by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - attorney, law professor emeritus, and author of Federal law
First, you'll notice that I *didn't* say the Blanche hearing, because while the case is against Blanche, Blanche himself was not there, it was another DOJ attorney, Andrew Block. I was there for the whole call, but the acoustics were so bad - especially in the beginning - that it wasn’t distinct when he said his name at the beginning. I don't feel terribly badly about not hearing it distinctly though, because as you will see in the transcript, even the judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan, talks about the bad acoustics.
Second, you will see in the transcript that it says it was Judge Nichols, but it wasn't - it was Judge Sullivan.
Third, I am the one who redacted the attorneys' email addresses from the transcript, but it is otherwise unretouched.
By the way, I have to say that while Katie Phang didn’t speak much, when she did she was perfect - poised, and right on point!
As I highlighted in my live broadcast, Judge Sullivan is basically incredulous through much of the hearing because the DOJ is basically saying a whole lot of "I don't know", "I have no way of knowing" and "It's out of my control."
To which, on several occasions, Judge Sullivan responded, well, actually, to quote:
"MR. BLOCK: I don't have a date. It's a little bit out of my control in terms of who has to sign and what -- you know, what processes.
THE COURT: You knew this was going to be discussed today, though."
AND
"MR. BLOCK: I understand. I'm not in a position to give you that date, Your Honor. And I understand the Court's point, but I'm not in a position to give you that date.
THE COURT: But you knew this was going to be discussed today."
AND
"MR. BLOCK: Well, Your Honor, I'm not sure I have the number of foreign language documents.
THE COURT: But you knew this was going to be discussed today. Again, I'm not trying to give you a hard way to go, Counselor. You're at the podium, though. You're speaking on behalf of the Attorney General. These are not just questions the Court thought of. They are questions that were raised in the Court's order scheduling this hearing that we're going to discuss these issues today."
(Are you detecting a pattern here?)
I am not going to go into great detail here because a) I covered it in the live broadcast, and b) it’s included below for all of the people who want to enjoy it in all its full glory (and trust me, you will love it!), and c) I'm pretty much a wet noodle right now after the 3-hour call (the hearing), and back to back live broadcasts, and darn it I still haven't worked out yet.
BUT.. before I go you *know* that I have to talk about this:
Judge Sullivan didn't threaten contempt - he promised it.
First he told this story about another case he had, in which he had held the government in contempt. And the government appealed. And the appeals court upheld the contempt.
He starts out "The plaintiff has raised the issue of contempt. Relax. No one is in contempt. All right? The plaintiff has raised the issue of contempt in response to the Court's preliminary injunction order. I just needed to -- let me say this: I think now is a good opportunity to discuss that topic in very general terms with the parties. I'm not focusing on the plaintiff or the defendant, just the parties. To make sure that we're all on the same page. I am going to talk about a case that this court presided over in 2000 -- I think it was 2008. There was a trial of Senator Ted Stevens. It was a high profile case. It was a very unusual case, not because the subject matter was complicated."
He then goes on to tell the story of how this Senator was a defendant, and the prosecutors - i.e. the government - failed to produce documents, and it turned out that those documents were exculpatory (in other words they would have demonstrated the defendant's innocence).
"I told the attorneys: You give me no choice. I am holding each one of you in contempt of court. Was I happy to do that? Absolutely not. Was I proud of that? No. But I had to do it because that was consistent with the fair administration of justice. I knew these prosecutors. They'd been in a trial and I had known them from other cases. I didn't want to do that, but I did. I had to. I had no choice. How else was I going to ensure that justice was administered fairly? So I held them in contempt. The documents were turned over later that day."
He then goes on to explain that "So that's a very serious matter for the Court to hold attorneys in contempt. It's something that they probably have to report for the rest of their career, if they are seeking a new job, if they're being considered for a judgeship, locally, federally or maybe in a confirmation hearing where some inquiring Senator will say: Talk to us about the contempt matter some years ago before judge whoever."
Bahahahaha...
This is just a very small taste of this story and Judge Sullivan explaining how he's not holding anyone in contempt, and he sure doesn't want to - BUT if justice requires it...
And then, at the end of it:
"So that's the only reason why I'm saying that. I'm not interested in doing that at all. But I will do it to ensure that justice is administered fairly. And that's not a threat; that's a promise.
That's all I have to say. I'm not asking anyone to respond. No one is in trouble. I'm just bringing it to your attention."
Ohmygosh...and that's just a tiny taste. The whole contempt story and "promise" takes up *13 pages* of the 48 pages of the transcript, and you will *love* every word of it! Honestly, when you read the whole thing tell me if you don't think it kind of sounds like the Godfather!
Notes from the Front members: the transcript is below for you. (Note: if you have installed the Substack app on your phone you need to be sure to go to your notifications settings *in the app*, and set notifications to "email" because it defaults your account to "not email").
My investigating, fact-gathering, and reporting is 100% reader-supported. Here are ways that you can support my reporting:
- Join Notes from the Front: It's just $5 a month, and you will truly be supporting what I do here, plus you get the documents that I include with each post. You can do that below where it says “Upgrade”.
- Support my coffee habit here: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
- Share this post
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a sentence in a comment that includes the word "story". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about a story! ;~)