Judge Won’t Unseal Epstein Co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell Grand Jury Testimony

Summary

Detailed Summary: Judge Won’t Unseal Epstein Co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell Grand Jury Testimony

Podcast: Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes Present
Host/Author: iHeartPodcasts
Episode Title: Judge Won’t Unseal Epstein Co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell Grand Jury Testimony
Release Date: August 13, 2025

Introduction

In this episode of Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes Present, the hosts delve into a significant legal decision involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The focal point is Judge Paul Engelman's recent ruling that denies the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to unseal grand jury testimonies related to Epstein and Maxwell. This decision has reignited discussions about transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the judicial system.

Judge Engelman’s Ruling

Judge Engelman issued a stern 30-page response rejecting the DOJ’s motion to unseal the grand jury materials. The ruling emphasizes the sanctity of grand jury secrecy, stating, “the policy that proceedings before a grand jury shall generally remain secret is older than our nation itself” (08:28). He highlighted that the DOJ’s request did not meet the “extraordinary threshold” required for such disclosures, dismissing the motion as a "garden variety petition" lacking the necessary merit (09:14).

Implications of the Ruling

The judge’s decision has profound implications for public trust in the legal system. Amy Robach notes, “The judge is a smart man... he said watch me” (15:32), indicating his awareness of the potential backlash and his intent to uphold judicial integrity despite political pressures. The ruling asserts that unsealing the grand jury materials “would not reveal any new information of consequence” (15:58), effectively quashing hopes that additional revelations about Epstein and Maxwell’s activities would surface.

Critique of the Department of Justice

Throughout the episode, the hosts critically examine the DOJ’s motivations, suggesting that the request to unseal the documents is less about transparency and more about creating an illusion of disclosure. The judge’s remarks, as highlighted by the hosts, accuse the DOJ of being “manipulative liars” aimed at “diversion” rather than genuine transparency (10:14, 30:53). This sentiment underscores a broader skepticism about the government's handling of high-profile cases and its impact on public perception.

Public and Political Reaction

The ruling has not occurred in a vacuum; political tensions have already surfaced, with Republican representatives attempting to impeach Judge Engelman following his decision (34:24). The hosts express frustration over the politicization of judicial processes, emphasizing that impeaching a judge for performing his duty undermines the foundational principles of the legal system. Amy Robach articulates, “That’s just not how our country is supposed to function” (34:48), highlighting the erosion of trust when legal decisions become politically charged.

Conclusion

The episode wraps up by reaffirming the judge’s stance that there is no additional, significant information to be gained from unsealing the grand jury testimonies. As Amy Robach succinctly puts it, “there is nothing to know” (18:17). The hosts acknowledge the lingering public skepticism and the powerful narratives that fuel conspiracy theories, but they underscore the importance of respecting judicial decisions and the rule of law.

Notable Quotes

• Amy Robach (08:28): "Judge Engemeyer said, basically, this is part of the foundation of our legal system. This is part of why our system works."

• Unnamed Host (15:58): "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."

• Amy Robach (15:32): "The judge is a smart man... he 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."

• Unnamed Host (30:53): "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."

Final Thoughts

This episode provides a comprehensive analysis of a pivotal legal decision that not only affects the Epstein and Maxwell case but also sets a precedent for future demands for transparency in the judicial system. By dissecting Judge Engelman’s ruling and its broader implications, Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes Present offers listeners a nuanced understanding of the intersection between law, politics, and public trust.

Transcript

[Amy Robach]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[TJ Holmes]

The girlfriends is back with a new season, and this time I'm telling you the story of Kelly Harnett. Kelly spent over a decade in prison for a murder she says she didn't commit. As she fought for her freedom, she taught herself the law.

[Amy Robach]

He goes, oh, God. Harnett, jailhouse lawyer.

[TJ Holmes]

And became a beacon of hope for the women locked up alongside her.

[Kelly Harnett]

You're supposed to have your faith in God, but I had nothing but faith in her.

[Amy Robach]

I think I was to save souls by getting people out of prison.

[TJ Holmes]

The Girlfriends, jailhouse lawyer. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Kelly Harnett]

Every case that is a cold case that has DNA right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime.

