys. I'll see you in the next video.