Ouch! Amy and T.J. go beyond the headlines, and after reading through Judge Paul Engelmayer’s 30 page ruling, there is so much more to hear! The judge eviscerates the Trump administration for misleading the public by suggesting there is anything new or incriminating to unseal in the grand jury testimony surrounding Ghislaine Maxwell. He goes so far as to say he ALMOST released the sealed testimony just to expose the farce coming directly from the government.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hey, that folks, it is August twelfth, and a judge
didn't just say no to the Trump administration's request for
those grand jury files about Epstein. The judge said hell no,
gave them an f on their homework assignment, and said
he considered exposing them for the frauds they are. And
(00:23):
with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Ropes.
I paraphrase there a little bit, but that is as
accurate as you're gonna get. This was an absolute beat
down in this judge's decision, a spanking to the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Yes, that's exactly well put. That was the sentiment throughout
the entire thirty page response. You read it. I read it,
and it was jaw dropping. I know that judges are
supposed to judge, but he was extra judge.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Would you not say, well, you're not used to them
speaking that way? And I would say that we're missing
a lot in a lot of the coverage and the
headlines that we are seeing. I thought he was one thing,
and even some of the quotes I saw that the
judge kind of admonished them for some things. Reading through it,
this guy has been as clear as anybody in the
(01:16):
whole Epstein saga about what is actually in some stuff
that people are desperate to see. He flat out said,
ain't nothing to.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
See here, exactly, And he made a really good point
that I really hadn't considered this grand jury secret testimony
that the Trump administration that the Department of Justice once
released to the public and the name of transparency. They
had one day of talking to a police officer and
another day of talking to an investigator who gave a
(01:44):
summation report. They weren't listening to hearing from victims. They
weren't presented with evidence that a black book or some
financial tracing too powerful people who were named, or possibly
none of that stuff that we all have heard might
be there was there during that grand jury testimony. It
(02:05):
actually sounded fairly boring. And the things they don't want
out there are really really private things like videos and
pictures of miners being forced to do things they shouldn't have.
So this wasn't anything that pointed the finger at anyone else.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
And please you all do not take what we're saying
here as our interpretation. We are going to share with
you directly more than you've probably seen out there that's
from this judge's ruling, his direct quotes that make clear
you don't need extra context. He makes it clear.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Now.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
The reason we're all here is because the Trump administration
has been getting all kinds of hell, mainly from its
own base. Because in July, they say, hey, we have
no more files to release. There was no Epstein client list,
he killed himself in prison. This thing is done. Obviously,
robes that didn't go over well, and he's been dealing
(02:58):
with it for a month plus.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Obviously that's the truth. That could be.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Nobody's gonna believe that that's the thing.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
So yes, with so much secrecy and so much speculation,
and the fact that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, that
Virginia Roberts also died by suicide, it just contributes to
this conspiracy that there's a cover up, that powerful people
are keeping their names out of court records, even though
(03:26):
they might be in documents or in evidence elsewhere.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
So they say, no more file is gonna believe release.
That's July seventh. July seventeenth, got that Wall Street Journal
report about Trump sending a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein.
The next day, the DOJ asks courts to unseal documents.
July twenty fourth, the DOJ interviews Glane Maxwell. Remember she's
serving twenty years in prison in Florida. No excuse me,
(03:52):
she was in Florida.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
She was in Florida. Now she's in Texas.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Yeay, hear what I just said. July twenty four, She
got interviewed. A week later, she got moved, yeah to
Club Fame.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Club called Yes, the lowest security level possible for a
federal inmate. And these are all non violent offenders. Gallayne
Maxwell is a violent defender, period.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
So based on her convictions and having to do with miners, yes.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
And she there. She It wasn't just about when you
start reading some of what the judge talked about, and
we'll get into it, but this this evidence wasn't just
about her helping Jeffrey Epstein. She was also participating in
some of this absolutely discussing behavior with miners.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
So let us get you caught up on where we
are now with this ruling. There was an earlier ruling
by a different court in Florida that the OJ had
asked for that court to release some grand jury testimony
having to do with Epstein's trial down there in two
thousand and nine or something like that. That court said, no,
not going to release grand jury So the government was
trying for the New York cases that Epstein was being
(04:59):
tried for and the one Nickolain Maxwell ends up in
prison for now. So Judge Paul Engelman, he is the
judge in the Southern District of New York, he was
hearing the case. Let everybody have their say about releasing
these grand jury files. Now, Rhodes grand jury secrecy. You
don't have to be a court watcher to understand that's
a pretty big deal. The judge started with that in
(05:21):
his ruling today, saying this is precedent, and the way
he put it in his ruling, the policy that proceedings
before a grand jury shall generally remain secret is older
than our nation itself. This is in the first few
lines of his ruling, so you could almost he almost
established the direction he was going to go. There's a
high bar to openate stuff up.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Yeah, Judge Angmaier said, basically, this is part of the
foundation of our legal system. This is part of why
our system works. And so to ask someone to publicly
unseal those records would have to rise to an extraordinary.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Threshold which they claim these are extraord time special circumstances.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
In fact, as I believe the phrase they've used, unusual,
historical or of deep public interest in while the judge acknowledged, yeah,
there is public interest for sure, the other ones, though,
doesn't even come close. The judge said that this particular
appeal by the Department of Justice doesn't apply to garden
variety petitions for disclosure. That's how he described the DOJ's
(06:24):
request garden variety petition versus special circumstances, and.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
The public interest historical and unusual public interest is public interest.
