• Federal prosecutors cast doubt on a DOJ effort to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein-Maxwell case, arguing the motion is more political theater than a genuine transparency initiative. Experts warn that the documents likely offer little substance and could compromise the confidentiality of victims and prosecutorial norms if released prematurely.

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — A Justice Department request to unseal grand jury transcripts from the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell has drawn sharp criticism from veteran federal prosecutors, who contend the move is unlikely to yield the revelations the public seeks and may instead risk the sanctity of the judicial process itself.

Filed by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the request aims to release materials from the grand jury proceedings that led to the indictments of Epstein and Maxwell. Blanche justified the motion by appealing to “transparency to the American public,” calling it “of the utmost importance to this Administration.”

Yet critics argue the request is more about optics than substance.

Former Prosecutors Decry Political Posturing

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Attorney Sarah Krissoff, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan from 2008 to 2021, described the motion as “a distraction.”

“The president is trying to present himself as if he’s doing something here and it really is nothing,” Krissoff told The Associated Press in a weekend interview.

Her sentiments were echoed by Joshua Naftalis, another seasoned Southern District prosecutor now in private practice.

“People want the entire file from however long. That’s just not what this is,” Naftalis said, noting that grand jury transcripts are typically brief and narrowly focused.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

He estimated that the transcripts might only span a few hundred pages, while Krissoff suggested they could be as short as 60 pages, given the Southern District of New York’s practice of offering minimal detail to grand juries.

Nature of Grand Jury Secrecy

Federal grand jury proceedings—particularly in high-profile, sensitive cases like this one—are tightly circumscribed. Witnesses are often federal agents summarizing prior interviews, not the victims or defendants themselves. That’s a critical distinction for those expecting headline-grabbing disclosures.

“They basically spoon feed the indictment to the grand jury,” Krissoff said. “I don’t think it’s going to be anything new.”

Further complicating matters is the legal status of Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence, and whose appeal is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Judges may be reticent to unseal information that could prejudice ongoing judicial proceedings or expose victims whose identities remain protected.

“This is not a 50-, 60-, 80-year-old case,” Krissoff said. “There’s still someone in custody.”

Judicial Discretion and Historical Precedent

While a 1997 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that public interest could warrant unsealing grand jury materials, the standard remains discretionary. As Cheryl Bader, a former federal prosecutor and current law professor at Fordham University, explained:

“Especially here, where the case involved witnesses or victims of sexual abuse, many of which are underage, the judge is going to be very cautious.”

The longstanding tradition of grand jury secrecy is not merely bureaucratic formality—it is a structural safeguard to protect both witnesses and the integrity of criminal investigations.

Federal Interference Raises Eyebrows

Perhaps most controversial is the growing perception of direct political interference in the Southern District of New York, colloquially dubbed the “Sovereign District” for its historical independence from Washington.

“To have the attorney general and deputy attorney general meddling in an SDNY case is unheard of,” Krissoff said.

This sentiment is not limited to observers on the outside. According to Krissoff, the unease is shared by current government attorneys across agencies.

“The thing I hear most often is this is a strange time. Things aren’t working the way we’re used to them working.”

Adding fuel to the fire was the recent firing of Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey—who was closely involved in the Epstein and Maxwell prosecutions—just days before the DOJ filed its motion. That decision raised concerns about potential retaliation against prosecutors unwilling to align with political agendas.

Institutional Trust at a Crossroads

Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, summarized the broader implications with grave clarity:

“If federal prosecutors have to worry about the professional consequences of refusing to go along with the political or personal agenda of powerful people, then we are in a very different place than I’ve understood the federal Department of Justice to be in over the last 30 years of my career.”

While the administration may tout transparency, critics argue that respect for process, not political expediency, must remain the guiding principle.

Will the pursuit of public disclosure erode the very institutions it claims to uphold?

Follow The Dupree Report on YouTube

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10