United States – (ECWd) –
Considering the volume of misinformation, opinions, speculations, and outright lies regarding the Jeffrey Epstein “files”, we once again bring things back to a simple “Says Who and With What Proof” standard.
While the US Attorney Pam Bondi indicated she had the Epstein “files” on her desk, that does not mean all those files can be released as some seem to believe. Many of those files may well be sealed because they are part of a Grand Jury investigation. If she were to release such material without approval from the court, she could face serious sanctions.
Bondi filed a motion to release the Grand Jury Transcripts in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation just yesterday. The motion is brief and to the point, and can be downloaded at this link or viewed below.
If the Grand Jury transcripts are released, it will be interesting to compare that information to the memorandum issued by the DOJ/FBI that can be downloaded at this link. Specifically, this one sentence:
“Only a fraction of this material would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial, as the seal served only to protect victims and did not expose any additional third parties to allegations of illegal wrongdoing. (emphasis added).
If transcripts are consistent with the memorandum, will people accept that, or will there be a new narrative indicating the Southern District of New York is part of a cover-up for the alleged “clients” on an alleged “list”?
We note that within this filing, footnote 2 indicates “The Department of Justice is filing similar motions in United States v. Maxwell, 1:20-cr-330 (S.D.N.Y.), and in the Southern District of Florida.”
We are of the opinion that these filings are a great step towards furthering transparency.
AG Bondi 6E filing
1 Comment
Mark Misiorowski
Posted at 17:00h, 19 JulyThe USDOJ, if it is being honest with itself, knows full well that it faces tremendous statutory, common law and public policy battles to disclose sensitive grand jury material, presently under seal. USDOJ, if it is being candid with itself, must realize that it does not meet any of the stated “exceptions” under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 (e) (3). Moreover, I do not see how USDOJ is going to demonstrate “particularized need” as required by SCOTUS opinions in Douglas Oil v Petrol Stops NW and US v. Sells Engineering.
On the other hand, President Trump recently sued the WSJ for defamation. Since “Truth” is an absolute defense to a claim for defamation, it seems very likely that the WSJ may elect to assert the Truth Defense as one of its lead affirmative defenses. This will then position the WSJ to advance a compelling argument under Rule 6 (e)(3) which states that “The Court may authorize disclosure–at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs–of a grand jury matter: preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”
The defamation suit filed by President Trump against the WSJ is precisely the sort of matter that is “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” Thus, the statutory requirements of 6(e)(3) will be more easily met by WSJ, not so with the USDOJ.
Likewise, the truth defense, in and of itself, affords WSJ with a very strong and compelling argument under the “particularized need” test set forth in Douglas Oil and Sells. The First Amendment and Freedom of the Press Rights of the WSJ further meet and exceed the “particularized need” common law requirement of Douglas Oil and its progeny.
Bottom line, the WSJ should have an easier time obtaining the Grand Jury Materials for limited use in its defamation defense as opposed to USDOJ’s motion for release of grand jury disclosure to the public at large. My prediction, USDOJ’s motions for release of sealed grand jury materials should be promptly denied. WSJ’s motion, on the other hand, should be granted since it meets the statutory requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 (e) and holdings from the US Supreme Court.