Judge raises specter of contempt in Epstein files case
"That's not a threat. That's a promise," Judge Sullivan said.
Look out for a live-stream following the hearing analyzing what happened with former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner soon! If you haven’t already done so, subscribe now to make sure that you don’t miss it — and you receive the video archive.
During a blistering hearing on Thursday, a federal judge skewered the Trump Justice Department’s justifications for withholding the Epstein files and warned that he has a history of holding government attorneys in contempt.
Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan described himself as reluctant to do so — but willing to if necessary.
“That isn’t a threat,” Sullivan said. “That’s a promise.”
Attorneys for journalist Katie Phang, who filed the lawsuit demanding the disclosure of the documents, requested a finding of contempt if the government continues to stonewall the release or unredact the Epstein files.
Sullivan made his mission clear: “I’m here to ensure compliance with the law that Congress passed and the President enacted.”
Throughout the hearing, Sullivan tried to pin down the government on when the documents at issue would be released, including publishing any written justifications for withholding any of the files on the Federal Register. The government, represented by senior Justice Department lawyer Andrew Block, repeatedly refused to provide even a broad outline of when those justifications would be published.
Judge Sullivan, audibly frustrated, replied: “The public demands a time-frame — not just me.”
Trump DOJ did ‘not comply’
Exactly one week ago, Judge Sullivan had ordered the government to be prepared to answer questions about categories of files that he would privately review in his chambers in camera, and he accused the Justice Department of flouting his directive by claiming to have withheld victim information without documentation.
“The Defendant’s assertions do not comply with the Court’s Order, which requires documentation to support the assertions,” Sullivan wrote on Aug. 6. “The Defendant shall be prepared to discuss what documentation he will provide to support his assertions.”
Sullivan pressed Block on this point at the start of the hearing, and the government attorney said that he would hand the judge a second binder to inspect privately, filled with “sensitive” victim information that’s under a protective order in the Southern District of New York.
One of the categories of documents demanded in the lawsuit was a batch of FBI interviews with a woman who alleged that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein abused her as a minor. Certain summaries of those interviews have been made public, but the handwritten notes have not.
The government has claimed that is because those notes are “duplicative” and difficult to redact, an answer that didn’t satisfy Sullivan.
“I’m not exactly sure what your honor is looking for,” Block told the judge.
“I’m just looking for corroboration,” Sullivan said. “I’m just looking for evidence.”
‘I really mean it this time’
Time and again, the government attorney invoked protecting the privacy of Epstein victims to justify withholding information.
“The relief that they are seeing — and the order they are seeking — would unmask victims,” Block claimed.
Attorney Emily Gilman, who is representing Phang on behalf of the Public Integrity Project, said that the plaintiff’s team shares the concern of protecting “genuine victim information” — but doesn’t trust that is actually the government’s goal.
“They just don’t want to produce those documents,” Gilman said.
The government’s attorney emphatically denied that, adding that he could be more candid in speaking to the judge in private.
Sullivan then explained why he convened the hearing to be public rather than sealed.
“The public has a right to know what the hell is going on in this case,” Sullivan said. “The victims have a right to know.”
In June, Katie Phang won a groundbreaking victory in the case when Judge Sullivan found that she suffered “informational injury” from the government’s refusal to release the files, giving her the right to sue in her capacity as a reporter. The judge’s accompanying order demanded that the government provide the requested emails and FBI interview notes with certain redactions lifted; initiate a review of foreign-language documents; or show cause why the government could not do so.
At one point, Block suggested that the judge could issue an order clearly directing what the government must do.
“I’ve done that,” Sullivan shot back. “Do you want me to issue another order and say, ‘I really mean it this time’?”
After a lengthy recess, Sullivan addressed the plaintiff’s motion to hold the government in contempt, and he pointed out his history of famously holding prosecutors in contempt in the case of the late Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. One of the prosecutors, who was under investigation for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, died by suicide in 2010.
“I’m probably the only judge in this Circuit who has held the Justice Department attorneys in civil contempt,” Sullivan said, adding that he has “no desire to go down that road again.”
Explaining the reason for his comments, Sullivan said that he wanted to put the parties “on notice.”
“I think it’s important to know how far a federal judge has gone to enforce judicial orders,” he said.
Sullivan put the hearing on the court’s public phone line, which reportedly reached its maximum capacity, leaving some callers unable to connect.
As I read this account of the court's proceedings, I am struck by the determination of the DOJ's attorney to avoid producing the evidence the judge is seeking to further his responsibility to determine what evidence of illegality (or exculpatory) information is in the hands of the government (DOJ). Every fiber of my former law enforcement and criminal just instincts have been piqued to the extreme. There is nothing common or routine in the DOJ's efforts to quibble or delay what truly must be devastating revelations. Revelations that will shake the political/economic/legal and even academic power structure of this nation to its core. This seems to be a case of "no man is an island" and the notion of "let the chips fall as they may" are beyond the pale. formerly, Assistant Director of Training, NYPD
Is the judge saying that the documents he reviewed in private did not provide evidence that names that had been redacted were those of victims?