[Unnamed Host]

On the new podcast America's Crime Lab. Every case has a story to tell, and the DNA holds the truth.

He never thought he was going to get caught.

[Amy Robach]

And I just looked at my computer screen, I was just like, ah, gotch.

[Unnamed Host]

This technology's already solving so many cases.

Listen to America's Crime Lab on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Kelly Harnett]

I knew I wanted to obey and submit, but I didn't fully grasp for the rest of my life what that.

[Unnamed Host]

Meant for my heart. Podcasts and Rococo Punch. This is the River Road in the woods of Minnesota. A cult leader married himself to 10 girls and forced them into a secret life of abuse. But in 2014, the youngest escaped. Listen to the turning river road on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Margie Murphy]

In 2020, a group of young women found themselves in an AI fueled nightmare.

[Olivia Carville]

Someone was posting photos.

[Kelly Harnett]

It was just me naked. Well, not me, but me with someone else's body parts.

[Margie Murphy]

This is Levittown, a new podcast from iHeart podcasts Bloomberg and Kaleidoscope about the rise of deepfake pornography and the battle to stop it. Listen to Levittown on Bloomberg's Big Take podcast. Find it on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Olivia Carville]

Maybe you've heard that Stonewall was a riot where queer people fought back against police. Or that it's the reason pride is celebrated this time of year.

[Amy Robach]

It was one of the most liberating things that I have ever done.

[Olivia Carville]

Legend says Marsha P. Johnson threw the very first brick.

[Amy Robach]

Started banging on the door of the Stonewall like one.

[Unnamed Host]

Boom.

[Olivia Carville]

This week on Afterlives, we'll separate the truth from the myth in the life of Marsha P. Johnson. Listen to afterlives on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Unnamed Host]

Hey there, folks. It is August 12, 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 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 beast beat down in this judge's decision. A spanking to the Trump administration.

[Amy Robach]

Yes, that's exactly well put. That was the sentiment throughout the entire 30 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 judgy. Would you not say, well, you're not.

[Unnamed Host]

Used to them speaking that way? And I would say that we're missing a lot and a lot of the coverage and the headlines that we are seeing. I thought it was one thing. And even some of the quotes I saw, the judge kind of admonished them for some things. Reading through it. This guy has been as clear as anybody in the whole Epstein saga about what is actually in some stuff that people are desperate to see. He flat out said, ain't nothing to see here.

[Amy Robach]

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 in 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 summation report they weren't listening to, hearing from victims they weren't presented with evidence, a black book or some financial tracing to 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 actually sounded fairly boring. And the things they don't want out there are really, really private things, like videos and pictures of minors being forced to do things they shouldn't have. So this wasn't anything that pointed the finger at anyone else.

[Unnamed Host]

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. Now, 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 said, 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 with it for a month.

[Amy Robach]

Plus, obviously that was the truth. That's the thing.

[Unnamed Host]

Nobody's gonna believe that.

[Amy Robach]

That's the thing. 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 they might be in documents or in evidence elsewhere.

[Unnamed Host]

So they say, no more files. Gonna police release. That's July 7th. July 17th, 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 24, the DOJ interviews Ghislaine Maxwell. Remember, she's serving 20 years in prison in Florida, right? No, excuse me. She was in Florida.

[Amy Robach]

She was in Florida, now she's in Texas.

[Unnamed Host]

Yeah. Hear what I just said? July 24th, she got interviewed. A week later she got moved.

[Amy Robach]

Yeah.

[Unnamed Host]

To Club Fed.

[Amy Robach]

Club Fed is what it's called. Yes. The lowest security level possible for a federal inmate. And these are all nonviolent offenders. Ghislaine Maxwell is a violent offender, period. Based on her convictions.

[Unnamed Host]

Oh, yeah. And having to do with minors.

[Amy Robach]

Yes. And she, 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 disgusting behavior with minors.

[Unnamed Host]

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. The DOJ had asked for that court to release some grand jury testimony having to do with Epstein's trial down there in 2009 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 tried for, and the one that Ghislaine 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, robes, 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 his. In 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 open this stuff up.

