Epstein survivor to judges: Don't give Trump DOJ a "backdoor" for a "cover up"
A lawyer for a key witness against Ghislaine Maxwell suspected the motives behind an attempt to unseal grand jury minutes.
Keep informed with journalism that dives deep into the public record and stays vigilant to avoid diversions.
The Justice Department should not be allowed to use a fight over the grand jury minutes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s grand jury investigations as a “backdoor avenue” to avoid broader transparency, an attorney for the survivors wrote on Wednesday.
A “diversion”
Earlier this year, Donald Trump’s Justice Department responded to widespread clamoring over the release of the Epstein files by pursuing the unlikely unsealing of grand jury records in three separate dockets. All three federal judges rejected the requests, and two of the judges denounced what they described as the Justice Department’s attempt to create a “diversion.”
According to multiple rulings, the grand jury records contain little new information and consist of little more than testimony by a single FBI agent summarizing facts that later became public. In the past, U.S. District Judges Richard Berman and Paul Engelmayer said that the secrecy surrounding grand jury records made them unfit for release, but they added that nothing stands in the way of the government releasing investigative files on their own.
The Justice Department renewed their requests to unseal those records after the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, arguing that the new law provided a basis to revisit the pair of rulings.
In a two-page letter, attorney Sigrid McCawley informed the judges that her client Annie Farmer supported unsealing the minutes but was wary of the government’s motives.
“Epstein’s victims have been denied justice for far too long by multiple government administrations of both parties,” McCawley wrote in a two-page letter. “Even now, the government has failed to investigate anyone other than Epstein himself and one of his accomplices, Ghislaine Maxwell, and there is no indication that the Department of Justice (or any of its offices) is taking action against other critical inner circle Epstein accomplices despite Congressional investigations and public reporting concerning his sex-trafficking ring’s financial infrastructure.”
Farmer was one of four victims who testified against Maxwell during her criminal trial, and she made clear that she wants the records unsealed.
But she added a caveat.
“Nothing in these proceedings should stand in the way of their victory or provide a backdoor avenue to continue to cover up history’s most notorious sex-trafficking operation,” the letter states.
“A public excuse”
The Epstein Files Transparency Act gave the government 30 days to release the records, and the deadline is looming for Fri., Dec. 19. McCawley, who has represented hundreds of survivors, indicated that government officials may be using protective orders as an excuse to avoid disclosure.
“Ms. Farmer is mindful of Your Honors’ prior rulings describing the materials at issue but is also aware of subsequent public testimony and statements from government officials prior to the Transparency Act’s passage, which suggested that those rulings and/or ‘protective orders’ (in these or other unidentified proceedings) somehow prohibited further disclosure of Epstein-related materials,” the letter reads. “While Ms. Farmer remains hopeful that the instant motions reflect a bona fide desire by the government to provide greater transparency into Epstein’s crimes, she is wary of the possibility that any denial of the motions may be used by others as a pretext or excuse for continuing to withhold crucial information concerning Epstein’s crimes.”
In a footnote, McCawley noted that the government described its motions as a bid to “Modify [a] Protective Order,” reinforcing her client’s fear that the government will use court orders as “a public excuse to continue to withhold crucial information.”
The letter urges the judges to “make abundantly clear that the Court’s ruling does not affect the Department of Justice’s ability to release documents subject to the Transparency Act.”
“For the avoidance of doubt, this would mean that nothing in the Court’s rulings affect the Department of Justice’s ability to release other materials, including those contained in the ‘more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence’ in the Government’s possession,” the letter concludes.
Read the two-page letter here.
Thanks, Adam. Up until now, most of the conversation has been on the ringleaders. I was wondering when we would get around to the enablers.
Smart move by Ms. McCawley to file the letter on behalf of Annie Farmer. The entire world knows by now that no one in the Trump administration can be trusted to act ethically or legally.