General Discussion

gab13by13

(29,087 posts) Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:08 PM Jul 17

Did Krasnov Just Tell Bondi To Release The Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts?

I just saw this on my home page, copied it from a WSJ article,

"Trump, in a Thursday night social-media post, said he had directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval!” Bondi wrote on X that she was ready to ask a court Friday to unseal the grand jury transcripts."

Is this for real?

Is this why they fired Comey, the lead prosecutor, so she couldn't verify if the transcripts were doctored or incomplete?

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Did Krasnov Just Tell Bondi To Release The Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts? (Original Post) gab13by13 Jul 17 OP

100% Blue Full Moon Jul 17 #1

Illegal.. albacore Jul 17 #2

So, it's an empty gesture to demonize courts further "We tried, but the corrupt court said no" pat_k Jul 17 #6

Recommended. H2O Man Jul 17 #3

Grand jury materials can't be released without court approval, Ocelot II Jul 17 #4

Charlie Kirk is eating up the empty gesture. pat_k Jul 17 #7

He's panicking and needs a big distraction badly. GoodRaisin Jul 17 #5

The operative word is "pertinent." Sogo Jul 17 #8

Reporting from BBC points out the vagueness of it all pat_k Jul 17 #9

Taco likely to Taco on this Johonny Jul 17 #10

The "pertinent" transcripts. mzmolly Jul 17 #11

The transcripts are like 1% of the data in the files and the only portion that need court approval still-prayin4rain Jul 17 #12

Can't remember where I read this, but jmbar2 Jul 18 #13

Blue Full Moon

(2,520 posts)

1. 100%

Reply to gab13by13 (Original post)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:09 PM

Jul 17

albacore

(2,710 posts)

2. Illegal..

Reply to gab13by13 (Original post)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:11 PM

Jul 17

Google AI..

Releasing grand jury transcripts to the public is generally illegal under federal law, specifically under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). This rule mandates secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings to protect the integrity of investigations and prevent undue harm to individuals. While there are exceptions, these typically involve court authorization and a showing of specific need.

pat_k

(11,509 posts)

6. So, it's an empty gesture to demonize courts further "We tried, but the corrupt court said no"

Reply to albacore (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:17 PM

Jul 17

H2O Man

(77,561 posts)

3. Recommended.

Reply to gab13by13 (Original post)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:12 PM

Jul 17

He said that he told her to release some documents, but that is distinct from actually do it. I have visions of them waiting for Stephen Miller to Hunt down Epstein files saying Joe Biden killed the president of South Vietnam.

Ocelot II

(126,335 posts)

4. Grand jury materials can't be released without court approval,

Reply to gab13by13 (Original post)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:15 PM

Jul 17

which is very unlikely to be given. Demanding grand jury transcripts is a smoke screen, because they know damn well those transcripts won't be released - it makes them look like they want "transparency" while knowing they aren't giving any.

pat_k

(11,509 posts)

7. Charlie Kirk is eating up the empty gesture.

Reply to Ocelot II (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:27 PM

Jul 17

Clearly, it's an empty gesture that has the bonus of being able to demonize courts further "We tried, but the corrupt court said no"

I have a feeling that the Epstein diehards in MAGA will actually "get" that it is just a shell game.

Time will tell.

Who knows? The 47 regime's gamble could backfire.

I can't imagine it happening, but there is a lot happening that is so far beyond my wildest fears, I have given up prognosticating on anything. Perhaps the court will find that some of the testimony needs to be released in the public interest, not for whatever bullshit argument Bondi's DOJ makes, but for a reality-based "on it's own motion" finding that the nation has a right to know its president's involvement.

GoodRaisin

(10,378 posts)

5. He's panicking and needs a big distraction badly.

Reply to gab13by13 (Original post)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:16 PM

Jul 17

Jerome Powell better keep his head down tomorrow.

Sogo

(6,495 posts)

8. The operative word is "pertinent."

Reply to gab13by13 (Original post)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:29 PM

Jul 17

pat_k

(11,509 posts)

9. Reporting from BBC points out the vagueness of it all

Reply to Sogo (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:34 PM

Jul 17

It's not even clear WHAT grand jury testimony he is ordering her to make a futile effort to get released (early 2000's or the testimony that lead to the 2019 charges).
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9w1014rlq9o

Johonny

(24,273 posts)

10. Taco likely to Taco on this

Reply to gab13by13 (Original post)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:43 PM

Jul 17

mzmolly

(52,389 posts)

11. The "pertinent" transcripts.

Reply to gab13by13 (Original post)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:50 PM

Jul 17

PERTINENT.

still-prayin4rain

(380 posts)

12. The transcripts are like 1% of the data in the files and the only portion that need court approval

Reply to gab13by13 (Original post)

Thu Jul 17, 2025, 11:53 PM

Jul 17

jmbar2

(7,112 posts)

13. Can't remember where I read this, but

Reply to gab13by13 (Original post)

Fri Jul 18, 2025, 12:32 AM

Jul 18

The Epstein grand jury did not address anything about Trump. Only focused on Epstein's charges around 2006.

Some of the depositions from the victims who sued Epstein mentioned Trump, but they happened years after the grand jury, if I recall correctly. Which is why Trump and Bondi will be OK with releasing the Grand Jury transcripts if they can. The real dirt is in the depositions.

Reply to this discussion