This is not a matter of national security. This is
not We're talking about general public curiosity about something. The
judge we shared this this morning, Rowe. This is one
that's kind of been out there, one of the quotes,
and it is a big one, but it's not the
biggest one we found. He told them that the entire
(06:48):
premise that the Maxwell grand jury materials would bring light meaningful,
would bring to light meaningful new information about Epstein's in
Maxwell's crimes or the government's investigation into them, is demons
stribly false. Now, he says this early in this ruling,
but he's setting up what you're actually arguing. I don't
(07:08):
necessarily have to judge your art. What you're saying and
saying is demonstrably false.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
He's calling them liars, I.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
Said, he went through and cut them down time again.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
He basically my takeaway from reading this was that he
was calling the DOJ manipulative liars because you're lying to
the public correct and manipulating it, or manipulating the public
by making them believe that there is something there that
would shed light, and that they are trying to be transparent.
(07:40):
They're doing everything they can to bring all the information
that is sealed or under wraps or secret, so that
then you are actually undermining public trust in our legal system,
undermining public trust in our judicial system. And that is
I think part of the reason why the judge was
so stern and so specific in his response.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
And again, folks, what you're hearing from us right now
is not interpretation. We will continue to share this man's
very quotes. Again, this is a thirty one page briefing
you can read all to yourself. But about the material
we keep hearing robes about whatever Epstein material that the
DJ says they have, says nothing else to release because
nothing else is going to be new. The judge, at
(08:21):
least in terms of grand jury testimony, he agreed with
that say there actually is nothing new here, despite what
you DJ are saying publicly. You have at least in
our briefings express that you know there's nothing new. Right.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
So it's he's calling them on. He's like, you know
and I both you and I both know that there's
nothing there, but you're making the public think there is
something there. And so he admonishes them, and he used
the government's own words against them. So this is what
the government admitted to when they submitted this in the
court order. They said, the enclosed annotated transcripts show that
(08:59):
much of the information and provided during the course of
the grand jury testimony, with the exception of the identities
of certain witnesses, was made publicly available at Maxwell's trial
or has otherwise been publicly reported through the public statements
of victims and witnesses.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Those are the government's words, the government that's telling you, hey, guys,
we want to make sure we get all this grand
jury testimony out there for full disclosure. They have admitted
in filence to this judge that there is nothing in there.
And he's using their own words in his ruling to
call them on it. He is that this is not
(09:38):
just I mean, he's using facts, and I think it's
being reported in a different way for headlines. But there
is so much in here that can move the story
forward if people are willing to go, oh wait a second,
maybe we're being duped.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Right, it's not. The judgesn't just saying I'm not allowing
you to or I'm not going to unseal the grand
jury testimony because it's wrong, or I don't believe we should,
or there is some precedent for it, or you haven't,
it hasn't risen to the love. No, he's going way
beyond that and saying this is some bs. This is
a dog and pony show. You were trying to use
this court. You were trying to use me in order
(10:15):
to deflect from the truth, which is there is no
new information period.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
We got that sound by sound bite, but that quote
coming up too. But he got onto them and that's
this is the one where I made a reference kind
of two robes there. He gave them an F on
their homework assignment, and he said quote the court's review
confirmed that unsealing the grand jury materials would not reveal
any new information of consequence. In response to the court's order,
the government supplied the court with a binder highlighting any
(10:43):
information that the government had been unable to determine its
public Only scattered words, clauses, and occasional sentences are highlighted.
These items are few and far between. That sounds like
a school teacher telling a kid, you blew the homework assignment.
(11:04):
That's what I asked you to do this, and you
gave me a binder with some highlighted words. What are
you doing, is what he's saying. That's not me. We've
all been admonished in that manner before by somebody that
gave us an assignment and you didn't do this good.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Enough because they couldn't do the assignment. And that's the
whole point. And can you imagine being on this team
and what's at stake and the Trump administration telling you, hey,
this needs to look a certain way and we need
to put this on the judge. We're throwing it right
back at the judge, and then the judge just throws
it right back at you, like in a very public way,
(11:39):
you know, because he could have.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
You know what you make a good point, and this
is probably out there. But what if the judge had
not done all this and simply said no, I'm not
going to maybe gave a little legal reasoning for it.
People would have gone after the judge, what is he
trying to hide? And the government could have gone say, look,
we tried everything we knew to try.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
You believe, from all your years of experience, that's exactly
what the government was hoping would happen.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
And he you know what, judges aren't supposed to, but
he played a very good public relations the game here
if that's the case, but this worked to say I'm
not going to actually let you get away with this.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
The judge is a smart man. He too has had
a lot of experience in politics, and he too knew
exactly what the government was trying to do, which was
to push it right back on him and make him
look like the bad guy, make it look like he
denied the unsealing of the documents. He's the reason why
you American public doesn't really get to know what was
happening behind closed doors, That's exactly. And the judge knew
(12:44):
that was the game they were playing, and he said,
ah ah, watch me all right.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
And this next one, folks, I have a note in
here for Robot and I that says just stars around it,
all caps. Important quote. This is as definitive robes for
anybody out there who was waiting for new information, who's
saying something needs to be released because there's something in
there we don't know. This next quote is one of
the strongest statements I have seen in this entire saga
(13:08):
about what is or isn't still left to be revealed.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
All Right, So the judge wrote this. A member of
the public familiar with the Maxwell trial record who reviewed
the grand jury materials that the government proposed 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 the minor.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
That's an important, huge, that is huge important statement.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
So that anything that's in there that the grand jury
heard had nothing to do with anyone else. No powerful,
unnamed figure was presented in any way, shape or form. Okay,
so the judge goes on to say about these files
that they want released, they do not discuss or identify
any client of Epstein's or Maxwell's boom.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Again, another importance in it, please.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means of methods
or sort of unknown means or methods of Epstein's or
Maxwell's crimes. I mean, we're not gonna learn anything about
how they did what they did or why they did
what they did. They do not reveal new venues at
which their crimes occurred. A lot of people want to know,
did it happen at someone else's house, on someone else's plane,
(14:25):
Like this is everyone's looking for someone else who's involved.
