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

[gab13by13]

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?

[Blue Full Moon]

1. 100%

[albacore]

2. Illegal..

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]

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

[H2O Man]

3. Recommended.

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]

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

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]

7. Charlie Kirk is eating up the empty gesture.

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]

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

Jerome Powell better keep his head down tomorrow.

[Sogo]

8. The operative word is "pertinent."

nt

[pat_k]

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

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]

10. Taco likely to Taco on this

[mzmolly]

11. The "pertinent" transcripts.

PERTINENT.

[still-prayin4rain]

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

[jmbar2]

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

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.