Release of Ghislaine Maxwell's grand jury
transcripts denied by judge
United Press International,
by
Chris Benson
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
8/11/2025 5:33:05 PM
A New York judge on Monday rejected a request by the federal government to unseal grand jury records in the federal case of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell after the Trump administration signed off on her prison transfer.
"The court's review confirmed that unsealing the grand jury materials would not reveal new information of any consequence," U.S. Judge Paul Engelmayer of New York's Southern District wrote in his 31-page ruling denying a request by the U.S. Department of Justice to unseal the grand jury material.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
earlybird 8/11/2025 5:42:41 PM (No. 1989493)
The lawyers stressed that GJ testimony is "sacrosanct ". Most of us have known that for years...
12 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Starboard_side 8/11/2025 5:46:44 PM (No. 1989495)
This is the scheme the Democrats are playing by never mentioning the GJ testimony has been restricted from release by this one judge.
Never seems to make it in most articles or qualified by news people who simply spew whatever a Democrat says.
I can assure you, if this was anyone other than Trump they would all be bending over backwards to make sure they qualified anything being said.
This is akin to when the Democrats would comment about Trump when they knew a friendly judge put a gag order on Trump so he couldn't defend himself like any other person.
20 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
DVC 8/11/2025 5:59:41 PM (No. 1989500)
Grand jury testimony is essentially never released for any case. This is nothing unusual.
20 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
seamusm 8/11/2025 6:14:09 PM (No. 1989505)
Not sure I understand why grand jury testimony and evidence is sealed forever when that same evidence is then subsequently available at trial. The trial in this case which resulted in a conviction. I might understand permanently sealing testimony if no crime is ever proven and someone convicted of it.
18 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
chumley 8/11/2025 6:15:27 PM (No. 1989507)
This is how the entire thing is going to go, with the help of the Trump administration. Funny that the only common ground the repubs and demos can find is not wanting us to know who was there and what they did.
10 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
kono 8/11/2025 6:31:22 PM (No. 1989517)
Some here are saying we never see GJ testimony. But didn't we see the GJ testimony from the Ferguson incident?
6 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
earlybird 8/11/2025 7:08:15 PM (No. 1989521)
Re #4, a prosecutor takes a case to a grand jury for the purpose of getting an indictment. It is totally prosecution. An indictment does not prove a person guilty. Under our system, there is a presumption of innocene until a court trial, where the defendant has legal representation, determines whether defendant is guilty or not.
10 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Birddog 8/11/2025 7:36:29 PM (No. 1989524)
Who was arguing AGAINST it's release?
Obama Judge then threw accusations/bashing at the Govt Case/Trump...""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."
Judge failed to recognize that the same "Illusion/Diversion" insinuation is more closely and factually aimed a HIM.
4 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
DVC 8/11/2025 7:43:08 PM (No. 1989529)
Re #8, no need for anyone to argue against release. NOT releasing is the hard, standard thing, set in law.
Any effort to release grand jury testimony is almost certain to be denied, in all cases.
4 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
hershey 8/11/2025 9:38:04 PM (No. 1989562)
If it wouldn't reveal any new evidence, why keep it out of the public view??? I see some hanky panky in this business...maybe his name was on the list??
0 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
DVC 8/11/2025 10:25:51 PM (No. 1989578)
I'm really amazed at how many folks want to break the laws for their purposes in what they think is important, but want the laws to protect them at other times.
Consistency is something that we need to stick to, because the Dems ALWAYS twist the laws to their purposes.
We need to be the ones who follow the laws.
2 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
5 handicap 8/12/2025 5:40:15 AM (No. 1989614)
This Political Hack, any Judge apointed by Obama, would automatically qualify for such a title, is making a politiical desision, we gotta ask why, in this case? His sleaze is overwhelming!
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 8/12/2025 5:43:57 AM (No. 1989616)
One of Obama's chickens coming home to roost.
4 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Red Jeep 8/12/2025 6:30:49 AM (No. 1989624)
Must be that there is nothing implicating President Trump is the GJ testimony, or Democrats would make the testimony leak somehow.
Keeping the GJ testimony secret will give the Democrats a political tool to use against the President. Remember despite the Democrats screaming otherwise it is the Courts that are keeping Epstein evidence sealed, not President Trump.
5 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Strike3 8/12/2025 6:53:35 AM (No. 1989632)
I wonder how many of Epstein's videos have been "reviewed" by the judge?
7 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
janjan 8/12/2025 8:13:35 AM (No. 1989650)
The grand jury testimony doesn’t need to be released. Maxwell could go public herself. Except it would have to be in exchange for a pardon and she wouldn’t live long enough to catch a plane to Europe. There is that. This information is never going to come out. At what point do we move on?
6 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Zigrid 8/12/2025 10:03:49 AM (No. 1989703)
Let's see what judge Jeannine can do...might have some tricks up her sleeve....the Epstein files is now an old issue...and WE MAGA followers have left it to the court...WE all know about billie Clinton and prince Andrew and bill gates...and the democrats cut off their noses because WE all know ...if they had President Trump's name on that list...the democrats would have used it for the past 5 years to keep him off the ballot for 2024....
7 people like this.
OP and #7 nailed it: This is much ado about nothing. Nothing relevant to whether other persons should have been criminally charged would have been presented to a grand jury. To begin answering that question you need testimony by the DOJ decision makers in the Epstein case -- prosecutors and FBI.
2 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
JimBob 8/12/2025 11:56:35 AM (No. 1989750)
Three thoughts:
-I understand the reason for the LAW prohibiting the release of grand jury proceedings, as the proceedings are completely one-sided, run by the prosecution.
-On the other hand, as Ghislane was CONVICTED and is serving 20 years for 'Assisting', then WHAT was she 'Assisting' with, and WHO was she 'Assisting'? Why have the people who 'DID IT' never been indicted?
-This is being kept alive by the 'Rats and the Lamestreams (but I repeat myself), for the dual purposes of;
1) Throwing suspicion on President Trump, and
2) Distracting from all the Crooked stuff the 'Rats were doing. (Last time I checked, the AllBarackChannel (a.k.a. ABC) STILL has made NO MENTION of DNI Tulsi Gabbard's statements that the whole 'Russia Collusion' scandal, including the 'Steele Dossier' that the Lamestreams talked about constantly for years, was a 'Rat HOAX, paid for by the HildeBeast and directed by Zero himself, with all his CIA/FBI minions joining in, and the Lamestreams enthusiastically cheering them on every step of the way..... when they ALL KNEW IT WAS FALSE FROM THE GET-GO!
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
I heard a discussion of this by lawyers. Inasmuch as this GJ was convened for only the purpose of indicting Maxwell, there would have been no testimony or evidence about anyone else.