He's saying, Nope, none of this reveals anything new about
venues or where the crimes occurred. They do not reveal
new sources of their wealth. That's huge because a lot
of the implications were that perhaps Epstein was blackmailing power
(14:45):
for people because he had photographs or videos of them
participating in some of these crimes, and so he's he's
amassed his wealth by blackmailing people. So the judge is
specifically saying, any of these files or anything the grand
jury heard does not re news sources of their wealth.
They do not explore the circumstances of Epstein's death. They
(15:07):
do not reveal the path of the government's investigation.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
If folks don't want to believe this judge, okay, But
who will you believe until you see it for yourself.
This is a man sitting on the Southern District Court
of New York. This is a federal judge telling everybody
the thing you're looking for. There ain't a name, there
ain't a client list, there ain't a new crime, there
is nothing else. The stuff you're looking for just ain't there.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
It's possible that the stuff people are looking for died
with Jeffrey Epstein. And that is possible if there is
other stuff. You know, we don't even know that for sure,
but it's if there is the most.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Powerful prisoner in the country.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
It's the only use I say it died with Epstein.
But yes, it could possibly live in Glene Maxwell. But
if there might not be anything to know beyond what
we already do, who was on his plane, who visited him,
who partied with him, who went to dinner with him,
That doesn't mean that they participated in illegal acts with him.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
That was probably If that's not the strongest quote he
has in his ruling, there might be one other that
is giving it a run for his money, and we
will share that with you. Also exactly who is this judge? Well,
he was a judge that a few months ago somebody
(16:25):
filed articles of impeachment against him.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Before we go to break, I have to tell you
about new leggings I've been living in lately. They're from
this brand called Tona and fun Fact here they were
actually designed by the same visionary behind Lulu Lemon, So
from that alone, you already know they're going to be
pretty good. These leggings feel like a second skin. They're
super flattering, super comfortable, and somehow still supportive. I've been
(16:50):
wearing them on my warning runs and they've quickly become
my everyday lounging leggings too. And here's what makes them
even better. Every pair you buy helps fun a mental
health counseling session for a teen in need. Tona's on
a mission to end teen suicide and self harm, which
we think is so important and incredible, So we've partnered
with Tona to give you twenty percent off your order
(17:13):
and free shipping. Head to tonaactive dot com and use
code iHeart for twenty percent off and free shipping.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
We continue now on Amy and TJ again going through
the ruling by this judge in New York ngle Meyer
from the Southern District of New York saying no, to
the Department of Justice, you cannot have those grand jury
files about Epstein and Glaine Maxwell released. And he kind
of really rose, like we said, just really shot them
down in this ruling, and we gave what I thought
(17:52):
was the most important quote in there before we took
a quick break. The next note I have in here.
I'm just not gonna joke you all. Before I wrote
the quote down, I wrote a note to us on
the side that said, holy shit, judge, And that's what
it said, because some of the stuff in there I
couldn't believe. All right.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
So the judge goes on to say, insofar as the
motion to unseal implies that the Grandeury materials are an
untapped mindload of undisclosed information about Epstein or Maxwell or confederates,
they definitely are not that.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
He's saying. It is plain as day.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
In many ways, in different sentences throughout those thirty pages,
he just he keeps hammering it home. There ain't nothing
in these documents, period, he said.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
Anybody out there another one, he said, he said, you
would come away feeling disappointed and misled because there is
no there there now. He could have, like we said,
he could have made a ruling and moved on, But
it looked like he was he knew what might be
coming and it was important to make all these points
and to explain himself. But he also explained I was
I couldn't believe it. He said he considered releasing the
(19:05):
grand jury information just to prove that their whole public
argument as a farce that was strong. He wanted to
release it just to prove your liars. Whoo.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
I mean that is telling. And I do appreciate the
way he constantly says anyone who's deeply interested or concerned
about this, if you're an ordinary citizen, if you're a pundit,
if you're a lawmaker, if you're a public official, any
of you, I assure you you would be disappointed. So
he goes to want to acknowledge all the people who
(19:40):
are desperate for information, who desperately want to know, and
he's saying there's nothing to know. And I appreciate the
fact that he is covering all of his bases, so
to speak, in this way for the.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
Victims as well. He mentioned them, and part of it
saying some of them. He got letters, even mentioned he's
got letters from interested parties, maybe not necessarily part of
the family who were upset about it, and chiming in,
and he said, I understand why people are upset and
why the victims might want this stuff released, because you
have been misled. You have been led to believe there's
something that is not there. And he gave this defense
(20:13):
for a certain degree of his ruling. But Romes he mentioned,
I don't you know, I didn't look up the city.
