How grand jury testimony gets unsealed
'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' the president wrote in a post on his Truth Social website Thursday night. 'This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!'
Bondi quickly confirmed online that she would follow Trump's directive.
It's not the first time high-profile Republican figures have sought to unseal documents in the Epstein case. It's unclear what exactly Bondi will ask for, whether judges will be responsive to Bondi's request, or whether the effort will be enough to subdue critics in the MAGA-verse.
Here's what to know about the Trump administration's latest move on the Epstein files.
What is the process for unsealing grand jury testimony
Grand jury transcripts, including ones related to the Epstein case, are typically confidential under law, but courts can decide to release them when public interest outweighs the legal protections they provide for informants, witnesses and people accused of crimes.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a law in February 2024 to unseal grand jury documents from Epstein's state case, which helped remove legal barriers. Joseph Abruzzo, the Democratic clerk of the circuit court and comptroller of Palm Beach County, released the records in July of that year.
Epstein previously reached a 'non-prosecutorial agreement' in a prostitution case in the South District of Florida in 2007 and served a year behind bars after a federal grand jury investigation.
A decision to unseal the records in Epstein's federal case is subject to the approval of a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, where Epstein was charged before he died by suicide in 2019.
The Department of Justice didn't immediately respond to The Hill's request seeking additional information about how Bondi plans to pursue the release of additional documents, or what records she would request.
What is a grand jury
A grand jury, which is made up of citizens appointed at random from voter rolls, hears a prosecutor's case before deciding whether there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime
Epstein was indicted by a grand jury on sex trafficking charges in 2019 but died before his case was heard.
Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's associate and girlfriend, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after being found guilty in 2022 of helping Epstein sexually abuse underage girls. She remains the only person convicted in his sex trafficking schemes.
Maxwell's case was chiefly handled by the U.S. Southern District of New York.
Grand jury testimony from Maxwell's case has been kept under seal, though multiple women testified in open court about her efforts to lure them into Epstein's sex predator scheme when they were youths.
The Fifth Amendment requires that all federal cases be heard by a grand jury, but grand juries aren't mandated in some state cases.
The grand juries do not determine guilt or innocence. In most cases, they don't hear defense arguments or evidence against charges.
What testimony does a grand jury hear
Evidence presented to a grand jury doesn't face the same legal restrictions as information released in open court.
It can include details from confidential informants, relayed via law enforcement; information from witnesses whose identities are to be protected for their safety; and other evidence obtained through clandestine law enforcement methods before the defense has an opportunity to refute them.
Alan Dershowitz, who helped get a plea deal for Epstein in 2008, has said that there's no Epstein 'client list,' but has said individuals accused of wrongdoing are named in the redacted FBI affidavit from accusers.
'Now, of course, because I was lawyer and I did all the investigations, I know who all these people are,' Dershowitz said earlier this week in an appearance on NewsNation's 'Cuomo.' He claimed no one named in the affidavit currently holds public office.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
24 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Marjorie Taylor Greene Just Dropped A Truth Bomb About The Republican Party
Marjorie Taylor Greene is NOT happy with the Republican Party. She was pissed about the attack on Iran. She broke ranks with Republicans and called the crisis in Gaza a "genocide." And she won't stop talking about how Republicans won't deal with the national debt. Now, she's talking about breaking up with the Republican Party. In an interview with the Daily Mail, the Congress member said: "I don't know if the Republican Party is leaving me, or if I'm kind of not relating to Republican Party as much anymore. I don't know which one it is." She also said: "I think the Republican Party has turned its back on America First and the workers and just regular Americans." And finally, she criticized the way Republicans treat women: "I think there's other women in our party that are really sick and tired of the way men treat Republican women." Those anti-GOP quotes are going viral in a tweet by Brian Tyler Cohen: People in the replies are, like, duh: "What if she switches parties and becomes a normie dem," one person asked. "I really never thought i'd see that day she was saying shit like this and uttering the word 'genocide'…" another person said in disbelief. And then the Lincoln Project invited her to the party: "Welcome to the resistance, Marge." As this person said, "Trumps presidency is so goddamn bad that it wokeified marjorie taylor green."
