For all the Epstein files hand wringers that keep droning on and on go to the about the 7:00 mark and listen and pay attention and I'm even screenshotting the transcript with highlights to assist the hearing impaired.
Judge Robin L. Rosenberg - Obama appointee
Judge Richard Berman - Clinton appointee
Judge Paul Engelmayer - Obama appointee
Patel is being disingenuous here. They tried to get the grand jury testimony released, and everyone who isn't a moron knew that wasn't going to happen. In fact, the courts have pretty much said any documents within their control they can release.
You have proof that's all they asked for? Please share your receipts Id love to see it. He's testifying under oath otherwise. So go ahead and present your evidence counselor we are anxious to know your evidence
"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
For all the Epstein files hand wringers that keep droning on and on go to the about the 7:00 mark and listen and pay attention and I'm even screenshotting the transcript with highlights to assist the hearing impaired.
Judge Robin L. Rosenberg - Obama appointee
Judge Richard Berman - Clinton appointee
Judge Paul Engelmayer - Obama appointee
Patel is being disingenuous here. They tried to get the grand jury testimony released, and everyone who isn't a moron knew that wasn't going to happen. In fact, the courts have pretty much said any documents within their control they can release.
You have proof that's all they asked for? Please share your receipts Id love to see it. He's testifying under oath otherwise. So go ahead and present your evidence counselor we are anxious to know your evidence
I didn't say he was lying or lying under oath; I said he's being disingenuous. There's a big difference. I don't consider it my job to prove your point, and it's also hard to prove a negative, but since I'm bored and have some time on my hands, I'll take a crack at it.
The three judges you referenced above, and what I have to assume Patel is referring to, all have to do with grand jury testimony. And if you read each opinion, you'll see that's all they've asked for; to release the grand jury testimony. So while it is correct that he's under a court order not to release the grand jury testimony, there's tons more evidence in the hands of the DOJ and FBI that can be released. If you read the cases, you'll find that the grand jury testimony isn't that much. Here are the links to each one for your own review.
Everyone and their dog knew the judges were never going to grant a release of that testimony, and all three judges said as much. The government said in all three cases that they couldn't find an exception to the rule prohibiting disclosure, just that these were "special circumstances."
Rosenberg said her hands are tied based on 11th Circuit precedence, and the government conceded that. Her order isn't that noteworthy, but it's worth a read.
Judge Engelmayer in his order said that almost all of the grand jury testimony was already a matter of public record.
Quote:
Second, the evidence put before the Maxwell grand juries is today, with only very minor exceptions, a matter of public record. The Government admitted as much in response to the Court's order: "The enclosed, annotated transcripts show that much of the information provided during the course of the grand jury testimonywith the exception of the identities of certain witnesseswas made publicly available at [Maxwell's] trial or has otherwise been publicly reported through the public statements of victims and witnesses." Dkt. 800 at 3. And because the Government proposes to redact the witnesses' identities, the exception it noted does not reflect information that the public would learn were the grand jury transcripts unsealed. Engelmayer Opinion and Order @ page 18.
In fact, Judge Engelmayer goes on to say he felt DOJ wasn't being all that upfront about what all was in the grand jury testimony:
Quote:
The one colorable argument under that doctrine for unsealing in this case, in fact, is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the Government's public explanations for moving to unseal. A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at "transparency" but at diversionaimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such. And there is precedentIn re Biaggi, the fountainhead of the Second Circuit's "special circumstances" doctrinepermitting a court to order the release of grand jury testimony to correct a movant's misleading public characterization of it. Engelmayer Opinion & Order @ page 20
Judge Berman had the Epstein case, and he was having none of it.
Quote:
The Government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein Files.By comparison, the instant grand jury motion appears to be a "diversion" from the breadth and scope of the Epstein Files in the Government's possession. Berman's Decision and Order @ page 7
But it gets better. If we want to remove all doubt, before Judges Engelmayer and Berman, DOJ filed this interesting document on August 4, 2025, saying that at this time, they're only asking to release grand jury testimony:
There's nothing else on either docket to show that they've requested the release of other information after August 11, 2025. So no, it doesn't look like the government has requested to release any other information at this time. Take your condescending attitude and put it some place.
BREAKING: Congressman Thomas Massie just said there is an EPSTEIN LIST and he called FBI Director Kash Patel out on a an apparent lie.
Massie says the FBI has files that have a list of 20 other men who were part of Epstein's Sex Trafficking network, including a "high profile… pic.twitter.com/eKUvK33KOi
Every question asked is designed to be a perjury trap. But if you tell the truth, you have less of a concern about getting caught in one of those traps.