I should look this up. But he mentioned precedent in
another case in which a mayoral candidate, mean Mario Biaji,
wanted grand jury testimony released, and the court in that
(20:33):
case released it to prove a point because he was
out there telling the public as he was running for mayor,
released that grand jury. I didn't do this. I didn't.
So he is telling the public and misleading the public.
He goes to court, they released the grand jury stuff,
and sure enough he had been lying to the public.
This judge in this case cited that one and said,
(20:54):
you know what, I had good mind to release this anyway,
just so the public at see for what you're doing.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Oooh, that's wild. I mean That really is wild if
you think about that, and who he's talking about. He's
literally talking about the Department of Justice. He's not talking
about a mayoral candidate in some small town. He is
talking about our Department of Justice. He is talking about
the United States government led by the Trump administration. Those
(21:25):
are serious allegations, accusations, And I can't remember a time
ever where a judge has come out this strongly against
the Department of Justice. Yes, there can be disagreements, there
can be arguments about precedent, arguments about whether or not
something is worth or rises to a level, but this
(21:48):
goes far beyond that. And he I mean, like I said,
he is calling everyone involved and everyone who's claiming to
want this from the government standpoint released, misleading, manipulative.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
And Biagi was in fact, yes New York should't know,
but it was Mario Biage. Yeah, it does doesn't who
was running, but that was the case. So the judge,
and again we are not interpreting. We're going to give
this is a direct quote. We are not just assuming
what the judge was talking about. He said this quote
the one colorable argument under the doctrine for unsealing in
this case in fact is that doing so would expose
(22:24):
as disingenuous the government's public explanations for moving to unseal.
Holy hell.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
Yes. And then he goes on to say 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 diversion, aimed not at full disclosure, but
(22:54):
at the illusion of such.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
Dude, I mean, he couldn't make it any more. Plane.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
How long do you think it took him to write
this and how much pleasure did he take writing it?
Or was he nervous concerned about what possibly could happen
in terms of backlash?
Speaker 1 (23:08):
You know, given the politics these days, who knows. But
he's supposed to be doing his job, and I guess.
And some would say all you do is interpret the
facts and leave it at such. But I mean, judges
give judgment from the bench all the time about what
they think about this defendant or stop doing they do it.
It's judgment, so I don't. Obviously it's always politics. So
someone would look at this and say, oh, he must
(23:29):
be an Obama appointee.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Which he is he is, he turns out he is,
and that's probably a lot about what we'll hear if
we do hear anything back about this judge from the
DOJ or the Trump administration. They're going to make that
point very clear.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
But who do we put our trust or our faith in.
If somebody doesn't say something that I like that's on
my side of the aisle, then automatically they're on the
other side, and they're evil and they're misleading me. This
is a judge. I mean, I don't know what his
political leanings are, and anybody should give a damn. And
if he does lean all the way left, this means
he can't do his job. I don't know. But in
all this story seems to be this is the most
(24:04):
definitive And I would say, what are the most authoritative
voice we have heard that is just not left or right?
Just authority on. I reviewed this stuff, and you all
are being fooled about what's in there, and I'm trying
my best to help y'all here without violating grand jury secrecy.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
And I appreciate everything he said as someone who covered
this way back before any of it even became public
or became of public. Interest at all. There was a
lack of transparency. There was a feeling that these girls,
these girls, these young girls, weren't being listened to or heard.
And so that is the foundation from which so much
of this skepticism arises from. Because he was allowed to
(24:49):
continue to do what he did and people turned their
heads and they didn't hold him accountable, and he was
given a sweet deal in the state of Florida, and
he did run around in very powerful circles. So it's
understandable this story has all of the elements where yes,
I and so many of the people have been incredibly
(25:09):
skeptical of what the truth is and how much we
get to know and how much is known. That this
comes from a place of absolute truth in the sense
that we were duped, We weren't being told the truth,
and really important information wasn't being let out, and girls,
young girls were not being protected, and that's where a
(25:31):
lot of this anger comes from, and that's where a
lot of the skepticism comes from.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Unfortunately, too much of the politics has come into it.
Somebody's trying to get somebody instead of actually getting at
the truth. Because in all these conversations and robes in
twenty eight minutes we've been on here, and that's on
all of us that the victims get mentioned once and
at the end kind of a thing. And it's and
I understand what the story is today, but I just
it's always something to keep in mind and something that's
(25:57):
important there. And I mentioned earlier this Judge Inglemeyer. It
was in February, was it Robes? They had articles of
impeachment introduced in Congress against him. A Republican in Arizona
introduced these articles of impeachment and he did it. Two
weeks after this judge you gave an unfavorable ruling to
the Trump administration and had to do with the Treasury
(26:18):
Department to using Granny access to doge. He ruled against them.
Two weeks later, articles of impeachment were introduced by a
Republican out of Arizona.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
And that's just so frustrating because that's just not I mean,
I know, supposed to isn't maybe something we should be
harping on, but that isn't how our country is supposed
to function. If you don't like what a judge rules,
you then try to get him fired or impeached or
some sort of punishment for ruling. Against what you want
(26:49):
to happen. That ain't how it's supposed to work.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Well, folks, we know this story is apparently not going anywhere. No,
it's not anytime soon. Even after Glene Maxwell's pardoned, this
story will probably It's very funny, folks. We always appreciate
you all hanging out with us. And remember, we can
make this easier on you. If you pick up that phone,
open the Apple Podcast app right there where on the
(27:15):
screen where our homepage is just top right corner says follow.
