Epstein grand jury transcripts 'a distraction'
Attorney Sarah Krissoff, an assistant US attorney in Manhattan from 2008 to 2021, called the request in the prosecutions of Epstein and imprisoned British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell "a distraction".
"The president is trying to present himself as if he's doing something here and it really is nothing," Krissoff told The Associated Press.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche made the request on Friday, US time, asking judges to unseal transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and Maxwell.
Blanche said "transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this administration".
The request came as the administration sought to contain the firestorm that followed its announcement it would not be releasing additional files from the Epstein probe despite previously promising it would.
US President Donald Trump faces increased scrutiny about his relationship with Epstein, the disgraced financier and sex offender who died by suicide in a New York jail cell in 2019.
The Epstein case has generated conspiracy theories that became popular among Trump's base of supporters who believed the government was covering up Epstein's ties to the rich and powerful.
Some of Trump's most loyal followers became furious after his administration reversed course on its promise to release files related to the Epstein investigation.
Meanwhile, Trump is suing the Wall Street Journal and its owners, including Rupert Murdoch, after the newspaper reported that he in 2003 sent Epstein a birthday greeting that included a sexually suggestive drawing and a reference to secrets they shared.
Epstein killed himself at age 66 in his federal jail cell in 2019, a month after his arrest on sex trafficking charges, while Maxwell, 63, is serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed after her 2021 sex trafficking conviction for luring girls to be sexually abused by Epstein.
Krissoff and Joshua Naftalis, a Manhattan federal prosecutor for 11 years before entering private practice in 2023, said grand jury presentations are purposely brief.
Naftalis said prosecutors present just enough to a grand jury to get an indictment but "it's not going to be everything the FBI and investigators have figured out about Maxwell and Epstein".
"People want the entire file from however long. That's just not what this is," he said, estimating that the transcripts, at most, probably amount to a few hundred pages.
"It's not going to be much," Krissoff said, estimating the length at as little as 60 pages, "because the Southern District of New York's practice is to put as little information as possible into the grand jury".
"They basically spoon-feed the indictment to the grand jury. That's what we're going to see," she said. "I just think it's not going to be that interesting ... I don't think it's going to be anything new."
Both ex-prosecutors said grand jury witnesses in Manhattan are usually federal agents summarising their witness interviews.
Krissoff predicted that judges who presided over the Epstein and Maxwell cases will reject the government's request.
"This is not a 50-, 60-, 80-year-old case," Krissoff noted. "There's still someone in custody."
Cheryl Bader, a former federal prosecutor and Fordham Law School criminal law professor, said judges who presided over the Epstein and Maxwell cases may take weeks or months to rule.
"Especially here where the case involved witnesses or victims of sexual abuse, many of which are underage, the judge is going to be very cautious about what the judge releases," she said.
Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, called Trump's comments and influence in the Epstein matter "unprecedented" and "extraordinarily unusual" because he is a sitting president.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Foreign Minister Penny Wong says managing China-US relationships like ‘walking a tightrope'
Foreign Minister Penny Wong has described managing diplomacy with China and the US as a 'tightrope' amid growing scrutiny of the Albanese government's international strategy. Foreign Minister Penny Wong has acknowledged the difficulty of managing diplomatic relationships with China and the US, describing it as like 'walking a tightrope'. China has increased its global diplomatic reach in recent months as President Donald Trump's administration pares back America's international presence. Amid this balancing act, the Albanese government has been accused both of letting ties with the US weaken and of leaning too heavily into its relationship with China. 'I think diplomacy is often a tightrope,' Ms Wong told Sky News on Tuesday. 'In terms of the United States, they are our ally. They're our principal strategic partner. They are also our largest investment partner. None of that changes. 'China is our most important trading destination. And it is such an important power in our region. We know that there are times where we will disagree with what China articulates. 'But the world is not only those two relationships.' She emphasised that the government's foreign policy aim is to 'advance Australia's interests in all circumstances' - balancing cooperation and disagreement. 'We obviously live in a region where China is a very, very substantial power. We are also a US ally,' Ms Wong said. She also addressed points of disagreement with China, citing human rights issues and differences over international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. 'China seeks to become a predominant power in our region. Australia wants a balance, where no country dominates and no country is dominated,' she said. The remarks come amid ongoing scrutiny over Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's six-day diplomatic visit to China, which drew criticism for its perceived softness. — Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) July 16, 2025 Shortly before the trip, President Trump said the US would impose additional tariffs on any country aligning themselves with the 'Anti-American' politics of the BRICS group. The BRICS organisation includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Critics argued that Mr Albanese taking the trip to China before having met President Trump sent a bad signal about the government's approach to international affairs. His itinerary included visits to a Giant Panda breeding centre and the Great Wall of China, alongside dining with President Xi Jinping. Former home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo suggested Mr Albanese should have pursued a 'shorter, sharper' visit with 'blunt' discussions on Taiwan. Shadow Finance Minister James Paterson described the trip as 'indulgent', questioning whether 'a visit to Chengdu to pose with some pandas' was 'strictly necessary'. Mr Albanese defended the trip, calling it 'worthwhile' given the agreements signed on trade and tourism, and stressing the importance of fostering 'a stronger relationship'. On Australia's alliance with the United States, Ms Wong reaffirmed the importance of the partnership, describing the US as 'our principal strategic partner'. She highlighted the broader regional strategy, noting that engagement extends beyond the US and China to include countries such as Japan, India, and South Korea. The Foreign Minister also reiterated Australia's commitment to the AUKUS defence pact, calling it a 'win-win-win' for Australia, the US, and the UK.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Whitlam gave 18-year-olds the vote. Now it's time to lower it again
In the midst of COVID and not long before the 2022 election, I tuned in half-heartedly to yet another Zoom seminar, something about sustainability in the global tech sector. It actually turned out to be riveting, but the thing I remember most was a throwaway line right at the end by a young speaker from western Sydney called Natasha Abhayawickrama. She was one of the brains behind the nationwide School Strike 4 Climate movement. Answering questions with great maturity from her family kitchen about her passion for climate action, she ended with a quiet aside: 'But of course I can't vote on any of this.' What? Here was a thoughtful, rational, educated leader, completely across the biggest challenge of our age, yet she could not participate in our election because she would only have been 17 on election day. Really? Let's check what Natasha could have done at 17. She could enlist in the army. She could get a job and pay taxes. She could drive a car. She could independently manage her own MyHealth records. She could be charged as an adult with a criminal offence. And, like the then 16-year-old Melbourne climate change activist, Anjali Sharma, she could launch a class action against the federal environment minister for failing to consider the impacts of climate change. Yet for some reason, Australia deemed Natasha incapable of stepping inside a voting booth, picking up the stumpy pencil, and voting for her future. Australia should follow England's lead and fix this. There are some, such as British academic and podcaster, Professor David Runciman, who argue the voting age could drop as low as six. Only a crazy brave government would float that one up. Yet surely by election day 2028, Australia should at least drop the voting age to 16 or 17. This is hardly radical. We'd simply be joining England and also Austria, Brazil, Scotland, Cuba, Malta, Ecuador, Germany, Greece, Wales and Indonesia, all of whom have lowered their voting ages across varying levels of government. A