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
Texas Hold 'em: Gov. Abbott threatens legal action for absent Dems
After more than 50 Democrats fled the state amid a redistricting battle, Greg Abbott gave them an ultimatum and deadline to return to Austin. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott threatened more than 50 Democrats with legal action and removal from the state legislature after the lawmakers fled the Lone Star State en masse Aug. 3 amid a heated redistricting battle. At President Donald Trump's urging, Texas Republicans have proposed a revised congressional map that could give the party a leg up in next year's midterm elections and the ability to flip as many as five U.S. House seats. Democrats in the state, limited by their minority position, employed one of their few viable methods of protest by leaving Texas to break necessary quorum. Many traveled to Illinois, greeted by Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker, while other, smaller groups landed in Boston, Massachusetts and Albany, New York. In a memo late Sunday evening, Abbott said he would expel any Democrat who was not back in Austin by the time the legislature reconvened Aug. 4 at 3 p.m. CT. "Democrats hatched a deliberate plan not to show up for work, for the specific purpose of abdicating the duties of their office and thwarting the chamber's business," the governor wrote. "That amounts to an abandonment or forfeiture of an elected state office." Abbott based his ultimatum on a 2021 nonbinding opinion from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. In it, Paxton asserts that district courts could rule to remove a lawmaker who has left in order to break quorum, leaving a vacancy that Abbott would then be able to fill. The absent Democrats are already facing consequences in the form of a $500 per day fine for being out of state. The penalty was put in place after state Democrats in 2021 fled in order to protest new voting restrictions and halted operations for 38 days. Deep-pocketed donors and officials on the left − including Pritzker, a billionaire, and Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a congressional Texan and star fundraiser − have offered to assist Texas Democrats. Abbott, in his note, accused the state lawmakers of violating bribery laws by accepting the support. "In addition to abandoning their offices, these legislators may also have committed felonies," Abbott wrote. "I will use my full extradition authority to demand the return to Texas of any potential out-of-state felons." Texas Democrats say they are not deterred by the governor's warnings. At a press conference with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, state Rep. Jolanda Jones, a Democrat from Houston and an attorney, said Abbott was "making up" a threat he could not follow through on. "He's going to come get us how?" Jones added. "Let me be clear − he's putting up smoke and mirrors."
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Information is power, and Trump wants more control over it
Climate change reports, deleted. DEI initiatives, banned. Local TV and radio stations, defunded. Books, removed from military academies. Names of civil rights leaders, erased from ships. History lessons, purged from museums. The list goes on and on. President Trump and his government appointees keep asserting more control over ideas and information — which has the effect of taking power away from independent researchers, historians, and the real news outlets that he frequently calls 'fake.' Friday's abrupt firing of the labor statistics chief is one of the most dramatic examples yet. But this push for control has been evident all throughout his second term — and the individual headlines should be analyzed as part of a pattern, lest the memories start to fade. Remember the headlines about vaccine data being deleted from government websites last winter? Or the bogus math on DOGE's 'receipts' page? How about the 'Friday night purge' of impartial watchdogs investigating abuse within the government? 'Trump increasingly is playing the role of information gatekeeper,' Clay Calvert of the American Enterprise Institute wrote a prophetic blog post back in February. Calvert said Trump was 'dictating access on his terms' – promoting MAGA media outlets while punishing The Associated Press for not adopting Trump's 'Gulf of America' name. That AP dispute was about control over information. So, too, was the Trump White House's decision to purge a database of transcripts documenting his announcements and public appearances. The president has also objected to unflattering stories by lodging legal threats against news outlets. In one recent case, he followed through with a defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, which analysts said could have a chilling effect on reporting writ large. The White House has framed some of its most aggressive rewrites and removals as common-sense corrections. 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History' was the title of one such executive order in March. Another move to shut down a reliable source of information, the US-funded international broadcaster known as Voice of America, was framed by the administration as a way to curtail 'radical propaganda.' One of the alleged examples was a six-year-old news report 'about transgender migrants seeking asylum in the United States.' Every administration tries to shape reality to some degree. But 'Trump's statistical purges have been faster and more sweeping — picking off not just select factoids but entire troves of public information,' the Washington Post asserted in March. One glaring example involves the National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated report on climate change. The authors of the assessment were fired and previous versions 'have been hidden from view on government websites,' as CNN's Zachary B. Wolf wrote last week. Trump's dispute with the Bureau of Labor Statistics further raises the stakes — and the alarms about creeping authoritarianism. 'Suppressing statisticians is a time-honored tool for leaders trying to solidify their power and stifle dissent,' George Stephanopoulos said on ABC's 'This Week' on Sunday. 'It's happened throughout history, most recently in Venezuela and Turkey.' His guest, Lawrence Summers, the former treasury secretary, said that 'firing statisticians goes with threatening the heads of newspapers. It goes with launching assaults on universities. It goes with launching assaults on law firms.' 'This is really scary stuff,' Summers added. Yet some Trump aides and allies are publicly defending the firing. National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett said Monday morning on CNBC that the jobs data 'could be politically manipulated.' This battle for control isn't happening in a vacuum. There is evidence that media scrutiny and public pressure do make a difference. Back in March, the Associated Press revealed that an anti-DEI crusade at the Pentagon led to images of war heroes, women, minorities and even the famed Enola Gay warplane being flagged for removal. The embarrassing episode forced Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's aides into a defensive crouch. Similarly, just last week, the Washington Post reported on the Smithsonian removing Trump's name from an impeachment exhibit at the National Museum of American History. The whiff of scandal was so overwhelming that the museum issued a statement on Saturday denying any White House pressure and pledging to update the exhibit in the coming weeks.