Just click on that and you can get these updates
coming straight to you. Won't have to look for them.
But we always appreciate you hanging with us. I'm TJ.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Holmes and I'm Amy Robock. Have a great day, everybody,
Hey, that folks, it is August twelfth, and a judge
didn't just say no to the Trump administration's request for
those grand jury files about Epstein. The judge said hell no,
gave them an f on their homework assignment, and said
he considered exposing them for the frauds they are. And
(00:23):
with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Ropes.
I paraphrase there a little bit, but that is as
accurate as you're gonna get. This was an absolute beat
down in this judge's decision, a spanking to the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Yes, that's exactly well put. That was the sentiment throughout
the entire thirty page response. You read it. I read it,
and it was jaw dropping. I know that judges are
supposed to judge, but he was extra judge.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Would you not say, well, you're not used to them
speaking that way? And I would say that we're missing
a lot in a lot of the coverage and the
headlines that we are seeing. I thought he was one thing,
and even some of the quotes I saw that the
judge kind of admonished them for some things. Reading through it,
this guy has been as clear as anybody in the
(01:16):
whole Epstein saga about what is actually in some stuff
that people are desperate to see. He flat out said,
ain't nothing to.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
See here, exactly, And he made a really good point
that I really hadn't considered this grand jury secret testimony
that the Trump administration that the Department of Justice once
released to the public and the name of transparency. They
had one day of talking to a police officer and
another day of talking to an investigator who gave a
(01:44):
summation report. They weren't listening to hearing from victims. They
weren't presented with evidence that a black book or some
financial tracing too powerful people who were named, or possibly
none of that stuff that we all have heard might
be there was there during that grand jury testimony. It
(02:05):
actually sounded fairly boring. And the things they don't want
out there are really really private things like videos and
pictures of miners being forced to do things they shouldn't have.
So this wasn't anything that pointed the finger at anyone else.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
And please you all do not take what we're saying
here as our interpretation. We are going to share with
you directly more than you've probably seen out there that's
from this judge's ruling, his direct quotes that make clear
you don't need extra context. He makes it clear.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Now.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
The reason we're all here is because the Trump administration
has been getting all kinds of hell, mainly from its
own base. Because in July, they say, hey, we have
no more files to release. There was no Epstein client list,
he killed himself in prison. This thing is done. Obviously,
robes that didn't go over well, and he's been dealing
(02:58):
with it for a month plus.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Obviously that's the truth. That could be.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Nobody's gonna believe that that's the thing.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
So yes, with so much secrecy and so much speculation,
and the fact that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, that
Virginia Roberts also died by suicide, it just contributes to
this conspiracy that there's a cover up, that powerful people
are keeping their names out of court records, even though
(03:26):
they might be in documents or in evidence elsewhere.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
So they say, no more file is gonna believe release.
That's July seventh. July seventeenth, got that Wall Street Journal
report about Trump sending a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein.
The next day, the DOJ asks courts to unseal documents.
July twenty fourth, the DOJ interviews Glane Maxwell. Remember she's
serving twenty years in prison in Florida. No excuse me,
(03:52):
she was in Florida.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
She was in Florida. Now she's in Texas.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Yeay, hear what I just said. July twenty four, She
got interviewed. A week later, she got moved, yeah to
Club Fame.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Club called Yes, the lowest security level possible for a
federal inmate. And these are all non violent offenders. Gallayne
Maxwell is a violent defender, period.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
So based on her convictions and having to do with miners, yes.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
And she there. She It wasn't just about when you
start reading some of what the judge talked about, and
we'll get into it, but this this evidence wasn't just
about her helping Jeffrey Epstein. She was also participating in
some of this absolutely discussing behavior with miners.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
So let us get you caught up on where we
are now with this ruling. There was an earlier ruling
by a different court in Florida that the OJ had
asked for that court to release some grand jury testimony
having to do with Epstein's trial down there in two
thousand and nine or something like that. That court said, no,
not going to release grand jury So the government was
trying for the New York cases that Epstein was being
(04:59):
tried for and the one Nickolain Maxwell ends up in
prison for now. So Judge Paul Engelman, he is the
judge in the Southern District of New York, he was
hearing the case. Let everybody have their say about releasing
these grand jury files. Now, Rhodes grand jury secrecy. You
don't have to be a court watcher to understand that's
a pretty big deal. The judge started with that in
(05:21):
his ruling today, saying this is precedent, and the way
he put it in his ruling, the policy that proceedings
before a grand jury shall generally remain secret is older
than our nation itself. This is in the first few
lines of his ruling, so you could almost he almost
established the direction he was going to go. There's a
high bar to openate stuff up.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Yeah, Judge Angmaier said, basically, this is part of the
foundation of our legal system. This is part of why
our system works. And so to ask someone to publicly
unseal those records would have to rise to an extraordinary.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Threshold which they claim these are extraord time special circumstances.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
In fact, as I believe the phrase they've used, unusual,
historical or of deep public interest in while the judge acknowledged, yeah,
there is public interest for sure, the other ones, though,
doesn't even come close. The judge said that this particular
appeal by the Department of Justice doesn't apply to garden
variety petitions for disclosure. That's how he described the DOJ's
(06:24):
request garden variety petition versus special circumstances, and.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
The public interest historical and unusual public interest is public interest.
