Absent secrecy, the presumption of innocence would be eradicated. That is, people publicly identified as connected to a grand jury probe (including completely innocent people who were just witnesses or whose names randomly came up for some reason) would be assumed by the press and public to be under suspicion of committing crimes. Moreover, absent secrecy, a grand jury probe would be a pointless exercise: Criminals would know what investigators were looking for, enabling them to threaten or pay off witnesses, destroy evidence, etc.

Now, you could counter that, even allowing all I’ve just said, there is no point in maintaining secrecy once the investigation is over. But that’s wrong. Investigations are secret in part to give reluctant witnesses assurance that if they cooperate, their provision of incriminating testimony will not become known (although, if the case goes to trial and they are called as witnesses, their prior testimony becomes public). If people thought that the grand jury testimony would eventually be made public, however, they would not have the assurance of confidentiality. They would fear that (a) dangerous criminals will know they cooperated with law enforcement and/or (b) the public (including employers, family, friends, et al.) will find out they were somehow tied to criminal activity. This would discourage many people from cooperating with law enforcement, defeating much of the purpose of having the grand jury in the first place.

For these reasons, even after an investigation is over, there is no procedure for making grand jury testimony available simply to satisfy public curiosity.

Instead, disclosure is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — specifically, by Rule 6 (subparagraphs (2) and (e)(3)(E)). It admonishes that attorneys for the government “(which include the attorney general) must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury,” absent one of the exceptions set forth in the rule.

Those exceptions do not include disclosure for its own sake, or because the natives are restless. Rather, disclosure is permitted only to (1) government attorneys who need it to perform their duties (mainly, other prosecutors); (2) other grand juries that are similarly bound by secrecy rules; (3) government personnel (including military and state prosecutors) who need it for purposes of enforcing the criminal law; (4) officials enforcing banking laws; (5) national security officials and state police similarly guarding against foreign and domestic terrorism; (6) other court proceedings (including those involving a defendant who moves to dismiss and indictment based on grand jury irregularities); and (7) foreign law enforcement officials (usually in compliance with mutual assistance treaties).

There is no exception in the rule empowering the president to direct the attorney general to seek disclosure. The executive branch has significant power to use the grand jury’s investigative processes, but grand juries are under the supervision of the court, not the president.

Now, notwithstanding what the rule says, the Justice Department and the federal courts usually take that the position that, because the court has “supervisory” authority over the grand jury, judges have authority to unseal and disclose grand jury materials even if such disclosure would not be in literal compliance with the rule.

I have never believed that is a valid theory. It is ultimately Congress that prescribes the rules of criminal procedure. I don’t believe judges have some vague, general supervisory authority to countermand the rules (especially given that, under the Constitution, Congress controls the jurisdiction of the federal courts). Nevertheless, mine is a lonely dissent: In my experience, when the Justice Department asks a court to authorize disclosure, the court approves such requests without much analysis of whether the disclosure complies with Rule 6.

Consequently, I expect Attorney General Bondi will direct the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York (where the relevant grand jury proceedings took place) to seek the unsealing of the grand jury proceedings. I do not know whether the prior, botched federal investigation of Epstein in Palm Beach resulted in grand jury proceedings, but if it did, presumably AG Bondi will give similar instructions to the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.

It is possible, needless to say, that victims of Epstein’s monstrous crimes and other persons who have reason to fear being associated with them (e.g., people who were never charged with crimes, and people who were business or social associates of Epstein’s and were uninvolved in his crimes but understandably fear they will be smeared) will make motions in the relevant court(s) opposing the government’s disclosure application, on the ground that it does not comply with Rule 6(e).

Regardless of whether such motions are made, and of whether they succeed in delaying disclosure, it is worth noting that the grand jury testimony typically amounts to just a small fraction of the government’s investigative file. Far more extensive are witness interviews conducted by law enforcement agents, evidence subpoenaed from various sources, and the fruits of search warrants (for example, computers — several of which were evidently seized from Epstein residences — contain tens of thousands of files).

Ergo, the disclosure President Trump has directed may merely whet the appetites of his restless base for broader revelation of the government’s files. For example, even if all the grand jury testimony is made publicly available, in violation of secrecy rules, it won’t explain why AG Bondi appeared to claim that she had Epstein’s phantom “client list” sitting on her desk. And since no one was ever charged in connection with Epstein’s death, there may be scant, if any, grand jury testimony about how it happened that he met his demise while in federal custody.

A Trump DOJ motion to unseal grand jury testimony, even if it results in disclosure, is not going to answer questions the Trump base is pressing.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/epstein-disclosure-morass/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5751995&forum_id=2],#49112933)