Latest Breaking News

ShazzieB

(21,445 posts) Mon Aug 11, 2025, 02:20 PM Aug 11

Transcripts of grand jury that indicted Epstein ex-girlfriend Maxwell won't be unsealed, judge says

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: AP News

By LARRY NEUMEISTER, MICHAEL R. SISAK and JENNIFER PELTZ
Updated 12:34 PM CDT, August 11, 2025
Share

NEW YORK (AP) — Transcripts of the secret grand jury testimony that led to the sex trafficking indictment of Jeffrey Epstein’s former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell won’t be released, a judge ruled Monday in a stinging decision belittling the government’s tease of new revelations as “demonstrably false.”

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer said in a written decision that the government had proposed releasing grand jury materials “casually or promiscuously,” jeopardizing the tradition of grand jury secrecy that protects the confidence of those called to testify before future grand juries.

He said the Justice Department’s suggestion that the grand jury materials “would bring to light meaningful new information about Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes, or the Government’s investigation into them — is demonstrably false.”

After reviewing the materials the government sought to release publicly, the judge wrote that anyone familiar with the Maxwell trial record who looked at them would “learn next to nothing new” and “would come away feeling disappointed and misled.”

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/justice-department-epstein-maxwell-f6ddbed5bd3fa026d43a0f510fdee22e

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Transcripts of grand jury that indicted Epstein ex-girlfriend Maxwell won't be unsealed, judge says (Original Post) ShazzieB Aug 11 OP

Massive smack in the face JustAnotherGen Aug 11 #1

Not at all. The judge pointed out that while there was nothing in the grand jury materials Ocelot II Aug 11 #4

Deadline: Legal Blog-Judge denies Trump DOJ motion to unseal Maxwell grand jury transcripts and exhibits LetMyPeopleVote Aug 11 #2

Isn't this a good thing? Chasstev365 Aug 11 #3

Exactly, and that's basically what the judge said. Ocelot II Aug 11 #5

AFTER a review by forum hosts LOCKING Omaha Steve Aug 11 #6

JustAnotherGen

(36,743 posts)

1. Massive smack in the face

Reply to ShazzieB (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2025, 02:22 PM

Aug 11

To Krasnov the Rapist's victims.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Ocelot II

(126,774 posts)

4. Not at all. The judge pointed out that while there was nothing in the grand jury materials

Reply to JustAnotherGen (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 11, 2025, 02:31 PM

Aug 11

that hadn't eventually become public through Maxwell's trial, the DoJ had presented no compelling reasons for violating the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. In fact, the judge suggested that the whole thing was basically a sham: "The one colorable argument under that doctrine for unsealing in this case, in fact, is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the Government’s public explanations for moving to unseal. A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government’s motion for their unsealing was aimed not at “transparency” but at diversion—aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.809.0.pdf at p. 20.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

LetMyPeopleVote

(168,746 posts)

2. Deadline: Legal Blog-Judge denies Trump DOJ motion to unseal Maxwell grand jury transcripts and exhibits

Reply to ShazzieB (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2025, 02:25 PM

Aug 11

The judge called the whole premise of the Trump administration’s argument for unsealing “demonstrably false.”
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/ghislaine-maxwell-grand-jury-transcript-judge-denied-unseal-rcna224275

Engelmayer, an Obama appointee, noted that the Maxwell grand jury didn’t hear testimony from firsthand witnesses, victims or the like, but rather simply met “for the quotidian purpose of returning an indictment.” He said the evidence presented to the Maxwell grand jury “is today, with only very minor exceptions, a matter of public record.”

Rather than exposing new information, Engelmayer wrote, unsealing would expose the disingenuousness behind the government’s claim that unsealing would be revelatory.

“A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government’s motion for their unsealing was aimed not at ‘transparency’ but at diversion — aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such,” the judge wrote.

“A member of the public familiar with the Maxwell trial record who reviewed the grand jury materials that the Government proposes to unseal would thus learn next to nothing new,” he wrote, adding that the materials “do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor.”.....

Maxwell’s appeal is pending before the Supreme Court, and we could learn in the fall whether the justices will take it up.

A federal judge in Florida previously rejected unsealing grand jury information related to Epstein. And still pending in New York is the government’s motion to unseal grand jury information in his case there, which the government has been litigating in tandem with the Maxwell unsealing effort. The judge overseeing Epstein’s New York case has not yet ruled, but given the apparently limited nature of the grand jury presentation in that case as well, he could rule in a similar fashion to Engelmayer.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Chasstev365

(6,065 posts)

3. Isn't this a good thing?

Reply to ShazzieB (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2025, 02:26 PM

Aug 11

Trump can't release general facts of what is already known and say, "See; we were transparent, nothing here, move on?"

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Ocelot II

(126,774 posts)

5. Exactly, and that's basically what the judge said.

Reply to Chasstev365 (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 11, 2025, 02:33 PM

Aug 11

He wasn't willing to violate the general rule of maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings in service of the DoJ's pretense of transparency, since there was really nothing new to be revealed.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Omaha Steve

(106,790 posts)

6. AFTER a review by forum hosts LOCKING

Reply to ShazzieB (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2025, 02:37 PM

Aug 11

DUPE of https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143510946

Statement of Purpose
Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions