Another judge denies the DOJ's effort to unseal Epstein-related grand jury transcripts
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Richard Berman follows an Aug. 11 decision from another judge in New York that rejected the DOJ's motion to unseal transcripts in the case of convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as a July ruling from a judge in Florida rejecting DOJ's Epstein-related unsealing effort in that state.
Ruling against the DOJ in the Maxwell case, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote that '[a] member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at 'transparency' but at diversion — aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such.'
Similarly rejecting the effort in Epstein's case specifically, Berman wrote Wednesday that the unsealing motion appeared to be a diversion from the full scope of Epstein-related files in the government's possession. He wrote that the grand jury testimony is just a 'hearsay snippet' of Epstein's alleged conduct, and that the information in the Epstein grand jury transcripts 'pales in comparison' with the information in the DOJ's hands. He also criticized the government for not properly notifying victims before filing the motion.
Epstein died in 2019 while being held on trafficking charges in New York, with the medical examiner deeming his death a suicide. Maxwell was subsequently convicted and is appealing while simultaneously seeking a pardon from President Donald Trump. After she met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal defense lawyer, the government moved Maxwell to a minimum-security facility. That raised speculation about what benefits the administration might grant her as the White House faces political backlash from its refusal to release all the Epstein-related information in its possession, as promised.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
23 minutes ago
Sean Combs doesn't deserve a new trial, prosecutors argue
Sean "Diddy" Combs doesn't deserve a new trial because 'there was more than a sufficient basis' to support his conviction on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, federal prosecutors argued in a new court filing overnight, submitted in response to a July 31 defense motion requesting acquittal or a new trial. Attorneys for Combs, who was found not guilty on July 2 of more serious charges of racketeering and sex trafficking, asked the judge four weeks later to acquit him of the prostitution-related counts or grant him a new trial, arguing in part that the Mann Act – the law under which Combs was convicted – was too broadly interpreted to apply to him, that the evidence used to support his conviction was lacking, and that "spillover prejudice" from evidence introduced to support the charges on which Combs was acquitted – evidence the defense argued "would have been inadmissible" if Combs had been tried only under the Mann Act – was "inflammatory." The Mann Act is a federal law that makes it a criminal offense to "knowingly [transport] any individual, male or female, in interstate or foreign commerce or in any territory or possession of the United States for the purpose of prostitution or sexual activity which is a criminal offense under the federal or state statute or local ordinance." Combs doesn't dispute hiring male escorts but his attorneys argued in their July motion that the Mann Act doesn't prohibit Combs' conduct "because he lacked a commercial motive and did not intend for paid escorts to have sex with him," but rather to watch and video record them them having sex with girlfriends in sexual encounters referred to in trial testimony as so-called "freak-offs," which his attorneys contended is "protected First Amendment activity." Prosecutors argued in their 58-page response that the law doesn't distinguish between voyeurism and profit. 'He transported escorts across state lines to engage in Freak Offs for pay. He directed the sexual activity of escorts and victims throughout Freak Offs for his own sexual gratification. And he personally engaged in sexual activity during Freak Offs,' prosecutors said of Combs in their filing. 'There was more than a sufficient basis, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, to support the counts of conviction.' The "freak-offs," as former Combs girlfriend Cassie Ventura testified they were called and which another former Combs girlfriend testifying under the pseudonym "Jane" referred to as "hotel nights," took place at different residences or in hotels in New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Ibiza, and Turks and Caicos, according to trial testimony. 'Escorts traveled to these Freak Offs with Ventura and hotel nights with Jane. The defendant discussed the escorts' travel with Ventura and Jane,' prosecutors said in their filing, further noting that "the travel arrangements were generally made at the defendant's direction" including by using a travel agent, having an escort service coordinate it, or by having Ventura and "Jane" handle arrangements.
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
As The TikTok Ban Looms, White House Launches A New Account On The App
You would think the drama over a TikTok ban would have been resolved by now. Instead, in a move that can only be meant to change the optics related to TikTok's future, the White House launched a new account on the platform, which is used by about 170 million Americans. The first clip on @whitehouse features President Trump in a promo saying 'I am your voice' with a caption about America being back. The account already has a handful of videos available, but most of them are about President Trump. History of the TikTok ban It's another twist in a story that is hard to pin down. I've been writing about the TikTok ban from the beginning, covering all of the twists and turns. Here's a highly condensed recap. First, U.S. officials started recognizing that the Chinese-owned app could be used as a surveillance tool. Former President Joe Biden signed a law making the app illegal to distribute on app stores last spring, but President Trump has delayed enforcing the ban multiple times since then. We're now approaching the next deadline for an extension on September 17. Meanwhile, the timing of the new White House account seems odd considering the ban is supposed to go into effect again in a few weeks. Still, it's hard to take these expiration dates and possible extensions seriously because President Trump is an advocate for keeping the social media app around. Now that he is using a new account, it seems even more likely that he will extend the ban again. Why a TikTok ban seems more likely The issue here is one of legality, not preference. President Trump is going a bit rogue because lawmakers never intended the ban to be extended this many times. Trump has found a workaround by issuing executive orders to delay the ban, which he has the right to do, but the original ruling was meant to address a foreign threat and had timelines for enforcement built-in. We're now facing an uncertain future, especially if you are a TikTok creator or rely on the app to help you find places to eat or discover new music, like me. One recent report notes that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick thinks TikTok won't survive much longer. 'It's got to come out of Chinese control,' said Lutnick on CNBC. 'We've made the decision. You can't have Chinese control and have something on a hundred million American phones. That's just not OK.' Another report claimed ByteDance, the company that owns TikTok, is working on a new app that will be released on September 5. Users will be forced to switch to the new version, which hints at the possibility the current version won't be around that much longer. What the TikTok ban really means The basic summary here is that no one really knows what will happen. For fans of the app, content creators, and even those who are pushing for freedom of speech and have a hard time accepting that the federal government has any role to play on social media platforms, it feels like this time there may be an actual change. A new app? An actual ban? Life as usual? Come September, we'll know a lot more about whether a TikTok ban could actually happen.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Court ruling complicates UK government's efforts to house asylum seekers
LONDON — The dilemma of how to house asylum seekers in Britain got more challenging for the government after a landmark court ruling this week motivated opponents to fight hotels used as accommodation. Politicians on the right capitalized on a temporary injunction that blocked housing asylum seekers in a hotel in Epping, on the outskirts of London, to encourage other communities to also go to court.