big question concerning lawmakers here in Australia is, would dropping the voting age skew the vote? The common fear is it would favour parties of the left. However, European researchers found voting patterns among 16 and 17-year-olds were unpredictable and poorly studied. But there were evident gender differences. Young women tended to vote progressive on issues such as climate change, gender equality and social justice. Young men were more split, showing greater support than young women for right-leaning, populist parties. In 1973, prime minister Gough Whitlam lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. Even the Liberal opposition leader at the time, Billy Snedden, admitted that compared to previous generations, young Australians were 'better informed, better able to judge, more confident in their judgements, more critical in their appraisals, and on more mature terms with society around them'. He was speaking then, of course, about the Baby Boomers. While their dominance might be fading, those Boomers swelled the ranks to become Australia's most feted and entitled generation. Just look at how many policy announcements over many decades were targeted squarely at them. Then try and find something, anything, that addresses in a long-term, concrete fundamental way, the generational inequality faced by young Australians. Rocketing rents and housing prices, precarious employment (not helped by AI), low wages, high HECS debt and, scariest of all, a failing planet they'll be forced to confront long after the rest of us have departed. Compared to Gough Whitlam's 1973, Australia feels like another world. Yet, Billy Snedden's words could apply just as equally to today's 16 and 17-year-olds. In their hand sits a tool that, with a swipe, allows them to find an answer to pretty much anything. At no other time in human history have they been more informed, educated and globally connected.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Whitlam gave 18-year-olds the vote. Now it's time to lower it again
In the midst of COVID and not long before the 2022 election, I tuned in half-heartedly to yet another Zoom seminar, something about sustainability in the global tech sector. It actually turned out to be riveting, but the thing I remember most was a throwaway line right at the end by a young speaker from western Sydney called Natasha Abhayawickrama. She was one of the brains behind the nationwide School Strike 4 Climate movement. Answering questions with great maturity from her family kitchen about her passion for climate action, she ended with a quiet aside: 'But of course I can't vote on any of this.' What? Here was a thoughtful, rational, educated leader, completely across the biggest challenge of our age, yet she could not participate in our election because she would only have been 17 on election day. Really? Let's check what Natasha could have done at 17. She could enlist in the army. She could get a job and pay taxes. She could drive a car. She could independently manage her own MyHealth records. She could be charged as an adult with a criminal offence. And, like the then 16-year-old Melbourne climate change activist, Anjali Sharma, she could launch a class action against the federal environment minister for failing to consider the impacts of climate change. Yet for some reason, Australia deemed Natasha incapable of stepping inside a voting booth, picking up the stumpy pencil, and voting for her future. Australia should follow England's lead and fix this. There are some, such as British academic and podcaster, Professor David Runciman, who argue the voting age could drop as low as six. Only a crazy brave government would float that one up. Yet surely by election day 2028, Australia should at least drop the voting age to 16 or 17. This is hardly radical. We'd simply be joining England and also Austria, Brazil, Scotland, Cuba, Malta, Ecuador, Germany, Greece, Wales and Indonesia, all of whom have lowered their voting ages across varying levels of government. A big question concerning lawmakers here in Australia is, would dropping the voting age skew the vote? The common fear is it would favour parties of the left. However, European researchers found voting patterns among 16 and 17-year-olds were unpredictable and poorly studied. But there were evident gender differences. Young women tended to vote progressive on issues such as climate change, gender equality and social justice. Young men were more split, showing greater support than young women for right-leaning, populist parties. In 1973, prime minister Gough Whitlam lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. Even the Liberal opposition leader at the time, Billy Snedden, admitted that compared to previous generations, young Australians were 'better informed, better able to judge, more confident in their judgements, more critical in their appraisals, and on more mature terms with society around them'. He was speaking then, of course, about the Baby Boomers. While their dominance might be fading, those Boomers swelled the ranks to become Australia's most feted and entitled generation. Just look at how many policy announcements over many decades were targeted squarely at them. Then try and find something, anything, that addresses in a long-term, concrete fundamental way, the generational inequality faced by young Australians. Rocketing rents and housing prices, precarious employment (not helped by AI), low wages, high HECS debt and, scariest of all, a failing planet they'll be forced to confront long after the rest of us have departed. Compared to Gough Whitlam's 1973, Australia feels like another world. Yet, Billy Snedden's words could apply just as equally to today's 16 and 17-year-olds. In their hand sits a tool that, with a swipe, allows them to find an answer to pretty much anything. At no other time in human history have they been more informed, educated and globally connected.
