President Donald Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondy to “comprehensive large ju trial testimony” in the Jeffrey Epstein case, but it is unclear what the material contains and whether the judge will even allow it to be released.
The Justice Department filed a motion in federal court in New York late Friday afternoon, asking the judge to “release the relevant large ju court transcript,” and makes the “existing protection order” a “existing protection order.”
Hours after Trump reported that he had sent Epstein a “bawdy” 50th birthday letter in 2003, the president handed over the orders for the lawsuit Thursday night. NBCNews has not independently reviewed the documents, and Trump refused to send such letters. The president filed a lawsuit Friday against Rupert Murdoch, the publisher of the newspaper and founder of News Inc. A Dow Jones spokesman said in a statement: “We will be totally confident in the strictness and accuracy of the reporting and will be fiercely defending the lawsuit.”
The recent president has been trying to dispel growing pressure, including releasing more information about the incident, including some of his closest supporters. Epstein’s criminal case and his death in 2019 have long been the subject of conspiracy theory.
“Based on the outrageous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to generate all relevant large ju court testimony, subject to court approval. This fraud perpetuated by the Democrats, should now end!” he wrote.
Bondi responds almost immediately, writing that the DOJ is “ready to move through the court tomorrow and seal the transcript of the Great Jue Court.”
Experts told NBC News that such moves could pose legal and ethical issues given the legislation protecting the secrets of the big ju judge. The Justice Department said the move is necessary given the “long-standing” public interest in the Epstein case.
The DOJ did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The White House introduced NBC News to Trump’s Truth Social Posts.
Next, let’s see what to expect next and what will be revealed if there is.
What’s coming next?
The Justice Department filed the motion in federal court in Manhattan, where the large ju court indicted Epstein was convened. Epstein was found dead in a prison cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Prosecutors determined he committed suicide in his death.
Trump instructed the DOJ to ask him to establish “appropriate” information about the case, but his submission went a little further, asking the judge to clearly seal “the large ju transcript underlying the US v. Epstein, subject to proper compilation of victim-related and other personal identification information.”
The filing, signed by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal attorney, indicates that similar claims could be filed in Florida.
Epstein was previously investigated by federal and state authorities in Florida in the mid-2000s. There, despite the investigation of dozens of other people, they were able to plead guilty to solicitation, including one minor victim. Federal prosecutors now say he “harmed more than 1,000 victims.”
Legal experts said future hearings regarding submissions could be heard in a closed court under seal. That is, at least at first, he said that the public cannot see what the DOJ is specifically requested.
The transcript of a large ju judge can include testimony from potential witnesses and victims, as well as members of state, local, or federal law enforcement agencies who may have played an investigation role in the case.
According to a former New York prosecutor, the prosecutors who spoke primarily about the anonymity status, the material that could be released is expected to focus on Epstein and his ex-girlfriend, Githraine Maxwell, as prosecutors primarily present evidence against the individual they are trying to indict. Other individuals are usually mentioned in a broader case file containing documents created during the investigation.
Maxwell, the only other person charged in the investigation, was convicted in 2021 on sex trafficking charges in Manhattan and sentenced to 20 years in prison. She is suing her sentence.
Why can’t DOJ release transcripts?
By law, the testimony of the Great Ju Court remains secret. People involved in the Great Ju Court are generally unable to disclose information or materials from the Great Ju Court, with a few exceptions. Witnesses can discuss their testimony and the government can share information with those working on the case or related matter.
There are other exceptions related to issues related to foreign intelligence agencies, anti-intellectuality, national security and diplomacy.
Prosecutors have one advantage in that the lawsuit is being held in New York. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit – A federal court overseeing appeals in the Southern District of New York has held that judges have inherent authority to release large juice material in special or exceptional circumstances.
It is unclear whether this situation is considered a special situation. Among the factors that judges say should consider are the “historical interest” and the passage of time, including whether the people involved in the case are still alive. While Epstein is dead, Maxwell is alive and pleads for her belief in the Supreme Court.
DOJ Filing argues that the material needs to be published anyway.
“The government recognizes that Maxwell’s case is currently pending in the Supreme Court’s petition for a certificate warrant, but it is still moving the court for relief for intense public scrutiny on the matter,” the filing states.
Other circuits oppose the Second Circuit’s position on disclosure, and the High Court has no emphasis on the issue.
Will the “client list” be finally published?
The current uproar began after the Justice Department and the FBI released a joint memo saying they had conducted a “full” review of the Epstein case. Contrary to the conspiracy theory defended by the right, the report stated that politically connected financiers do not have a peer “client list”, and that no other parties face accusations, and that his death was actually a suicide.
It is not expected to be much of an example of igniting these issues, as the testimony of the Great Jue does not include FBI 302S (a form filled out by an FBI agent explaining details of interviews with individuals involved in the case), photo or video evidence, or re-returned names of individuals who are not directly involved in the testimony of the Great Jue.
It also does not include flight logs of people who flew on Epstein planes. The logs, released in 2021 as part of Maxwell’s trial, showed President Trump, former President Bill Clinton and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. were among those traveling the plane. All three denied any fraud in connection with Epstein and were not charged in connection with the case. Trump denied that he was on an Epstein plane last year.
Christy Greenberg, a legal analyst at MSNBC and former federal prosecutor, called Trump Bondy “a red herring.”
“Trump knows SDNY prosecutors trying to indict Epstein, and Maxwell knows he didn’t question him in the big juj presentation while he was Potus.
Former New York federal prosecutors agreed that records describing information collected by investigators, rather than testimony from the large ju court, are likely to contain information that some people are requesting.
“It is these case files that are likely to contain financial transactions, phone numbers and other information about Epstein’s friends and peers,” the former prosecutor said.
However, the former prosecutor said he believes his former colleague pursued a lawsuit against the individual if he had any clear evidence that he was engaged in sex trafficking or violated other federal laws.
“It would be surprising if there was something that could be prosecuted by the federal government that was not accused,” the former prosecutor said. “There are a lot of unpleasant things that aren’t federal crimes.”
Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, a news analyst for NBC, warned that releasing information from the big ju judge could lead to slippery slopes.
“The rules aside, it is fundamentally unfair to abandon the subject name in the public domain, as “these individuals have “do nothing wrong,” and “there are no real forums to refute the accusation.”
“If they do something wrong, they should be charged at a forum where they can challenge the charges,” he added. “If there’s something to say to Doj, they should say it in court. Otherwise they have to say nothing.”
Rosenberg has issued a similar warning about bipartisan calls to release all of the FBI’s investigation files in the case.
“Releasing unedited research files into the public domain is essentially a bad habit,” he said. “In either case, the research file contains a lot of information. Some vetted, some absent, some accurate, some inaccurate, some solutions, some unresolved.”
He added, “A lot of people tell FBI agents a lot. Of course, it doesn’t make that information true.”
Lisa Rubin, Kelly O’Donnell, Ryan J. Reilly and Steve Copak contributed.
Source link
