logo
Request to unseal Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts likely to disappoint, ex-prosecutors say

Request to unseal Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts likely to disappoint, ex-prosecutors say

Chicago Tribune20-07-2025
NEW YORK — A Justice Department request to unseal grand jury transcripts in the prosecution of chronic sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein and his former girlfriend is unlikely to produce much, if anything, to satisfy the public's appetite for new revelations about the financier's crimes, former federal 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.'
'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.
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.'
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.
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 ex-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 will 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 citing 'public intrigue, interest and excitement' about a case was likely 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 Washington Justice Department officials 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. Attorney 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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump to meet Putin in coming days, Kremlin says
Trump to meet Putin in coming days, Kremlin says

Boston Globe

time19 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump to meet Putin in coming days, Kremlin says

Advertisement Support for continuing the fight wanes in Ukraine The enthusiasm for a negotiated deal is a sharp reversal from 2022 — the year the war began — when Gallup found that about three-quarters of Ukrainians wanted to keep fighting until victory. Now only about one-quarter hold that view, with support for continuing the war declining steadily across all regions and demographic groups. The findings were based on samples of 1,000 or more respondents ages 15 and older living in Ukraine. Some territories under entrenched Russian control, representing about 10% of the population, were excluded from surveys conducted after 2022 due to lack of access. Since the start of the full-scale war, Russia's relentless pounding of urban areas behind the front line has killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, according to the United Nations. On the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line snaking from northeast to southeast Ukraine, where tens of thousands of troops on both sides have died, Russia's bigger army is slowly capturing more land. Advertisement The poll came out on the eve of U.S. President Donald Trump's Friday deadline for Russia to stop the killing or face heavy economic sanctions. In the new Gallup survey, conducted in early July, about 7 in 10 Ukrainians say their country should seek to negotiate a settlement as soon as possible. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last month renewed his offer to meet with Russia's Vladimir Putin, but his overture was rebuffed asRussia sticks to its demands, and the sides remain far apart. Most Ukrainians do not expect a lasting peace anytime soon, the poll found. Only about one-quarter say it's 'very' or 'somewhat' likely that active fighting will end within the next 12 months, while about 7 in 10 think it's 'somewhat' or 'very' unlikely that active fighting will be over in the next year. Approval of US falls, approval of Germany rises Ukrainian views of the American government have cratered over the past few years, while positive views of Germany's leadership have risen, according to Gallup. Three years ago, about two-thirds of Ukrainians approved of U.S. leadership. That's since fallen to 16% in the latest poll, reflecting new tensions between the two countries since Trump took office in January. But although the dip from last year was substantial — approval of U.S. leadership was 40% in 2024 — positive views of U.S. leadership were already dropping before Trump took office, perhaps related to the antipathy that prominent Republican politicians showed toward billions of dollars in U.S. support for Ukraine. Germany has grown more popular among Ukrainians over the past few years, rising to 63% approval in the new poll. Advertisement Hope for NATO, EU acceptance has fallen Ukrainians are much less optimistic that their country will be accepted into NATO or the European Union in the next decade than they were just a few years ago. In the new poll, about one-third of Ukrainians expect that Ukraine will be accepted into NATO within the next 10 years, while about one-quarter think it will take at least 10 years, and one-third believe it will never happen. That's down from 2022, when about two-thirds of Ukrainians thought acceptance into NATO would happen in the coming decade and only about 1 in 10 thought it would never happen. Hope for acceptance into the EU is higher but has also fallen. About half, 52%, of Ukrainians now expect to be part of the EU within the next decade, down from 73% in 2022. Hatton reported from Lisbon, Portugal.

