Judge Allows DOJ to Unseal Ghislaine Maxwell Grand Jury Records
Like with the Epstein material, I wonder how many blacked out pages we will get.
Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York granted the DOJ’s request to unseal the grand jury records in Ghislaine Maxwell’s case due to the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The decision comes a few days after a Florida judge allowed the release of grand jury transcripts from Jeffrey Epstein’s trial.
“The Court thus holds that, in passing the Act, Congress overrode Rule 6(e), in the very limited context of the Maxwell and Epstein grand jury materials,” wrote Engelmayer. “As to other grand juries, the secrecy of testimony, exhibits, and any other materials remains the rule, subject to the limited exceptions set out in Rule 6(e).”
Rule 6(e) covers the recording and disclosure of grand jury proceedings.
Engelmayer noted that the Act does not refer to grand jury materials, but agreed with the DOJ that it “textually covers the grand jury materials in this case” for three reasons:
- The Act refers to Maxwell by name
- The Act covers “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of [DOJ], including .. . United States Attorneys’ Offices, that relate to . . . Maxwell,” as well as Epstein and other topics.
- The Act does not exempt grand jury material. It exempts classified information.
The documents will comply with privacy, which means redactions.
Like with the Epstein material, I wonder how many blacked-out pages we will get.
Englemayer denied the DOJ’s request in August because the documents show nothing new, and Maxwell is appealing her conviction.
The judge found the request did not meet the “special circumstances” requirement.
“It consists of garden-variety summary testimony by two law enforcement agents,” Englemayer wrote in his August decision. “And the information it contains is already almost entirely a matter of longstanding public record, principally as a result of live testimony by percipient witnesses at the 2021 Maxwell trial.”
Englemayer also did not see the release a matter of “significant hostorical or public interest” for the same reason.
“Because the secondhand testimony at issue here is redundant of the public-record trial testimony of firsthand witnesses, and thus is not of significant historical or public interest, there is arguably no charter for even undertaking the In re Craig inquiry,” wrote Englemayer.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s crap data. No ability to confront your accuser or rebut.
One down, two to go. Release it and let the chips fall where they may.
It’s all a game to democrats as they really don’t give a f88k about what’s in the testimony.
They made a lot of noise to distract stupid people from their cluster f88k Govt shutdown and now they will just move on to something else to do their performative dance outrage over 🙄
If Epstein was really an intelligence asset, lots of material will be considered classified.
If Congress can override Rule 6(e) in very particular circumstances, they can always find “circumstances” to override any “Rule” they wish at any time in the future.
Question: Aren’t these the ways the NAZIs got started in the ’30s?
They could always find a reason or a ratonale for their actions; for the betterment of German society.
The serious question is why the public is interested. Why is it clickbait?
Psychologist Adolf Guggenbuhl-Craig says it’s a partial archetype. Under-18 is considered absolutely innocent and as a reflex the perps are absolutely evil. Which, he says, makes public discussions of child sexual abuse impossible. It’s a public obsession.
Because a bunch of rich and powerful people had sex with minors and were therefore blackmail-able? And who knows how that blackmail was used and what it affected?
And because we want to know which scumbags did it so we can regard them with the contempt they so richly deserve?
Graig, as a child sexual abuse therapist, says that the public obsession is harmful to victims, so you could take that into account. long quote:
The one-sided, unipolar or split-off mythology of the innocent child and victim even has the capacity to hinder our therapeutic work with sexually abused children – or adults. The manner and method many therapists use to deal with the guilt feelings or “abuse” victims amply demonstrates my point. Children who experience sexual abuse often feel guilty. They have the impression that they, somehow, were at fault. Older children, in particular, have ambivalent feelings about the abuse. They are uncertain whether the experience did not provide them with a certain pleasure. They often wonder if they failed to defend themselves or possibly encouraged the perpetrator. Many psychologists reject these guilt feelings out of hand as completely unjustified. They maintain that in no way can there be a question of guilt. They encourage children to forget the guilt, to put it out of their minds.
This therapeutic position can be harmful for the psychological development of a child. Therapists simply think of and accept the child as a victim. They energetically reject and deny any attempt on the child’s part to assume any responsibility for what happened or at least to recognize his or her own ambivalence. Therapists thereby impose a victim psychology upon the child, a psychology that says that for everything that happens there is always someone to blame. They nip in the bud the child’s growing awareness that he is at least partially responsible for much that happens to him – or at least for the back and forth tension between rejection and acceptance. This therapeutic position does not take the child seriously as a human being. It sees the child solely as a mistreated, innocent victim. The child is no longer part of creation with all its possibilities and contradictions, with its conflicting instincts and desires.
“Myth and Reality of Sexual Abuse of Children” in _From the Wrong Side – a paradoxical approach to psychology_
See also Dorothy Rabinowitz “No Greater Cruelty” on the 90s child daycare prosecutions uniformly found a decade later to be public hallucinations.
The line between adults who can legal give consent and minor children who cannot give consent must be drawn somewhere. Each State is different, some have statutes that began legal consent at 16, some at 17, some at 18. Several have ‘Romeo and Juliet’ provisions that carve out exceptions for those over the age in relationships with someone underage when there’s a minimal difference in age, usually two years. Bottom line though is we pass a statute and then apply it to the circumstances, charging and prosecuting those who violate it. Here we have a situation of rich, powerful, influential adults allegedly engaged in unlawful sexual conduct with minor children and what many view as an ongoing attempt to shield them. A.sweetheart plea deal in 08 for Epstein where Feds dropped prosecution in return for plea to a.single count on State charge. Then lots of ‘interference’ on release of any information about who was present, when doing what to whom. Supposedly a very large amount of $ paid out by corporation in exchange for settlement/NDA. Then there’s the enigma of Epstein himself. How did he become the lynchpin, the mover and shaker in those circles? Was any Intel agency backing him? Did those agencies use him to collect data? There’s the aspect of ‘shut up plebes, you don’t get to know’ what was going on. Finally it’s also about the people who voluntarily interacted with, sought $ from, sought influence or hung out with Epstein after his ’08 guilty plea; at best that’s a severe lack of judgement on their part to a choose association with him at that point.
I’m gonna take a wild guess and say that most of the words will be blocked out except for the name Trump.