That's a really bad look by Patel. I thought that he was mentioned, but it didn't have anything to do with sex trafficking or anything of the sort. Why he has to be evasive and act like a child, I don't know.
Every question asked is designed to be a perjury trap. But if you tell the truth, you have less of a concern about getting caught in one of those traps.
That's a really bad look by Patel. I thought that he was mentioned, but it didn't have anything to do with sex trafficking or anything of the sort. Why he has to be evasive and act like a child, I don't know.
Yeah, he should have just said Trump had been mentioned in the Files as evidence by their release many years ago.
For all the Epstein files hand wringers that keep droning on and on go to the about the 7:00 mark and listen and pay attention and I'm even screenshotting the transcript with highlights to assist the hearing impaired.
Judge Robin L. Rosenberg - Obama appointee
Judge Richard Berman - Clinton appointee
Judge Paul Engelmayer - Obama appointee
Patel is being disingenuous here. They tried to get the grand jury testimony released, and everyone who isn't a moron knew that wasn't going to happen. In fact, the courts have pretty much said any documents within their control they can release.
You have proof that's all they asked for? Please share your receipts Id love to see it. He's testifying under oath otherwise. So go ahead and present your evidence counselor we are anxious to know your evidence
I didn't say he was lying or lying under oath; I said he's being disingenuous. There's a big difference. I don't consider it my job to prove your point, and it's also hard to prove a negative, but since I'm bored and have some time on my hands, I'll take a crack at it.
The three judges you referenced above, and what I have to assume Patel is referring to, all have to do with grand jury testimony. And if you read each opinion, you'll see that's all they've asked for; to release the grand jury testimony. So while it is correct that he's under a court order not to release the grand jury testimony, there's tons more evidence in the hands of the DOJ and FBI that can be released. If you read the cases, you'll find that the grand jury testimony isn't that much. Here are the links to each one for your own review.
Everyone and their dog knew the judges were never going to grant a release of that testimony, and all three judges said as much. The government said in all three cases that they couldn't find an exception to the rule prohibiting disclosure, just that these were "special circumstances."
Rosenberg said her hands are tied based on 11th Circuit precedence, and the government conceded that. Her order isn't that noteworthy, but it's worth a read.
Judge Engelmayer in his order said that almost all of the grand jury testimony was already a matter of public record.
Quote:
Second, the evidence put before the Maxwell grand juries is today, with only very minor exceptions, a matter of public record. The Government admitted as much in response to the Court's order: "The enclosed, annotated transcripts show that much of the information provided during the course of the grand jury testimonywith the exception of the identities of certain witnesseswas made publicly available at [Maxwell's] trial or has otherwise been publicly reported through the public statements of victims and witnesses." Dkt. 800 at 3. And because the Government proposes to redact the witnesses' identities, the exception it noted does not reflect information that the public would learn were the grand jury transcripts unsealed. Engelmayer Opinion and Order @ page 18.
In fact, Judge Engelmayer goes on to say he felt DOJ wasn't being all that upfront about what all was in the grand jury testimony:
Quote:
The one colorable argument under that doctrine for unsealing in this case, in fact, is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the Government's public explanations for moving to unseal. A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at "transparency" but at diversionaimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such. And there is precedentIn re Biaggi, the fountainhead of the Second Circuit's "special circumstances" doctrinepermitting a court to order the release of grand jury testimony to correct a movant's misleading public characterization of it. Engelmayer Opinion & Order @ page 20
Judge Berman had the Epstein case, and he was having none of it.
Quote:
The Government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein Files.By comparison, the instant grand jury motion appears to be a "diversion" from the breadth and scope of the Epstein Files in the Government's possession. Berman's Decision and Order @ page 7
But it gets better. If we want to remove all doubt, before Judges Engelmayer and Berman, DOJ filed this interesting document on August 4, 2025, saying that at this time, they're only asking to release grand jury testimony:
There's nothing else on either docket to show that they've requested the release of other information after August 11, 2025. So no, it doesn't look like the government has requested to release any other information at this time. Take your condescending attitude and put it some place.