What Supreme Court Justices Said About Gerrymandering
What Supreme Court Justices Said About Gerrymandering

Newsweek

time20 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

What Supreme Court Justices Said About Gerrymandering

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause is facing renewed scrutiny amid a political standoff in Texas, where Democrats have fled the state to block Republican-backed redistricting maps. Critics argue that the ruling, which bars federal courts from reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims, has emboldened aggressive map-drawing that diminishes minority representation. Why It Matters The ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause removed federal courts as a check on partisan gerrymandering, leaving disputes to state courts and legislatures. In states such as Texas, where one party controls the map-drawing process, this can significantly shape election outcomes, potentially diluting minority voting power and limiting fair representation in Congress. The current standoff highlights how the decision has emboldened partisan redistricting strategies, raising broader concerns about the balance of power in American democracy. What To Know The Supreme Court's Role In Rucho, the court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims of partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that "such claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," arguing that there is no constitutional standard to judge them. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the opinion. In a sharp dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the court's refusal to intervene would imperil the foundations of democracy. Joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan wrote: "Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one." Kagan argued that the court's withdrawal from redistricting disputes allowed lawmakers to choose their voters instead of the other way around. The ruling left redistricting battles to state courts and legislatures. While Roberts acknowledged that extreme gerrymandering was "incompatible with democratic principles," he maintained that political remedies, rather than federal judicial intervention, were the proper response. The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2023. The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, Is Gerrymandering? Gerrymandering occurs when political leaders manipulate voting district boundaries to benefit their party. Here's how it works: Imagine your neighborhood is evenly split between two political parties. Instead of drawing fair, competitive districts, lawmakers can manipulate boundaries so one party's voters are grouped together ("packing") or split apart across multiple districts ("cracking"). This makes it much harder for the other party to win seats—even if they receive as many overall votes. For everyday people, this means your vote might not count as much as it should. A community could be divided in a way that weakens its political voice, leaving voters with leaders who don't reflect their priorities on issues such as education, health care or taxes. In the long run, it can lock in one party's power for years, reducing accountability and limiting real choice at the ballot box. Recent Reaction in Texas On Tuesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott petitioned the state Supreme Court to remove Houston Representative Gene Wu from office, citing the Democrat's role in leading fellow lawmakers in a quorum-breaking protest over redistricting. Abbott said in a news release about the petition, "There must be consequences." Wu and dozens of Democrats left for Illinois on Sunday to block a vote on a GOP-backed congressional map that seeks to strengthen Republican control in Washington, arguing that without federal oversight, partisan map-drawing could undermine fair representation for Black and Latino voters. What People Are Saying Texas Governor Greg Abbott, addressing lawmakers who fled the state, said: "I made clear in a formal statement on Sunday, August 3, that if the Texas House Democrats were not in attendance when the House reconvened at 3 p.m. on Monday, August 4, then action would be taken to seek their removal. They have not returned and have not met the quorum requirements. "Representative Wu and the other Texas House Democrats have shown a willful refusal to return, and their absence for an indefinite period of time deprives the House of the quorum needed to meet and conduct business on behalf of Texans." State Representative Gene Wu, the House Democratic Caucus chair, said in a statement: "Denying the governor a quorum was not an abandonment of my office; it was a fulfillment of my oath. Unable to defend his corrupt agenda on its merits, Greg Abbott now desperately seeks to silence my dissent by removing a duly-elected official from office." He added: "History will judge this moment." Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned on Tuesday that if Abbott succeeded: "We do not have a democracy anymore. … And if the state of Texas has any law left in it, the Court will immediately dismiss this farce." What Happens Next With federal courts barred from hearing partisan gerrymandering claims, any legal challenges to Texas' redistricting maps are expected to play out in state courts. While plaintiffs may invoke state constitutional protections or the federal Voting Rights Act, voting rights advocates warn that without federal oversight, states could pursue increasingly aggressive gerrymandering strategies. As Texas moves forward with its redistricting plans, the Rucho decision and the ideological divide it revealed continue to shape the national conversation about voting rights, representation and the role of the judiciary in protecting democratic norms.

Kremlin says Putin-Trump meeting agreed, will happen in 'coming days'
Kremlin says Putin-Trump meeting agreed, will happen in 'coming days'

NBC News

time20 minutes ago

  • NBC News

Kremlin says Putin-Trump meeting agreed, will happen in 'coming days'

The Kremlin said Thursday that a meeting between presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has been agreed in principle and will happen in the 'coming days.' Trump revealed a day before that he was hopeful of a meeting with his Russian counterpart in an attempt to end the war in Ukraine. It would be his first in-person discussion with Putin during his second term. 'At the suggestion of the American side, an agreement in principle was made to hold a bilateral meeting at the highest level in the coming days,' Putin's longtime foreign policy aide, Yury Ushakov, said in a statement.

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