As Donald Trump reels from political fallout related to his justice department’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein investigation files, the US president has directed his loyal attorney general, Pam Bondi, to “release all Grand Jury testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to court approval”.
It is an effort at damage control for a White House now engulfed in endless speculation – especially among Trump’s previously devoted Maga base – about the extent of Trump’s relationship with the late, disgraced sex trafficker and wealthy financier who killed himself in jail in 2019.
Justice department attorneys quickly filed paperwork in Manhattan and south Florida federal courts requesting unsealing of grand jury testimony for Epstein. Justice department officials have also asked a New York judge to release grand jury transcripts for Ghislaine Maxwell – Epstein’s sometimes girlfriend and longtime confidante who in 2021 was convicted of sex trafficking for luring teenage girls into his orbit.
A grand jury is a panel that decides whether evidence presented by prosecutors shows “probable cause” that someone committed a crime, and whether they should be tried. Should the grand jury, which is not the trial jury, find that there is sufficient evidence, an indictment will be issued.
But veteran US attorneys, including those who have represented Epstein victims, told the Guardian that any release of grand jury transcripts around Epstein and Maxwell might not provide much insight into Epstein’s crimes and whether others were involved in abusing minors – or in covering up his years of predation of young girls and women.
The lawyers, however, insist that meaningful information does exist in yet-to-be released Epstein files held by federal law enforcement authorities from multiple investigations into Epstein. Whether the political will – and legal ability – exists to release any or all of those files remains to be seen.
“Grand juries serve two functions: to indict and to investigate. The transcripts may contain testimony of victims or cooperating witnesses if the grand jury was investigating Epstein,” Neama Rahmani, founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers, and a former federal prosecutor, said of grand jury processes.
The grand jury transcripts could include graphic and explicit evidence, but they could also include more pro forma information about the actions of Epstein and Maxwell, who is serving jail time in Florida.
“If they were indicting Epstein, we can expect to see law enforcement witnesses summarizing the evidence of probable cause to support the charges. That would probably be less interesting, and similar to the factual allegations in the Epstein indictment,” Rahmani said.
He added: “There is likely much more salacious evidence out there than the grand jury transcripts.
“The FBI interview summaries and internal Department of Justice memoranda probably contain the juiciest details. The grand jury transcripts are just a small part of the picture. If Bondi was serious about transparency, she would make public the complete Epstein files, subject to redactions to protect the privacy rights of the victims.”
Top lawyer Gloria Allred, who has represented multiple Epstein victims, said government files should be made public with several exceptions, such as redaction of victims’ names and identifying information, attorney-client communications and material depicting abuse.
“I think there is information that the government could release, such as texts, emails and other electronic communications of Jeffrey Epstein and anyone with whom he communicated. In addition, any communications on behalf of Mr Epstein made by his employees who may have played a part in recruiting or dealing with victims at the request of Mr Epstein and/or Ms Maxwell could be released,” Allred said.
“All evidence in the file of the United States attorney for the southern district of New York which was gathered for the prosecution of Mr Epstein, with the exceptions which I have listed previously, could be released.”
Allred believes “all files, both federal and state that reflect the investigation and potential prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida should also be made public”.
Thorough investigations of Epstein were conducted in New York and Florida, Allred pointed out, and those investigations would be in those files.
Spencer T Kuvin, chief legal officer of GoldLaw and an attorney for Epstein victims, voiced similar sentiments.
“The real documents that the public needs to see are the documents maintained by the FBI and Department of Justice. They have thousands of hours of videotapes and investigative memos and documents regarding the data that was seized at his homes,” he said.
Kuvin said that unsealing grand jury testimony was a “good first step” but limits information to four victims over whom Epstein was charged in New York. “I am aware that the FBI had interviewed over 40 girls during their investigations. Where are those interviews, where are those reports?
“The abusers should be disclosed to the public so that we may all know who they are,” Kuvin also said, insisting that victims’ privacy must be protected in such a process. He called on Trump to act.
“This administration could end the dispute tomorrow by the president signing an executive order demanding the release of all the material in the custody of the FBI and DoJ,” Kuvin said. “Either Trump has the power to do this, or he must admit that he is not as powerful as he has professed to be to the public and his Maga followers.”
Trump’s current political woes stem from his backtracking on previous vows to release the Epstein files. On the campaign trail, he vowed to declassify the files, but then attracted scathing criticism when his justice department released a memo claiming that there was no “incriminating” client list within the tranche of documents related to Epstein.
The justice department’s claim that they did not find evidence implicating third parties has further fanned the flames of suspicion, especially as last week the Wall Street Journal reported that Bondi had warned Trump that his name appears in the files.
A smattering of reports highlighting Trump’s friendship with Epstein several decades ago – which reportedly ended following a real estate dispute, several years before the late financier admitted to a state-level charge of soliciting prostitution from a minor in Florida – has proved yet another political minefield.
Even if federal authorities and Trump drag their feet in releasing these documents, it is possible that new civil litigation could eventually force them to do so raising the prospect of yet more political scandals heading Trump’s way.
Maria Farmer, an Epstein survivor who in 1996 told authorities he and Maxwell were abusing minors including her sister, is suing the federal government over their handling of these claims. Farmer’s suit alleges that the FBI “chose to do absolutely nothing”.
Farmer also claims that the FBI agent taking her call “hung up on her, and no one at the FBI attempted to follow up with her or pursue her valid and serious allegations, most of which continued for many years, if not decades, with wide-ranging tragic consequences.”
If this litigation progresses, both sides would exchange evidence related to the claims in a process called discovery. While discovery is typically subject to a confidentiality agreement, and solidified by a court order, information from this exchange could come up in subsequent court papers that are public.
“What this lawsuit could reveal is what the FBI and the department did and did not do, what they failed to do – they failed to do their job,” Farmer’s attorney, Jennifer Freeman, special counsel at Marsh Law Firm, told the Guardian.
Freeman noted, for example, that she has a redacted set of pages from what appears to be a 2006 field interview with Farmer, during which an FBI agent went to her home and spoke with her. Freeman said she had some 20 pages of handwritten notes, “many of which are redacted”.
She said: “That’s the kind of information we need. It’s redacted. I’ve been trying to get this information for years now, through Foia [Freedom of Information Act] requests, but we’ve been stymied every time.”
Neither the White House nor Department of Justice commented.
