Request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts likely to reveal little, ex-prosecutors say
Attorney Sarah Krissoff, an assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan from from 2008 to 2021, called the request in the prosecutions of Epstein and imprisoned British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell 'a distraction.'
President Trump '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.
Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche made the request Friday, asking judges to unseal transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and Maxwell, saying in a statement that 'transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.'
The request came as the administration sought to contain the public outcry that followed its announcement that it would not be releasing additional files from the Epstein inquiry despite previously promising it would.
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.
Krissoff and Joshua Naftalis, a Manhattan federal prosecutor for 11 years before entering private practice in 2023, said grand jury presentations are purposely brief.
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.'
'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.
'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.'
'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.'
Both former prosecutors said that grand jury witnesses in Manhattan are usually federal agents summarizing their witness interviews.
That practice might conflict with the public perception of some state and federal grand jury proceedings, where witnesses likely to testify at a trial are brought before grand juries during lengthy proceedings prior to indictments or when grand juries are used as an investigatory tool.
In Manhattan, federal prosecutors 'are trying to get a particular result so they present the case very narrowly and inform the grand jury what they want them to do,' Krissoff said.
Krissoff predicted that judges who presided over the Epstein and Maxwell cases would reject the government's request.
With Maxwell, a petition is before the U.S. Supreme Court, so appeals have not been exhausted. With Epstein, the charges are related to the Maxwell case and the anonymity of scores of victims who have not gone public is at stake, although Blanche requested that victim identities be protected.
'This is not a 50-, 60-, 80-year-old case,' Krissoff noted. 'There's still someone in custody.'
She said that citing 'public intrigue, interest and excitement' about a case was probably not enough to convince a judge to release the transcripts despite a 1997 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said judges have wide discretion and that public interest alone can justify releasing grand jury information.
Krissoff called it 'mind-blowingly strange' that Justice Department officials in Washington are increasingly directly filing requests and arguments in the Southern District of New York, where the prosecutor's office has long been labeled the 'Sovereign District of New York' for its independence from outside influence.
'To have the attorney general and deputy attorney general meddling in an SDNY case is unheard of,' she said.
Cheryl Bader, a former federal prosecutor and Fordham Law School criminal law professor, said judges who presided over the Epstein and Maxwell cases may take weeks or months to rule.
'Especially here where the case involved witnesses or victims of sexual abuse, many of which are underage, the judge is going to be very cautious about what the judge releases,' she said.
Bader said she didn't see the government's quest aimed at satisfying the public's desire to explore conspiracy theories 'trumping — pardon the pun — the well-established notions of protecting the secrecy of the grand jury process.'
'I'm sure that all the line prosecutors who really sort of appreciate the secrecy and special relationship they have with the grand jury are not happy that DOJ is asking the court to release these transcripts,' she added.
Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, called Trump's comments and influence in the Epstein matter 'unprecedented' and 'extraordinarily unusual' because he is a sitting president.
He said it was not surprising that some former prosecutors are alarmed that the request to unseal the grand jury materials came two days after the firing of Manhattan Assistant U.S. Atty. Maurene Comey, who worked on the Epstein and Maxwell cases.
'If federal prosecutors have to worry about the professional consequences of refusing to go along with the political or personal agenda of powerful people, then we are in a very different place than I've understood the federal Department of Justice to be in over the last 30 years of my career,' he said.
Krissoff said the uncertain environment that has current prosecutors feeling unsettled is shared by government employees she speaks with at other agencies as part of her work in private practice.
'The thing I hear most often is this is a strange time. Things aren't working the way we're used to them working,' she said.
Neumeister writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump, European Union Commission prez give ‘50-50′ chance of striking trade deal after Scotland meeting: ‘Rebalancing'
President Trump and European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen both put the odds of reaching a trade deal at 50% ahead of their negotiations Sunday, but remained hopeful an agreement could be finalized. 'I think the President is right, we have a 50 to 50% chance to strike a deal. And indeed it is about rebalancing,' she told reporters in the DJT Ballroom at Trump Turnberry off the west coast of Scotland. Trump has given the EU an Aug. 1 deadline to ink a new trade deal with him or else face 30% tariffs. The EU is a block of 27 trade countries, which, taken together, traded about $1.68 trillion worth of goods with the US last year. Advertisement 3 President Donald Trump meets European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland. AP 'This is the biggest deal. People don't realize this is bigger than any other deal,' Trump stressed ahead of his talks with the EU president. The president also noted that while a deal with the EU will address most outstanding trade-related issues, 'pharmaceuticals won't be part of it, because we have to have them made in the United States.' Advertisement Trump teased that he would know after about an hour whether or not a deal with the EU is possible before the Aug. 1 deadline and revealed that there are about 3 to 4 sticking points, but didn't detail specifics of what those issues are. He also aired his general grievances with European trade practices, particularly with automobiles and agriculture, though it wasn't clear if those were among the sticking points. 'We don't sell cars into Europe. We don't sell, essentially, agriculture of any great degree. They want to have their farmers do it, and they want to have their car companies do it,' he said. 'I'm not saying anything that nobody knows. We have a rough situation. If we want to sell cars in Europe, we're not allowed to. And as you know, they sell millions and millions of cars [into the US],' he added. 'What we want to do is make everybody happy.' Advertisement 3 The president also noted that while a deal with the EU will address most outstanding trade-related issues, 'pharmaceuticals won't be part of it, because we have to have them made in the United States.' Davide Bonaldo/SOPA Images/Shutterstock Von der Leyen, who flew to Scotland during Trump's four-day trip to the United Kingdom to meet with the American president, buttered him up 'as a tough negotiator and dealmaker.' 'And fair,' Trump interjected. Trump emphasized during his gaggle with reporters that he has no intention of delaying the Aug. 1 deadline before his customized 'Liberation Day' tariffs take effect. The president previously moved that deadline twice. Advertisement Rumors have swirled that Trump is eyeing a 15% baseline tariff on the EU, which would effectively cut his 'Liberation Day' proposal in half. Many Europeans have hoped he would drop that to the 10% baseline he has imposed on virtually all US imports — which is also the same rate he gave the United Kingdom during the tariff deal announced in May. 3 Trump emphasized during his gaggle with reporters that he has no intention of delaying the Aug. 1 deadline before his customized 'Liberation Day' tariffs take effect. Getty Images 'Better meaning lower?' Trump replied when a reporter asked him if he could do better than 15%. 'No.' So far, Trump has cut tariff deals with the UK, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines. The president teased that his team recently locked down another deal, but didn't specify which country. He also has a variety of tariffs in place now, such as a 25% rate on automobiles, aluminum, and steel, as well as 25% on imports from Canada and Mexico that don't comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. He's also recently mused about jacking up tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Trump has also reached a tariff truce with China and given Beijing an Aug. 12 deadline to cut a broader deal. Earlier this month, he gave Moscow an ultimatum to cut a peace deal with neighboring Ukraine within 50 days or else face 100% secondary tariffs on Russian energy — meaning levies imposed on countries that import from Russia.


Atlantic
27 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Zelensky Went Soft on Corruption Because the U.S. Did
Volodymyr Zelensky built a mythic reputation as a lonely bulwark against global tyranny. On Tuesday, the president of Ukraine signed that reputation away, enacting a law that gutted the independence of his country's anti-corruption agencies just as they closed in on his closest political allies, reportedly including one of his longtime business partners and a former deputy prime minister. To justify the decision, he cloaked it in an invented conspiracy, insinuating that Russian moles had implanted themselves in the machinery of justice. This is a scoundrel's playbook. Despite the ongoing war, Ukrainians swamped the streets of Kyiv in protest of their president's betrayal of democracy, forcing Zelensky to introduce new legislation reversing the bill he had just signed into law. It was a concession of error—and possibly an empty gesture, because the new bill is hardly a lock to pass the legislature. That Zelensky brazenly weakened Ukraine's anti-corruption guardrails in the first place shouldn't come as a shock. They were erected only under sustained pressure from the Obama administration as part of an explicit bargain: In exchange for military and financial support, Ukraine would rein in its oligarchs and reform its public institutions. Over time, the country drifted, however unevenly, toward a system that was more transparent, less captive to hidden hands. But in the Trump era, the United States has grown proudly tolerant of global corruption. In fact, it actively encourages its proliferation. Beyond the president's own venal example, this is deliberate policy. Brick by brick, Donald Trump has dismantled the apparatus that his predecessors built to constrain global kleptocracy, and leaders around the world have absorbed the fact that the pressure for open, democratic governance is off. Anne Applebaum: Kleptocracy, Inc. Three weeks into his current term, Trump paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act—loudly declaring that the United States wasn't going to police foreign bribery. Weeks later, America skipped a meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's