Last month, the FBI announced that its "exhaustive review" of materials in the Jeffrey Epstein case uncovered no client list, no "credible evidence" that Epstein blackmailed any famous people, no evidence to support any new criminal charges and no evidence that Epstein's death was anything other than a suicide.
The announcement set off an uproar, in part because just a short time earlier, Attorney General Pam Bondi had seemed to tease big news in what has become known as the "Epstein files." But at the same time, the FBI focused attention on the fact that we already know quite a lot about the Epstein case, which stretches 20 years from the time authorities began investigating the serial sex offender back in 2005.
Still, one question that remained was whether it would be a good thing for someone outside the Justice Department to look at the materials, or at least some of them, to see for himself -- and the rest of us -- whether there is something new and important that has not been made public. Now, that is what has happened in response to the Justice Department's effort to show its commitment to transparency by releasing some Epstein materials. And the conclusion from a federal judge, at least for this part of the Epstein case, is that "there is no 'there' there."
The material in question is the grand jury record from the prosecution of Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. Grand jury transcripts are kept secret by law. But when the Justice Department came under fire from all sides, from MAGA supporters to opportunistic Democrats, it went to U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer and asked that the material be made public. There was almost no chance that would happen -- there wasn't a compelling legal case to be made for release -- but the DOJ still asked.
Recommended
This week, the judge rejected the request. It wasn't just a quick, pro forma objection. Instead, Engelmayer went on for 31 pages as to why the Justice Department fell far short of the high bar it would have to cross to win release.
As far as the public's right to information is concerned, one part of Engelmayer's order was particularly notable. The judge read the grand jury testimony involved, and made clear that it revealed nothing that is not currently publicly known about the Epstein case. It's worth quoting him at some length.
"The court's review confirmed that unsealing the grand jury materials would not reveal new information of any consequence," Engelmayer wrote. "A member of the public familiar with the Maxwell trial record who reviewed the grand jury materials that the government proposes to unseal would thus learn next to nothing new."
"The materials do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor," Engelmayer continued. "They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein's or Maxwell's. They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein's or Maxwell's crimes. They do not reveal new venues at which their crimes occurred. They do not reveal new sources of their wealth. They do not explore the circumstances of Epstein's death. They do not reveal the path of the government's investigation."
Anyone reading the grand jury transcripts "expecting, based on the government's representations, to learn new information about Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes and the investigation into them, would come away feeling disappointed and misled," Engelmayer concluded. "There is no 'there' there."
That seems pretty definitive. Now, it should be said that the Maxwell grand jury transcripts do not represent everything in the Epstein files. In its July statement, the FBI said it reviewed a massive amount of information, which the FBI described as "digital searches of its databases, hard drives, and network drives as well as physical searches of squad areas, locked cabinets, desks, closets, and other areas where responsive material may have been stored." All together, that totaled "300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence."
But the Maxwell grand jury case is the first example of an outsider, Engelmayer, examining substantive material from the "Epstein files" for the purpose of deciding whether releasing them would benefit the public. The judge's nothing-new finding comports with what others in the press who have followed the case have said. And as far as recent revelations are concerned, it's worth noting that in more than a month of intense media interest in the Epstein matter, the biggest news we've seen is a bawdy birthday message from Donald Trump to Epstein 22 years ago, in 2003, before the two had a falling out and before Epstein got in trouble with the law. The president has denied writing it.
Polls show public interest in Epstein has declined precipitously in recent days. There's a reason for that. People suspect that, with all the intense scrutiny of Trump in the 10 years since he first ran for president, and with the deeply partisan nature of that scrutiny, and with the Justice Department being in both Republican and Democratic hands during that period, it's likely that if there were something huge to be learned, it would have been learned by now. That doesn't mean it is impossible that there is something big still out there. But it seems more and more unlikely.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member