US judge rejects Trump administration's bid to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts
The move is the first ruling in a series of attempts to release more information on the case by Donald Trump's administration, which has been mired in a scandal in recent weeks, after the justice department announced it would not be releasing any additional files related to the Epstein case – despite earlier promises from the president and the the US attorney general, Pam Bondi.
The justice department's memo sparked renewed focus on and scrutiny of Trump's past ties to Epstein and drew backlash from some Trump supporters and conservative commentators.
On Friday, the justice department filed a motion asking the court to unseal the grand jury transcripts related to the federal investigations into Epstein in 2005 and 2007, according to court documents.
But on Wednesday, US district judge Robin Rosenberg ruled that the department's request in Florida did not fall into any of the exceptions to rules requiring grand jury material be kept secret.
Rosenberg wrote that the court's 'hands are tied' and said the government had not requested the grand jury's findings for use in a judicial proceeding, pointing out that district courts in the US are largely prohibited from unsealing grand jury testimony except in very narrow circumstances.
'Eleventh circuit law does not permit this court to grant the government's request,' Rosenberg wrote. 'The court's hands are tied – a point that the Government concedes.'
The justice department still has pending requests to unseal transcripts in Manhattan federal court related to a later indictment brought against Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 shortly after his arrest while awaiting trial, and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Trump administration freezes $339M in UCLA grants and accuses the school of rights violations
The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations related to antisemitism, affirmative action and women's sports, according to a person familiar with the matter. The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Several federal agencies notified UCLA this week that they were suspending grants over civil rights concerns, including $240 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, according to the person, who spoke about internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation. The National Science Foundation said in a statement it informed UCLA that it was suspending funding awards because the school isn't in line with the agency's priorities. UCLA's chancellor Julio Frenk called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' 'With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty and staff," he said in a statement. The Department of Energy said in its letter it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. Affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in California in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023. The letter said the school has taken steps that amount to 'a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,' disadvantaging white, Jewish and Asian American applicants. It also said UCLA fails to promote an environment free from antisemitism and discriminates against women by allowing transgender women to compete on women's teams. Frenk said that in its letter the federal government "claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons' to freeze the funding but 'this far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.' Earlier this week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to some areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps. The university has said that it's committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations. ___ Rodriguez reported from San Francisco and Binkley from Washington.
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Democrats find it hard to move on when Biden and Harris keep hogging the spotlight
Donald Trump is President of the United States. Republicans control all three branches of government. And even as Democrats are planning to regroup and contest next year's midterm elections, the two people who many of them blame for last year's dismal election outcome simply will not go away. More than half a year after they left office after a single four-year term, former president Joe Biden and former vice president Kamala Harris are continuing to remain in the spotlight and allow Republicans to highlight their failures instead of letting their party move on and find a way to regain the support that was lost during their time in office. Harris, who lost all seven of the contested swing states in last year's election, recently announced an upcoming book that will focus on the 107-day campaign she waged against Trump after Biden withdrew from the 2024 race following his dismal debate performance last June. She also revealed that she won't enter the upcoming race to succeed California Governor Gavin Newsom, who must leave office in 2027 when his second four-year term ends, leaving open the possibility that she'll enter what is expected to be a crowded primary race for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. Biden, whose 11th hour pardons of his family members and other political allies emboldened Trump to grant reprieves for the violent rioters who tried to prevent his 2020 loss from being certified, is still giving speeches in which he is attacking his predecessor-turned-successor, a stark contrast from how most former presidents have behaved after leaving office. At one such appearance, an address to the National Bar Association in Chicago on Thursday, he accused the Trump administration of 'doing its best to dismantle the Constitution,' giving right-wing media outlets plenty of fodder to use at a time when his party is trying to focus on the future and the current government's policy problems. And the president's son, Hunter Biden, is doing his best to stay in the headlines with a series of podcast appearances in which he casts blame for his father's exit from the race on a broad range of people — but not his father. The former Democratic ticket's refusal to fade away after a devastating electoral performance is ruffling feathers among party figures who are tasked with moving forward and figuring out how to escape from the wilderness in next year's midterms. A number of popular governors, including Illinois' JB Prizker and Kentucky's Andy Beshear, have been making the trek to early primary states with an eye towards 2028, and voters are increasingly eager to elect new faces rather than older establishment figures. Donna Bojarsky, a Democratic consultant, told The Washington Post that 'nobody' in the party is looking to go 'back to 2024' as they look for a way forward against the Republicans. 'The shadow of 2024 is long, and I think all perspectives in the mix believe we need something fresh,' she said. Another strategist Cooper Teboe, said the party's current predicament stems from a sclerosis that has taken hold on account of incumbents refusing to relinquish power to the next generation. 'The core reason the Democratic Party is in the position it is in today is because no new figures, no new ideas, have been allowed to rise up and take hold,' he said. But there is a group eager for Biden and Harris to remain part of the national conversation — Republicans. One GOP consultant who spoke to The Independent said Hunter Biden's recent profanity-laced podcast appearances and the former president's speeches are just what they need to keep his failures in the public eye as his party tries to regain the trust of voters. 'Hunter Biden is just what Democrats need more of going into the midterms,' he said, more than a bit sarcastically.
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Tesla ordered to pay $243m over Autopilot deaths
Tesla has been ordered to pay $243m (£183m) in compensation after a jury ruled that its Autopilot technology was partly to blame for a fatal crash involving one of its cars. A Miami jury on Friday held that Elon Musk's company bore significant responsibility for the death of a young woman and serious injuries to her boyfriend because its technology had failed. They assigned blame even though a reckless driver of a Tesla Model S admitted he was distracted after dropping his mobile phone. He rammed into the couple, Naibel Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo, who were standing next to their parked Chevrolet. 22-year-old Ms Benavides Leon died following the crash. Tesla has now been ordered to pay $43m in compensatory damages and $200m in punitive damages to Mr Angulo and the family of Ms Benavides Leon. The verdict is the latest setback for Mr Musk, who is under mounting pressure as a result of falling sales and share price at Tesla. The billionaire's ill-fated alliance with Donald Trump has done significant damage to the electric car company's brand image and critics say Mr Musk has lost his focus. Autopilot is a driver-assistance system that Tesla says is intended to reduce a driver's 'overall workload'. However, it has faced repeated investigations in the US over its safety record and has not been cleared for use on British roads. Dan O'Dowd, a road safety campaigner who has long questioned Tesla's technology, said: 'Today's ruling is a heavy blow to Elon Musk and Tesla.' The Miami decision ends a four-year long case that was remarkable not just in its outcome but in the fact it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed or settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. The trial itself was contentious. Lawyers acting for the victims claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. The plaintiffs hired a forensic data expert who dug it up key evidence. Presented with the findings, Tesla said it made a mistake and claimed the failure to present the evidence was an honest mistake. A Tesla spokesman said: 'Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. 'We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.'
