Meidas is presenting an exclusive participant account, not a transcript. But the central picture is corroborated by Reuters, AP, Axios, and The Times: Todd Blanche met Epstein survivors and family members for about an hour at DOJ only after Senator Thom Tillis made the meeting a condition of advancing Blanche’s attorney-general nomination. Multiple attendees independently described Blanche as evasive, interruptive, condescending, and unwilling to commit to further action. DOJ, by contrast, called it a “productive, initial discussion.” (Reuters)
The survivors apparently challenged Blanche over his prior claim that there were no investigative leads. According to Meidas, Blanche denied ever saying that. The precise phrase may matter to him—but the July 2025 official DOJ/FBI memorandum stated:
“We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”
So he may not have used the exact words “there are no investigative leads,” but that was plainly the substance of DOJ’s announced conclusion. Saying “I never said that” rather than explaining the distinction is exactly the kind of evasive lawyering the survivors describe. (Department of Justice)
Taken literally, this is preposterous.
There is a limited technical truth underneath it: FBI agents, federal prosecutors, and field offices normally initiate and document investigative matters under applicable evidentiary predicates and internal procedures. An attorney general cannot simply manufacture probable cause or order somebody prosecuted without sufficient admissible evidence.
But the attorney general is emphatically not powerless:
- Federal law vests essentially all DOJ functions in the attorney general.
- The attorney general can delegate those functions.
- DOJ itself says the attorney general’s office “supervises and directs” the department, explicitly including the FBI and U.S. attorneys.
- U.S. attorneys’ investigative powers are exercised under the attorney general’s supervision and direction, and they can request federal agencies to investigate suspected federal crimes. (U.S. Code)
So Blanche could direct an appropriate component to reassess the evidence, interview available witnesses, review unresolved referrals, form a task force, assign prosecutors, or report why particular allegations do not satisfy investigative predicates. He may not personally type “OPEN” into an FBI case-management system, but “I’m just the attorney general” is institutional buck-passing of almost comic purity.
Meidas reports—and The Times separately confirms the substance—that Blanche said Andrew’s refusal to cooperate and Virginia Giuffre’s death prevented him from investigating. (MeidasTouch)
Those circumstances unquestionably make a case harder:
- Giuffre can no longer be interviewed, cross-examined, or called as a witness.
- A photograph and prior sworn statements establish evidence worth examining, but do not by themselves establish every element of a prosecutable U.S. offense.
- Andrew’s refusal to submit voluntarily could complicate interviewing, compulsory process, jurisdiction, and eventual prosecution.
But a prospective subject’s refusal to cooperate is not normally a reason an investigation cannot exist. Suspects routinely decline interviews. Investigators use documents, third-party witnesses, contemporaneous communications, travel records, financial records, prior statements, and compulsory legal processes where jurisdiction permits. A careful answer would have been: the existing material may be insufficient for a viable federal case, and here is why. “He won’t cooperate, and Virginia isn’t here, so I can’t” sounds like a conclusion seeking a justification.
The timing validates the survivors’ “check-the-box” criticism. Dani Bensky had just testified that survivors had sought meetings through multiple channels without receiving a response. Tillis then announced he would not advance Blanche without a meeting; Blanche met them that day. Afterward, Tillis praised Blanche for engaging but had not publicly committed his vote in the reporting available this morning. (Senate Judiciary Committee)
Bensky’s formal Senate testimony also makes clear that the grievance is not merely “release more celebrity names.” She alleges that DOJ repeatedly exposed survivors’ names and identifying information while survivors’ lawyers had supplied a 350-name redaction list, and that her own name, phone number, addresses, employment and educational information appeared in releases. Her stated concern is the combination of institutional revictimization and apparent disinterest in unresolved facilitators or co-conspirators. (Senate Judiciary Committee)
The Meidas article’s broad account is well supported. Its most vivid dialogue remains an attributed firsthand reconstruction—there is no public recording or official transcript—but a separate major outlet corroborates the Andrew exchange, and the survivors’ descriptions are strikingly consistent across news organizations.
More importantly, Blanche’s reported answers do not merely sound uncaring. They reveal a recurring maneuver:
Treat the absence of an immediately chargeable case as proof that the nation’s highest law-enforcement official has no capacity—or responsibility—to investigate further.
That conflates “I cannot presently prove a prosecution” with “I cannot direct an investigation or provide an accountable explanation.” Those are not the same thing. The survivors seem to have recognized the distinction immediately.
I can track Tillis’s and Cornyn’s positions and alert you when Blanche’s committee vote is scheduled or either senator commits.