[Amy Robach]

Yeah. Judge Engemeyer 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 threshold, which they claim.

[Unnamed Host]

These are extraordinary times, special circumstances, in.

[Amy Robach]

Fact, as I believe the phrase they've used, unusual historical or of deep public interest. And 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 request. Garden variety petition versus special circumstances and public interest.

[Unnamed Host]

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 that this morning, wrote, 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 premise that the Maxwell grand jury materials would bring light, meaningful. Would bring to light meaningful new information about Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes or the government's investigation into them is demonstrably false. Now, he says this early in this ruling, but he's setting up what you're actually arguing. I don't necessarily have to judge your art. What you're saying and saying is demonstrably false.

[Amy Robach]

He's calling them liars.

[Unnamed Host]

And then he went through and cut them down. Time, time, again.

[Amy Robach]

He's. He basically, my. My takeaway from reading this was that he was calling the DOJ manipulative liars.

[Unnamed Host]

Because you're lying to the public.

[Amy Robach]

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. 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, was so stern and so specific in his response.

[Unnamed Host]

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 31 page briefing. You can read all to yourself. But about the material we keep hearing, robes about, whatever Epstein material that the DOJ says they have, says nothing else to release because nothing else is going to be new. The judge, at least in terms of grand jury testimony, he agreed with that say there actually is nothing new here. Despite what you DOJ are saying publicly. You have at least in our briefings expressed that, you know, there's nothing new.

[Amy Robach]

Right. So it's, he's, he's calling them on it. 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 much of the information 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.

[Unnamed Host]

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 filings 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, this is not 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.

[Amy Robach]

Right? It's not. The judge isn'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 isn't precedent for it, or you haven't, it hasn't risen to the level. 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 to deflect from the truth, which is there is no new information, period.

[Unnamed Host]

We got that sound bite. Say sound bite, but that quote coming up, up, too. But he. 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 information that the government had been unable to determine is 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. 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 enough.

[Amy Robach]

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, 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.

[Unnamed Host]

You know what? Because he could. 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.

[Amy Robach]

Don't you believe from all your years of experience that that's exactly what the government was hoping would happen?

[Unnamed Host]

And he. So you know what? Judges aren't supposed to. But he played a very good public relations game here, if that's the case. But this worked to say, I'm not gonna actually let you get away with this.

[Amy Robach]

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 that was the game they were playing. And he said, watch me.

[Unnamed Host]

All right, and this next one, folks, I have a note in here for Robach and I that says just stars around it all caps, important quote. This is as definitive robes for anybody out there who is 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 about what is or isn't still left to be revealed.

[Amy Robach]

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.

[Unnamed Host]

That's an important statement.

[Amy Robach]

Huge.

[Unnamed Host]

That is a important statement.

[Amy Robach]

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.

[Unnamed Host]

Boom. Again, another important sentence, please.

[Amy Robach]

They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means of methods or. Sorry, unknown means or methods of Epstein's or Maxwell's crimes. Meaning we're not going to 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? 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 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 reveal news 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.

[Unnamed Host]

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.

[Amy Robach]

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.

[Unnamed Host]

But who's it sit with? If there is the most powerful prisoner in the country is the only. You say with Epstein.

[Amy Robach]

It died with Epstein. But yes, it could possibly live in Ghislaine Maxwell. But 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.

[Unnamed Host]

That was probably. If that's not the strongest quote he has in his 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 filed articles of impeachment against him.

[Amy Robach]

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 Lululemon. 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, so super comfortable and somehow still supportive. I've been wearing them on my morning runs and they've quickly become my everyday lounging leggings too. And here's what makes them even better. Every pair you buy helps fund 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 20% off your order and free shipping. Head to tonaactive.com and use code iheart for 20% off and free shipping.

[Unnamed Host]

A foot washed up, A shoe with some bones in it.

[Amy Robach]

They had no idea who it was. Most everything was burned up pretty good.

[Unnamed Host]

From the fire that not a whole lot was salvageable.

These are the coldest of cold cases. But everything is about to change.