This is not a matter of national security. This is
not We're talking about general public curiosity about something. The
judge we shared this this morning, Rowe. This is one
that's kind of been out there, one of the quotes,
and it is a big one, but it's not the
biggest one we found. He told them that the entire
(06:48):
premise that the Maxwell grand jury materials would bring light meaningful,
would bring to light meaningful new information about Epstein's in
Maxwell's crimes or the government's investigation into them, is demons
stribly false. Now, he says this early in this ruling,
but he's setting up what you're actually arguing. I don't
(07:08):
necessarily have to judge your art. What you're saying and
saying is demonstrably false.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
He's calling them liars, I.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
Said, he went through and cut them down time again.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
He basically my takeaway from reading this was that he
was calling the DOJ manipulative liars because you're lying to
the public correct and manipulating it, or manipulating the public
by making them believe that there is something there that
would shed light, and that they are trying to be transparent.
(07:40):
They're doing everything they can to bring all the information
that is sealed or under wraps or secret, so that
then you are actually undermining public trust in our legal system,
undermining public trust in our judicial system. And that is
I think part of the reason why the judge was
so stern and so specific in his response.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
And again, folks, what you're hearing from us right now
is not interpretation. We will continue to share this man's
very quotes. Again, this is a thirty one page briefing
you can read all to yourself. But about the material
we keep hearing robes about whatever Epstein material that the
DJ says they have, says nothing else to release because
nothing else is going to be new. The judge, at
(08:21):
least in terms of grand jury testimony, he agreed with
that say there actually is nothing new here, despite what
you DJ are saying publicly. You have at least in
our briefings express that you know there's nothing new. Right.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
So it's he's calling them on. He's like, you know
and I both you and I both know that there's
nothing there, but you're making the public think there is
something there. And so he admonishes them, and he used
the government's own words against them. So this is what
the government admitted to when they submitted this in the
court order. They said, the enclosed annotated transcripts show that
(08:59):
much of the information and provided during the course of
the grand jury testimony, with the exception of the identities
of certain witnesses, was made publicly available at Maxwell's trial
or has otherwise been publicly reported through the public statements
of victims and witnesses.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Those are the government's words, the government that's telling you, hey, guys,
we want to make sure we get all this grand
jury testimony out there for full disclosure. They have admitted
in filence to this judge that there is nothing in there.
And he's using their own words in his ruling to
call them on it. He is that this is not
(09:38):
just I mean, he's using facts, and I think it's
being reported in a different way for headlines. But there
is so much in here that can move the story
forward if people are willing to go, oh wait a second,
maybe we're being duped.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Right, it's not. The judgesn't just saying I'm not allowing
you to or I'm not going to unseal the grand
jury testimony because it's wrong, or I don't believe we should,
or there is some precedent for it, or you haven't,
it hasn't risen to the love. No, he's going way
beyond that and saying this is some bs. This is
a dog and pony show. You were trying to use
this court. You were trying to use me in order
(10:15):
to deflect from the truth, which is there is no
new information period.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
We got that sound by sound bite, but that quote
coming up too. But he got onto them and that's
this is the one where I made a reference kind
of two robes there. He gave them an F on
their homework assignment, and he said quote the court's review
confirmed that unsealing the grand jury materials would not reveal
any new information of consequence. In response to the court's order,
the government supplied the court with a binder highlighting any
(10:43):
information that the government had been unable to determine its
public Only scattered words, clauses, and occasional sentences are highlighted.
These items are few and far between. That sounds like
a school teacher telling a kid, you blew the homework assignment.
(11:04):
That's what I asked you to do this, and you
gave me a binder with some highlighted words. What are
you doing, is what he's saying. That's not me. We've
all been admonished in that manner before by somebody that
gave us an assignment and you didn't do this good.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Enough because they couldn't do the assignment. And that's the
whole point. And can you imagine being on this team
and what's at stake and the Trump administration telling you, hey,
this needs to look a certain way and we need
to put this on the judge. We're throwing it right
back at the judge, and then the judge just throws
it right back at you, like in a very public way,
(11:39):
you know, because he could have.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
You know what you make a good point, and this
is probably out there. But what if the judge had
not done all this and simply said no, I'm not
going to maybe gave a little legal reasoning for it.
People would have gone after the judge, what is he
trying to hide? And the government could have gone say, look,
we tried everything we knew to try.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
You believe, from all your years of experience, that's exactly
what the government was hoping would happen.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
And he you know what, judges aren't supposed to, but
he played a very good public relations the game here
if that's the case, but this worked to say I'm
not going to actually let you get away with this.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
The judge is a smart man. He too has had
a lot of experience in politics, and he too knew
exactly what the government was trying to do, which was
to push it right back on him and make him
look like the bad guy, make it look like he
denied the unsealing of the documents. He's the reason why
you American public doesn't really get to know what was
happening behind closed doors, That's exactly. And the judge knew
(12:44):
that was the game they were playing, and he said,
ah ah, watch me all right.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
And this next one, folks, I have a note in
here for Robot and I that says just stars around it,
all caps. Important quote. This is as definitive robes for
anybody out there who was waiting for new information, who's
saying something needs to be released because there's something in
there we don't know. This next quote is one of
the strongest statements I have seen in this entire saga
(13:08):
about what is or isn't still left to be revealed.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
All Right, So the judge wrote this. A member of
the public familiar with the Maxwell trial record who reviewed
the grand jury materials that the government proposed 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 the minor.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
That's an important, huge, that is huge important statement.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
So that anything that's in there that the grand jury
heard had nothing to do with anyone else. No powerful,
unnamed figure was presented in any way, shape or form. Okay,
so the judge goes on to say about these files
that they want released, they do not discuss or identify
any client of Epstein's or Maxwell's boom.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Again, another importance in it, please.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means of methods
or sort of unknown means or methods of Epstein's or
Maxwell's crimes. I mean, we're not gonna learn anything about
how they did what they did or why they did
what they did. They do not reveal new venues at
which their crimes occurred. A lot of people want to know,
did it happen at someone else's house, on someone else's plane,
(14:25):
Like this is everyone's looking for someone else who's involved.