anti-bribery working group for the first time since its founding 30 years ago. As the head of the anti-corruption group Transparency International warned, Trump was sending 'a dangerous signal that bribery is back on the table.' For decades, the more than prosecute bribery cases; it tried to cultivate civil-society organizations that helped emerging democracies combat corruption themselves. But upon returning to the presidency, Trump destroyed USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the U.S. Institute of Peace, dismantling the constellation of government agencies that had quietly tutored investigative journalists, trained judges, and funded watchdogs. These groups weren't incidental casualties in DOGE's seemingly scattershot demolition of the American state. Trump long loathed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which he described as a 'horrible law,' an animus stoked by the fact that some of his closest associates have been accused of murky dealings abroad. Crushing programs and organizations that fight kleptocracy meshed with the 'America First' instincts of his base; the likes of Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon abhor the export of liberal values to the world. From the wreckage of these institutions, a Trump Doctrine has taken shape, one that uses American economic and political power to shield corrupt autocrats from accountability. Benjamin Netanyahu, on trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, has been a prime beneficiary. Just as he was preparing to testify under oath, Trump denounced the prosecution as a 'political witch hunt' and threatened to withhold U.S. aid if the trial moved forward. Given Israel's reliance on American support, the threat had bite. Not long after Trump's outburst, the court postponed Netanyahu's testimony, citing national-security concerns. Trump acts as if justice for strongmen is a moral imperative. No retaliatory measure is apparently off limits. To defend his populist ally in Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, who faces charges related to an attempted coup, Trump revoked the visa of Alexandre de Moraes, the Supreme Court justice overseeing the case. Last month, Trump threatened to impose 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian steel, aluminum, and agricultural exports to punish the country for Bolsonaro's prosecution. This is hard-nosed realism, not just ideological kinship. To protect himself, Trump must defend the rights of populist kleptocrats everywhere. He must discredit the sort of prosecution that he might someday face. That requires recasting malfeasance as perfectly acceptable statesmanship. Listen: The kleptocracy club By stripping anti-corruption from the moral vocabulary of American foreign policy, Trump is reengineering the global order. He's laying the foundation for a new world in which kleptocracy flourishes unfettered, because there's no longer a superpower that, even rhetorically, aspires to purge the world of corruption. Of course, the United States has never pushed as hard as it could, and ill-gotten gains have been smuggled into its bank accounts, cloaked in shell companies. Still, oligarchs were forced to disguise their thievery, because there was at least the threat of legal consequence. In the world that Trump is building, there's no need for disguise—corruption is a credential, not a liability. Zelensky is evidence of the new paradigm. Although his initial campaign for president in 2019 was backed by an oligarch, he could never be confused for Bolsonaro or Netanyahu. He didn't enrich himself by plundering the state. But now that Trump has given the world permission to turn away from the ideals of good governance, even the sainted Zelensky has seized the opportunity to protect the illicit profiteering of his friends and allies. Yet there's a legacy of the old system that Trump hasn't wholly eliminated: the institutions and civil societies that the United States spent a generation helping build. In Ukraine, those organizations and activists have refused to accept a retreat into oligarchy, and they might still preserve their governmental guardians against corruption. For now, they are all that remain between the world and a new golden age of impunity.

Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mike Johnson pans discharge petition from Massie and Khanna
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday panned a discharge petition from Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) that is designed to force the release of more files on Jeffrey Epstein. The duo's bill is "reckless," Johnson told NBC's Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press." And it would force the DOJ and FBI to release information "that was not even credible enough to be entered into the court proceedings," he said. "I agree with President Trump, with the Department of Justice, with the FBI that you need all credible evidence and information out there," Johnson said. "That word 'credible' is important. And why? Because you have to protect innocent people's names and reputations whose names might be, as you noted at the outset of the program, intertwined into all these files." Another red flag: Johnson told Welker the bill doesn't include "adequate protections" for Epstein's victims. "These are minors in many cases who were subjected to unspeakable crimes, abject evil," Johnson said. "They've already suffered great harm. We do not need their names being unmasked. The Massie and the Khanna discharge petition does not have adequate protections." Congressional Republicans have spent the last few weeks grappling with the fallout of the Trump administration's handling of its Epstein investigation. Many of their core supporters are in uproar. And recent pronouncements from the president that the controversy is a hoax perpetrated by "Radical Left Democrats" have only increased the din. But Johnson insisted the legislative effort from the two lawmakers was not why he adjourned the House a day earlier than planned. Instead, he said the maneuver was necessary because of Democrats seeking to force Epstein votes in the House Rules Committee. "So what we did do this week is end the chaos in the rules committee because the Democrats are trying to use this in a shameless manner for political purposes, quite obviously," Johnson said. "They hijacked the rules committee. And they tried to turn it into an Epstein hearing. That's not what the rules committee is about. So that's why the floor vote ended on Wednesday instead of Thursday."