I didn't ask you to prove my point. I'm taking his sworn testimony as the truth. YOU accused him of being "disingenuous" and I simply asked you to prove your point not mine. You seem to know everything the DoJ did to try and get past court sealed files. Alan Dershowitz has publicly accused two anonymous federal judges in the SDNY of suppressing information related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. He has not named the judges, stating that he is bound by a confidentiality agreement from a court case. I don't know if that's GJ testimony or what. I can't find the video of him actually saying it but I know he did. Dershowitz claimed the two judges were keeping "key court records" in Epstein-related litigation under seal. He also alleged that the redactions and sealed information are being used to protect people who were named in FBI affidavits and other files related to the case, not to shield victims. Seems possible but I've yet to see any proof but I'm just going by Patel's testimony under oath. Patel doesn't name any judges names either so I'm waiting and researching to see if there is something I'm missing. As you well know Pacer is a vast sea of cases and it's a lot even when you narrow it down to just the SDNY.
"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Every question asked is designed to be a perjury trap. But if you tell the truth, you have less of a concern about getting caught in one of those traps.
That's a really bad look by Patel. I thought that he was mentioned, but it didn't have anything to do with sex trafficking or anything of the sort. Why he has to be evasive and act like a child, I don't know.
Yeah, it's a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
I don't disagree with either comment. I think this is a can that will continue to be kicked down the road, as neither side plus some international players want them released.
Did Biden campaign on it? Did Biden's podcaster administration peddle rumors about it? Did Biden's son talk about it on the campaign trail? Did Biden?
The noise surrounding this was stirred up by Trump and his people!!!
So because Biden didn't run on it meant that he didn't need to release them if there was anything to release? That seems weird.
As I have said all along, if there was anything there on Trump of his colleagues, we'd have already seen the MSM lose their s reporting on this in the Biden years. Because it would've been leaked. Speaking of, has anyone seen that beautiful portrait that Epstein had of Bill Clinton in the blue dress?
Did Biden campaign on it? Did Biden's podcaster administration peddle rumors about it? Did Biden's son talk about it on the campaign trail? Did Biden?
The noise surrounding this was stirred up by Trump and his people!!!
So because Biden didn't run on it meant that he didn't need to release them if there was anything to release? That seems weird.
As I have said all along, if there was anything there on Trump of his colleagues, we'd have already seen the MSM lose their s reporting on this in the Biden years. Because it would've been leaked. Speaking of, has anyone seen that beautiful portrait that Epstein had of Bill Clinton in the blue dress?
Believe it or not foreign governments, donors, and money are much more important to any decision maker in our government than "getting Trump." Trump is on their team he just wears a different colored jersey. What you see on TV is a dog and pony show so that they can keep enriching themselves while us peasants are screaming "But Biden!!!"
Did Biden campaign on it? Did Biden's podcaster administration peddle rumors about it? Did Biden's son talk about it on the campaign trail? Did Biden?
The noise surrounding this was stirred up by Trump and his people!!!
So because Biden didn't run on it meant that he didn't need to release them if there was anything to release? That seems weird.
As I have said all along, if there was anything there on Trump of his colleagues, we'd have already seen the MSM lose their s reporting on this in the Biden years. Because it would've been leaked. Speaking of, has anyone seen that beautiful portrait that Epstein had of Bill Clinton in the blue dress?
Of course, Biden should have, but I don't trust or count on Democrats for anything.
That could be true, but I think both sides are implicated and have an interest in keeping things under wraps; they would want to avoid mutually assured destruction. Yes, Bill Clinton is a sex pest, and I think the likelihood of him being linked to the pedo behavior is infinitely more likely than Trump.
For all the Epstein files hand wringers that keep droning on and on go to the about the 7:00 mark and listen and pay attention and I'm even screenshotting the transcript with highlights to assist the hearing impaired.
Judge Robin L. Rosenberg - Obama appointee
Judge Richard Berman - Clinton appointee
Judge Paul Engelmayer - Obama appointee
Patel is being disingenuous here. They tried to get the grand jury testimony released, and everyone who isn't a moron knew that wasn't going to happen. In fact, the courts have pretty much said any documents within their control they can release.
You have proof that's all they asked for? Please share your receipts Id love to see it. He's testifying under oath otherwise. So go ahead and present your evidence counselor we are anxious to know your evidence
I didn't say he was lying or lying under oath; I said he's being disingenuous. There's a big difference. I don't consider it my job to prove your point, and it's also hard to prove a negative, but since I'm bored and have some time on my hands, I'll take a crack at it.
The three judges you referenced above, and what I have to assume Patel is referring to, all have to do with grand jury testimony. And if you read each opinion, you'll see that's all they've asked for; to release the grand jury testimony. So while it is correct that he's under a court order not to release the grand jury testimony, there's tons more evidence in the hands of the DOJ and FBI that can be released. If you read the cases, you'll find that the grand jury testimony isn't that much. Here are the links to each one for your own review.