He's saying, Nope, none of this reveals anything new about
venues or where the crimes occurred. They do not reveal
new sources of their wealth. That's huge because a lot
of the implications were that perhaps Epstein was blackmailing power
(14:45):
for people because he had photographs or videos of them
participating in some of these crimes, and so he's he's
amassed his wealth by blackmailing people. So the judge is
specifically saying, any of these files or anything the grand
jury heard does not re news sources of their wealth.
They do not explore the circumstances of Epstein's death. They
(15:07):
do not reveal the path of the government's investigation.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
If folks don't want to believe this judge, okay, But
who will you believe until you see it for yourself.
This is a man sitting on the Southern District Court
of New York. This is a federal judge telling everybody
the thing you're looking for. There ain't a name, there
ain't a client list, there ain't a new crime, there
is nothing else. The stuff you're looking for just ain't there.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
It's possible that the stuff people are looking for died
with Jeffrey Epstein. And that is possible if there is
other stuff. You know, we don't even know that for sure,
but it's if there is the most.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Powerful prisoner in the country.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
It's the only use I say it died with Epstein.
But yes, it could possibly live in Glene Maxwell. But
if there might not be anything to know beyond what
we already do, who was on his plane, who visited him,
who partied with him, who went to dinner with him,
That doesn't mean that they participated in illegal acts with him.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
That was probably If that's not the strongest quote he
has in his ruling, there might be one other that
is giving it a run for his money, and we
will share that with you. Also exactly who is this judge? Well,
he was a judge that a few months ago somebody
(16:25):
filed articles of impeachment against him.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Before we go to break, I have to tell you
about new leggings I've been living in lately. They're from
this brand called Tona and fun Fact here they were
actually designed by the same visionary behind Lulu Lemon, So
from that alone, you already know they're going to be
pretty good. These leggings feel like a second skin. They're
super flattering, super comfortable, and somehow still supportive. I've been
(16:50):
wearing them on my warning runs and they've quickly become
my everyday lounging leggings too. And here's what makes them
even better. Every pair you buy helps fun a mental
health counseling session for a teen in need. Tona's on
a mission to end teen suicide and self harm, which
we think is so important and incredible, So we've partnered
with Tona to give you twenty percent off your order
(17:13):
and free shipping. Head to tonaactive dot com and use
code iHeart for twenty percent off and free shipping.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
We continue now on Amy and TJ again going through
the ruling by this judge in New York ngle Meyer
from the Southern District of New York saying no, to
the Department of Justice, you cannot have those grand jury
files about Epstein and Glaine Maxwell released. And he kind
of really rose, like we said, just really shot them
down in this ruling, and we gave what I thought
(17:52):
was the most important quote in there before we took
a quick break. The next note I have in here.
I'm just not gonna joke you all. Before I wrote
the quote down, I wrote a note to us on
the side that said, holy shit, judge, And that's what
it said, because some of the stuff in there I
couldn't believe. All right.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
So the judge goes on to say, insofar as the
motion to unseal implies that the Grandeury materials are an
untapped mindload of undisclosed information about Epstein or Maxwell or confederates,
they definitely are not that.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
He's saying. It is plain as day.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
In many ways, in different sentences throughout those thirty pages,
he just he keeps hammering it home. There ain't nothing
in these documents, period, he said.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
Anybody out there another one, he said, he said, you
would come away feeling disappointed and misled because there is
no there there now. He could have, like we said,
he could have made a ruling and moved on, But
it looked like he was he knew what might be
coming and it was important to make all these points
and to explain himself. But he also explained I was
I couldn't believe it. He said he considered releasing the
(19:05):
grand jury information just to prove that their whole public
argument as a farce that was strong. He wanted to
release it just to prove your liars. Whoo.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
I mean that is telling. And I do appreciate the
way he constantly says anyone who's deeply interested or concerned
about this, if you're an ordinary citizen, if you're a pundit,
if you're a lawmaker, if you're a public official, any
of you, I assure you you would be disappointed. So
he goes to want to acknowledge all the people who
(19:40):
are desperate for information, who desperately want to know, and
he's saying there's nothing to know. And I appreciate the
fact that he is covering all of his bases, so
to speak, in this way for the.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
Victims as well. He mentioned them, and part of it
saying some of them. He got letters, even mentioned he's
got letters from interested parties, maybe not necessarily part of
the family who were upset about it, and chiming in,
and he said, I understand why people are upset and
why the victims might want this stuff released, because you
have been misled. You have been led to believe there's
something that is not there. And he gave this defense
(20:13):
for a certain degree of his ruling. But Romes he mentioned,
I don't you know, I didn't look up the city.
I should look this up. But he mentioned precedent in
another case in which a mayoral candidate, mean Mario Biaji,
wanted grand jury testimony released, and the court in that
(20:33):
case released it to prove a point because he was
out there telling the public as he was running for mayor,
released that grand jury. I didn't do this. I didn't.
