logo
Judge denies justice department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts

Judge denies justice department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts

Rhyl Journala day ago
The ruling on Wednesday by Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, also turned down the government's request.
Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women.
Epstein died in jail awaiting trial.
A US justice department spokesperson declined to comment.
Judge Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts 'pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.'
According to his ruling, no victims gave evidence before the Epstein grand jury.
The only witness, the judge wrote, was an FBI agent 'who had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay'.
The agent gave evidence over two days, on June 18 and July 2 2019.
The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein.
Both of those will also remain sealed, Judge Berman ruled.
Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the justice department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation.
The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of US President Donald Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up.
Since then, Trump administration officials have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts.
'The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,' Judge Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the justice department's refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts.
'By comparison,' he added, 'the instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the government's possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct.'
Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by US deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, and the house oversight committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell.
Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution.
In a letter Maxwell's lawyers, representative James Comer, the committee chairman, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court.
That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September.
Mr Comer wrote that while Maxwell's testimony was 'vital' to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Army spends £118m on more systems to shoot down missiles and drones
Army spends £118m on more systems to shoot down missiles and drones

Western Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Western Telegraph

Army spends £118m on more systems to shoot down missiles and drones

The £118 million move will double the number of British-made Land Ceptor systems available to the British Army. It said they could be deployed both in the UK and overseas. The new equipment will form part of Sky Sabre, a state-of-the-art defence system that can intercept munitions and aircraft. It replaced the previous Rapier system, which had run since the 1970s. The MRAD (medium range air defence) system will be made by manufacturer MBDA in Bolton. The Government said 140 jobs will be supported by the move. The Sky Sabre system replaced the former Rapier short range air defences, pictured during a training exercise in Blackheath ahead of of the 2012 Olympics (PA/Lewis Whyld) Defence minister Luke Pollard said: 'We are delivering on the strategic defence review by equipping our armed forces with state-of-the art equipment to help keep us safe. Doubling our deployable Sky Sabre capability will strengthen the UK's air defences, protect UK forces abroad, and deter our adversaries. 'Through this investment we are supporting over 100 jobs across the UK, with more to come.' The Land Ceptor systems are able to hit a tennis-ball sized object which is travelling at twice the speed of sound. The Sky Sabre operation can control 24 missiles at one time. As part of the system, the Land Ceptors operate alongside radar and a wider command and control centre. However, they are also able to be used on their own. Sky Sabre was recently tested as part of a Nato exercise in the Outer Hebrides, the Ministry of Defence said. It has already been deployed in Poland, as part of Nato operations with on eye on Russia. Commanding Officer of the 16th Regiment Royal Artillery, Lt Col James Boutle, said: 'Sky Sabre represents a step change in the UK's ground-based air defence capability. 'As the Army's most advanced air defence system, it provides a powerful shield against modern airborne threats, from fast jets to precision-guided weapons and drones. 'For 16th Regiment Royal Artillery, operating Sky Sabre is both a privilege and a responsibility – ensuring we are trained and ready to strengthen the UK's contribution to Nato when called upon. 'As part of this, we work hand-in-hand with industry partners, such as MBDA here in the UK, to continuously optimise the system to ensure it remains on the cutting edge – a collaboration that guarantees we stay ahead of adversary technology.'

Trump abruptly nixes signing of executive order to punish American flag burners sparking White House confusion
Trump abruptly nixes signing of executive order to punish American flag burners sparking White House confusion

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Trump abruptly nixes signing of executive order to punish American flag burners sparking White House confusion

President Donald Trump is apparently torn over whether to ignite a tinderbox over a plan to throw the book at American flag burners. Trump abruptly cancelled the signing of an executive order on Thursday seeking to punish Americans for burning the U.S. flag. According to multiple reports, Trump planned to sign an executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to bring charges against individuals who burn the stars and stripes. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag during a protest is a protected form of free speech. Under Trump's order that's now on hold, the DOJ would review already existing cases of flag burning to see if other charges unrelated to the flag burning could be brought forward. For example, the order reportedly directed the DOJ to prosecute protesters for crimes such as public nuisance or disorderly conduct laws, according to a report from NewsNation. It is not clear if Trump plans to sign the executive order at a later date, or if it's being cancelled permanently. The Daily Mail reached out to the White House for comment. Since the start of his career in politics, Trump has advocated for imposing legal penalties on protesters who destroy the American flag despite the Supreme Court's prior ruling. In the past, the president has called for stripping the citizenship from naturalized American citizens who burn the flag and advocated for jail time as a punishment. Trump during the 2024 campaign season even floated the idea of introducing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning as a form of protected protest. Amid the anti-ICE protests in LA, Trump called for throwing demonstrators in jail for a year for setting the flag on fire. 'These are animals, but they proudly carry the flags of other countries. They don't carry the American flag,' Trump told a crowd of servicemembers at Fort Bragg. 'They only burn it. Did you see a lot of the flags being burned?" He added, 'They weren't being burned by people from our country, or from people that love our country. People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year.' Trump then claimed that he's working with lawmakers in DC to push through legislation outlawing flag burning. 'We'll see if we can get that done. We're going to try and get that done. We're working with some of your senators.'

US Supreme Court lets Trump cut diversity-related NIH grants
US Supreme Court lets Trump cut diversity-related NIH grants

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

US Supreme Court lets Trump cut diversity-related NIH grants

Aug 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court let President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday proceed with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health grants for research related to racial minorities or LGBT people, part of his crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and transgender identity. The justices granted the Justice Department's request to lift Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young's decision in June that the grant terminations violated federal law, while a legal challenge brought by researchers and 16 U.S. states plays out in a lower court. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical research. The cuts are part of Trump's wide-ranging actions to reshape the U.S. government, slash federal spending and end government support for programs aimed at promoting diversity or "gender ideology" that the administration opposes. The administration said Young's ruling required the NIH to continue paying $783 million in grants that run counter to its priorities. The administration repeatedly has sought the Supreme Court's intervention to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January. After Trump signed executive orders in January targeting DEI and gender ideology, NIH instructed staff to terminate grant funding for "low-value and off-mission" studies deemed related to these concepts, as well as COVID-19 and ways to curb vaccine hesitancy. Young's ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an "ongoing ideological purge" targeting projects based on "vague, now-forbidden language." The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led. The plaintiffs said the terminated grants included projects on breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, HIV prevention, suicide, depression and other conditions that often disproportionately burden minority communities, as well as grants mandated by Congress to train and support a diverse group of scientists in biomedical research. Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, invalidated the grant terminations in June. In a written ruling, the judge said they were "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious," violating a federal law governing the actions of agencies. During a June hearing in the case, Young rebuked the administration for what he called a "darker aspect" to the case that the cuts represent "racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community." "I've never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable," the judge said. Young also said the cuts were designed to stop research that bears on the health of the LGBT community. "That's appalling," the judge said. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 18 denied the administration's request to put Young's decision on hold. The administration has argued that the litigation should have been brought in a different judicial body, the Washington-based Court of Federal Claims, which specializes in money damages claims against the U.S. government. That reasoning was also the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in April that let Trump's administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants also targeted under the DEI crackdown.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store