@RockyTop85
Help me out. It’s my understanding that the Epstein files can’t be released without the courts allowing it?
Also, I’ve been told that the DOJ has gone to court 3-4 times recently to remove a ruling that prevents the release.
Is any of that true.
I ask you because you seem to by the only “layers “ we have here that actually knows the law.
I don’t know much related to this, so it gets kind of long, sorry.
I would say there are four different buckets of information:
1. Information out in the wild (e.g. in the possession of the estate).
2. Information in the possession of the executive branch (FBI, DOJ, etc.)
3. Information in the possession of Congress (testimony, documents turned over by DOJ).
4. Information in the possession of the Courts (grand jury materials, etc).
What you’re asking about are the Grand Jury Materials (GJM). Those are pretty much always kept secret and can’t be released without an order from a judge. That’s what they’ve gone to court seeking to release. That’s the tl;dr answer.
I don’t know what specific cases they’ve sought to have released, what their arguments were, or what legal grounds are for releasing GJM. But I know DOJ was just ordered to turn over GJM to James Comey, so it can be done.
I also don’t really know what GJM usually consists of (transcripts and exhibits, I would imagine) but it’s not the entire “Epstein files.” I assume some journalists want that info because somebody had to distill all the stuff coming into a narrative of law-breaking activities.
To the extent GJM and exhibits and documents possessed by DOJ overlap, I would think they could still be released as long as it wasn’t identified as being part of the grand jury proceedings. E.g. you have a $50 credit card receipt from Bubba to Trump saying “thanks for the blowy,” I would think that could still be released as long as it’s not released in a record of like what went on in the grand jury.
Some of non-GJM stuff that’s in the possession of DOJ is probably made secret by policy or statute. I wouldn’t think the courts would have much say in that, short of somebody suing to prohibit its release or trying to get it under FOIA.
Final thought: I think a lot of these secrecy rules exist for good, legitimate reasons. I understand why people want to break them in this particular case, but I think whether its a good idea to do so is a much closer question than what people want to admit.