Everyone and their dog knew the judges were never going to grant a release of that testimony, and all three judges said as much. The government said in all three cases that they couldn't find an exception to the rule prohibiting disclosure, just that these were "special circumstances."
Rosenberg said her hands are tied based on 11th Circuit precedence, and the government conceded that. Her order isn't that noteworthy, but it's worth a read.
Judge Engelmayer in his order said that almost all of the grand jury testimony was already a matter of public record.
Quote:
Second, the evidence put before the Maxwell grand juries is today, with only very minor exceptions, a matter of public record. The Government admitted as much in response to the Court's order: "The enclosed, annotated transcripts show that much of the information provided during the course of the grand jury testimonywith the exception of the identities of certain witnesseswas made publicly available at [Maxwell's] trial or has otherwise been publicly reported through the public statements of victims and witnesses." Dkt. 800 at 3. And because the Government proposes to redact the witnesses' identities, the exception it noted does not reflect information that the public would learn were the grand jury transcripts unsealed. Engelmayer Opinion and Order @ page 18.
In fact, Judge Engelmayer goes on to say he felt DOJ wasn't being all that upfront about what all was in the grand jury testimony:
Quote:
The one colorable argument under that doctrine for unsealing in this case, in fact, is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the Government's public explanations for moving to unseal. A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at "transparency" but at diversionaimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such. And there is precedentIn re Biaggi, the fountainhead of the Second Circuit's "special circumstances" doctrinepermitting a court to order the release of grand jury testimony to correct a movant's misleading public characterization of it. Engelmayer Opinion & Order @ page 20
Judge Berman had the Epstein case, and he was having none of it.
Quote:
The Government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein Files.By comparison, the instant grand jury motion appears to be a "diversion" from the breadth and scope of the Epstein Files in the Government's possession. Berman's Decision and Order @ page 7
But it gets better. If we want to remove all doubt, before Judges Engelmayer and Berman, DOJ filed this interesting document on August 4, 2025, saying that at this time, they're only asking to release grand jury testimony:
There's nothing else on either docket to show that they've requested the release of other information after August 11, 2025. So no, it doesn't look like the government has requested to release any other information at this time. Take your condescending attitude and put it some place.
I didn't ask you to prove my point. I'm taking his sworn testimony as the truth. YOU accused him of being "disingenuous" and I simply asked you to prove your point not mine. You seem to know everything the DoJ did to try and get past court sealed files. Alan Dershowitz has publicly accused two anonymous federal judges in the SDNY of suppressing information related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. He has not named the judges, stating that he is bound by a confidentiality agreement from a court case. I don't know if that's GJ testimony or what. I can't find the video of him actually saying it but I know he did. Dershowitz claimed the two judges were keeping "key court records" in Epstein-related litigation under seal. He also alleged that the redactions and sealed information are being used to protect people who were named in FBI affidavits and other files related to the case, not to shield victims. Seems possible but I've yet to see any proof but I'm just going by Patel's testimony under oath. Patel doesn't name any judges names either so I'm waiting and researching to see if there is something I'm missing. As you well know Pacer is a vast sea of cases and it's a lot even when you narrow it down to just the SDNY.
Your reliance on anything Dershowitz has to say is misguided, to put it nicely. First, there isn't anything earth-shattering about not being able to name these judges because he's bound by some kind of confidentiality agreement. There's only two judges presiding over the Epstein and Maxwell cases: Judge Berman has the Epstein case, and Judge Engelmayer has the Maxwell case. Just by sheer coincidence, they both happen to be in the SDNY. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together and get 4. The only other case that he could be talking about is the Giuffre defamation case, and a lot of those records were made public because the Miami Herald doggedly pursued their unsealing.
To be sure, there are some documents submitted under seal in the Epstein and Maxwell cases and for good reason. But Judge Berman gives the DOJ an out in saying that they can release a lot more they have that isn't under a protective order. But for Patel to get in front of a committee and say, "Well geewillikers, we tried to get these documents unsealed, but these rascally judges said we can't," is some level of crocodile tears from him.
Has this come up before? I haven't read every post on here, so wondering:
As the guy in the video said, they tracked Maxwell down from data like Wired got a hold of. Anyone who says there is no list is lying (or doesn't know the facts). They know exactly who was/wasn't there.