So he is telling the public and misleading the public.
He goes to court, they released the grand jury stuff,
and sure enough he had been lying to the public.
This judge in this case cited that one and said,
(20:54):
you know what, I had good mind to release this anyway,
just so the public at see for what you're doing.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Oooh, that's wild. I mean That really is wild if
you think about that, and who he's talking about. He's
literally talking about the Department of Justice. He's not talking
about a mayoral candidate in some small town. He is
talking about our Department of Justice. He is talking about
the United States government led by the Trump administration. Those
(21:25):
are serious allegations, accusations, And I can't remember a time
ever where a judge has come out this strongly against
the Department of Justice. Yes, there can be disagreements, there
can be arguments about precedent, arguments about whether or not
something is worth or rises to a level, but this
(21:48):
goes far beyond that. And he I mean, like I said,
he is calling everyone involved and everyone who's claiming to
want this from the government standpoint released, misleading, manipulative.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
And Biagi was in fact, yes New York should't know,
but it was Mario Biage. Yeah, it does doesn't who
was running, but that was the case. So the judge,
and again we are not interpreting. We're going to give
this is a direct quote. We are not just assuming
what the judge was talking about. He said this quote
the one colorable argument under the doctrine for unsealing in
this case in fact is that doing so would expose
(22:24):
as disingenuous the government's public explanations for moving to unseal.
Holy hell.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
Yes. And then he goes on to say 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 diversion, aimed not at full disclosure, but
(22:54):
at the illusion of such.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
Dude, I mean, he couldn't make it any more. Plane.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
How long do you think it took him to write
this and how much pleasure did he take writing it?
Or was he nervous concerned about what possibly could happen
in terms of backlash?
Speaker 1 (23:08):
You know, given the politics these days, who knows. But
he's supposed to be doing his job, and I guess.
And some would say all you do is interpret the
facts and leave it at such. But I mean, judges
give judgment from the bench all the time about what
they think about this defendant or stop doing they do it.
It's judgment, so I don't. Obviously it's always politics. So
someone would look at this and say, oh, he must
(23:29):
be an Obama appointee.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Which he is he is, he turns out he is,
and that's probably a lot about what we'll hear if
we do hear anything back about this judge from the
DOJ or the Trump administration. They're going to make that
point very clear.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
But who do we put our trust or our faith in.
If somebody doesn't say something that I like that's on
my side of the aisle, then automatically they're on the
other side, and they're evil and they're misleading me. This
is a judge. I mean, I don't know what his
political leanings are, and anybody should give a damn. And
if he does lean all the way left, this means
he can't do his job. I don't know. But in
all this story seems to be this is the most
(24:04):
definitive And I would say, what are the most authoritative
voice we have heard that is just not left or right?
Just authority on. I reviewed this stuff, and you all
are being fooled about what's in there, and I'm trying
my best to help y'all here without violating grand jury secrecy.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
And I appreciate everything he said as someone who covered
this way back before any of it even became public
or became of public. Interest at all. There was a
lack of transparency. There was a feeling that these girls,
these girls, these young girls, weren't being listened to or heard.
And so that is the foundation from which so much
of this skepticism arises from. Because he was allowed to
(24:49):
continue to do what he did and people turned their
heads and they didn't hold him accountable, and he was
given a sweet deal in the state of Florida, and
he did run around in very powerful circles. So it's
understandable this story has all of the elements where yes,
I and so many of the people have been incredibly
(25:09):
skeptical of what the truth is and how much we
get to know and how much is known. That this
comes from a place of absolute truth in the sense
that we were duped, We weren't being told the truth,
and really important information wasn't being let out, and girls,
young girls were not being protected, and that's where a
(25:31):
lot of this anger comes from, and that's where a
lot of the skepticism comes from.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Unfortunately, too much of the politics has come into it.
Somebody's trying to get somebody instead of actually getting at
the truth. Because in all these conversations and robes in
twenty eight minutes we've been on here, and that's on
all of us that the victims get mentioned once and
at the end kind of a thing. And it's and
I understand what the story is today, but I just
it's always something to keep in mind and something that's
(25:57):
important there. And I mentioned earlier this Judge Inglemeyer. It
was in February, was it Robes? They had articles of
impeachment introduced in Congress against him. A Republican in Arizona
introduced these articles of impeachment and he did it. Two
weeks after this judge you gave an unfavorable ruling to
the Trump administration and had to do with the Treasury
(26:18):
Department to using Granny access to doge. He ruled against them.
Two weeks later, articles of impeachment were introduced by a
Republican out of Arizona.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
And that's just so frustrating because that's just not I mean,
I know, supposed to isn't maybe something we should be
harping on, but that isn't how our country is supposed
to function. If you don't like what a judge rules,
you then try to get him fired or impeached or
some sort of punishment for ruling. Against what you want
(26:49):
to happen. That ain't how it's supposed to work.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Well, folks, we know this story is apparently not going anywhere. No,
it's not anytime soon. Even after Glene Maxwell's pardoned, this
story will probably It's very funny, folks. We always appreciate
you all hanging out with us. And remember, we can
make this easier on you. If you pick up that phone,
open the Apple Podcast app right there where on the
(27:15):
screen where our homepage is just top right corner says follow.
Just click on that and you can get these updates
coming straight to you. Won't have to look for them.
But we always appreciate you hanging with us. I'm TJ.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Holmes and I'm Amy Robock. Have a great day, everybody,
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!