Epstein grand jury transcript release a distraction, not a revelation, former prosecutors say
Article content
Attorney Sarah Krissoff, an assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan from 2008 to 2021, called the request in the prosecutions of Epstein and imprisoned British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell 'a distraction.'
Article content
Article content
Article content
'The president is trying to present himself as if he's doing something here and it really is nothing,' Krissoff told The Associated Press in a weekend interview.
Article content
Article content
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche made the request Friday, asking judges to unseal transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and Maxwell, saying, 'transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.'
Article content
The request came as the administration sought to contain the firestorm that followed its announcement that it would not be releasing additional files from the Epstein probe despite previously promising that it would.
Article content
Epstein killed himself at age 66 in his federal jail cell in August 2019, a month after his arrest on sex trafficking charges, while Maxwell, 63, is serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed after her December 2021 sex trafficking conviction for luring girls to be sexually abused by Epstein.
Article content
Article content
Article content
Krissoff and Joshua Naftalis, a Manhattan federal prosecutor for 11 years before entering private practice in 2023, said grand jury presentations are purposely brief.
Article content
Article content
Naftalis said Southern District prosecutors present just enough to a grand jury to get an indictment but 'it's not going to be everything the FBI and investigators have figured out about Maxwell and Epstein.'
Article content
'People want the entire file from however long. That's just not what this is,' he said, estimating that the transcripts, at most, probably amount to a few hundred pages.
Article content
'It's not going to be much,' Krissoff said, estimating the length at as little as 60 pages, 'because the Southern District of New York's practice is to put as little information as possible into the grand jury.'
Article content
'They basically spoon-feed the indictment to the grand jury. That's what we're going to see,' she said. 'I just think it's not going to be that interesting. … I don't think it's going to be anything new.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
10 minutes ago
- CTV News
Child's interview can't be used in her father's trial in killings of wife and other man, judge rules
This image provided by the Fairfax County Police Department and taken on Oct. 13, 2023, was submitted as evidence in the murder case against Brendan Banfield shows a framed photo of Banfield and Juliana Peres Magalhães on his bedside table in Herndon, Va. (Fairfax County Police Department via AP, FILE) FAIRFAX, Va. — A northern Virginia circuit judge ruled on Friday that prosecutors' case against an IRS agent charged with killing his wife and another man cannot include a recorded interview from the defendant's young daughter. Fairfax Circuit Court Chief Judge Penney Azcarate on Friday denied prosecutors' motion on the admissibility of the young child's conversation with a forensic interviewer about what she believed was happening the morning her mother was killed at her home. That child's father, Brendan Banfield, was later charged with aggravated murder in the February 2023 deaths of his wife, Christine Banfield, and Joe Ryan, a man who was invited to the house that day. Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Eric Clingan argued that the child's interview should be admissible evidence at trial because she is a victim of her father's alleged killing. The killings occurred while the child was in the Banfields' basement, authorities have said. In December, Banfield was indicted with child abuse and felony child cruelty in connection with the case. 'It's an act of abuse against her by virtue of what her father did that morning,' Clingan said in court. Meanwhile, John F. Carroll, who represents the father, argued in court that Banfield did not consent for his child to be interviewed by authorities at the police's headquarters. Azcarate sided with the defense, citing a statute that a child's interview would be admissible only if the child was being directly victimized by the parent. She acknowledged authorities later pressed child abuse-related charges, but she said those indictments were not the basis for officials' interview of Banfield's daughter that day. 'The interview doesn't fall within the statute,' Azcarate said. Complex investigation and prosecution The evidentiary hearing is one of a series of developments in the officials' multifaceted investigation and prosecution of Christine Banfield and Ryan's killings. Carroll also moved on Friday for the court to rescind Banfield's indictment and remove Clingan, the lead prosecutor, from the case. In his arguments, Carroll argued that Clingan guided Banfield's co-defendant in an interview, though Azcarate denied both motions. That co-defendant, Juliana Peres Magalhães, was originally arrested and charged with second-degree murder in the case. At the time of the killings, Magalhães and Banfield informed authorities that they walked in on Ryan attacking Christine Banfield and both shot him with different weapons, attorneys have said in court. But last year, Magalhães pleaded guilty to manslaughter in what prosecutors have long described as a scheme led by Banfield and the au pair to frame Ryan in the stabbing of Christine Banfield. Ahead of her plea, Magalhães provided a proffer to officials and was interviewed by Clingan, attorneys have stated in court. Her proffer corroborated a catfishing theory that Ryan was lured to the home on a social networking platform for people interested in sexual fetishes. She also corroborated the theory that Magalhães, who began working for the family in 2021, and Brendan Banfield had a romantic relationship that began before the killings, and that she helped the husband in his conspiracy to kill his wife. 'I'm just so upset and heartbroken for doing this to Brendan,' the au pair wrote to her mother from the Fairfax County jail last October in a message, which has since been entered into court evidence. 'I love him and he loves me too, I have no doubts. But it's the right thing to do. For you. I want to be with you again.' Dispute arises over catfishing theory Despite her proffer, a divide appears evident among officials over the catfishing theory. Brendan Miller, a digital forensic examiner with the police department, testified earlier this month that his analysis of forensic evidence also suggested Christine Banfield was seeking to have an affair with Ryan. Miller testified that his analysis was based on multiple devices, and he concluded that Christine Banfield had connected with Ryan through a social networking platform for people interested in sexual fetishes and matched her with Ryan. His findings diverged from a theory held by other officials in the department that the messages Ryan had been receiving were actually from Brendan Banfield posing as his wife. Deputy Chief Patrick Brusch, who oversaw the department's major crimes bureau at the time, confirmed in testimony earlier this month that he said Miller would 'never be doing another digital forensics case in your major crimes bureau' after he analyzed the evidence. Carroll, Banfield's attorney, argued in court that officials were not adhering to proper investigative guidelines when building their case and backing Brusch's catfishing theory without the supporting facts. In a court filing, Carroll wrote that Brusch resigned from the department after the hearing in which he had testified. He wrote in another motion that 'there is a willfulness in the lack of recognition of the science,' adding: 'The digital forensics are facts, and the Commonwealth chooses to ignore and disregard those facts.' Olivia Diaz, The Associated Press
National Post
10 minutes ago
- National Post
Another federal court blocks Trump's push to end birthright citizenship
FILE - Demonstrators holds up a banner during a citizenship rally outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, May 15, 2025. Photo by Jose Luis Magana / AP BOSTON — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS Enjoy the latest local, national and international news. Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events. Unlimited online access to National Post. National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES Enjoy the latest local, national and international news. Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events. Unlimited online access to National Post. National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Get a dash of perspective along with the trending news of the day in a very readable format. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Sorokin wrote. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.
CBC
40 minutes ago
- CBC
Why the U.S. is pulling out of UNESCO
Andrew Chang explains why U.S. President Donald Trump decided to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the second time.