[Kelly Harnett]

Every case that is a cold case that has DNA right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime.

[Unnamed Host]

A small lab in Texas is cracking the code on DNA using new scientific tools. They're finding clues in Evidence so tiny you might just miss it.

He never thought he was going to get caught.

[Amy Robach]

And I just looked at my computer screen. I was just like, ah, gotcha.

[Unnamed Host]

On America's Crime Lab, we'll learn about victims and survivors. And you'll meet the team behind the scenes at othram, the Houston lab that takes on the most hopeless cases to finally solve the unsolvable. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[TJ Holmes]

Kelly Harnett spent over a decade in prison for a murder she says she didn't commit.

[Amy Robach]

I'm 100% innocent.

[TJ Holmes]

While behind bars, she learned the law from scratch.

[Amy Robach]

He goes, oh, God. Harnett, jailhouse lawyer.

[TJ Holmes]

And as she fought for herself, she also became a lifeline for the women locked up alongside her.

[Kelly Harnett]

You're supposed to have your faith in God, but I had nothing but faith in her.

[TJ Holmes]

So many of these women had lived the same stories.

[Amy Robach]

I said, were you a victim of domestic violence?

[TJ Holmes]

And she was like, yeah, but maybe Kelly could change the ending.

[Amy Robach]

I said, how many people have gotten other incarcerated individuals out of here? I'm going to be the first one to do that.

[TJ Holmes]

This is the story of Kelly Harnett, a woman who spent 12 years fighting not just for her own freedom, but her girlfriend's too.

[Amy Robach]

I think I have a mission from God to save souls by getting people out of prison.

[TJ Holmes]

The girlfriends, jailhouse lawyer. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Unnamed Host]

For my heart podcasts and Rococo Punch, this is the turning river road.

[Kelly Harnett]

I knew I wanted to obey and submit, but I didn't fully grasp for the rest of my life what that meant.

[Unnamed Host]

In the woods of Minnesota, a cult leader married himself to 10 girls and forced them into a secret life of abuse.

[Kelly Harnett]

Why did I think that way? Why did I allow myself to get so sucked in by this man and thinking to the point that if I died for him, that would be the greatest honor?

[Unnamed Host]

But in 2014, the youngest of the girls escaped and sparked an international manhunt.

[Kelly Harnett]

For all those years, you know, he was the predator and I was the prey. And then he became the prey.

[Unnamed Host]

Listen to the turning river road on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Margie Murphy]

In 2020, a group of young women in a tidy suburb of New York City found themselves in an AI fueled nightmare.

[Olivia Carville]

Someone was posting photos.

[Kelly Harnett]

It was just me naked. Well, not me, but me with someone else's body parts. On my body parts that looked exactly like my own. I wanted to throw up. I wanted to scream.

[Margie Murphy]

It happened in Levittown, New York. But reporting the series took us through the darkest corners of the Internet and to the front lines of a global battle against deepfake pornography.

[Amy Robach]

This should be illegal, but what is this?

[Margie Murphy]

This is a story about a technology that's moving faster than the law and about vigilantes trying to stem the tide. I'm Margie Murphy. And I'm Olivia Carville. This is Levittown, a new podcast from iHeart podcasts Bloomberg and Kaleidoscope. Listen to Levittown on Bloomberg's Big Take podcast. Find it on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Olivia Carville]

Maybe you've heard that Stonewall was a riot where queer people fought back against police, or that it's the reason pride is celebrated this time of year.

[Amy Robach]

It was one of the most liberating things that I have ever done.

[Olivia Carville]

But did you know that before it went down in history, the Stonewall was a queer hangout run by the mafia.

[Amy Robach]

The voguing at Stonewall was unbelievable.

[Olivia Carville]

In the summer of 1969, it became the site that set off the modern movement for LGBTQ rights.

[Amy Robach]

Started banging on the door of the.

[Unnamed Host]

Stonewall like one boom, boom, boom.

[Olivia Carville]

Legend says Marsha P. Johnson, a mother in the fight for trans rights, threw the very first brick. She was really, like, scrubbed out of that history. This week on Afterlives, we'll separate the truth from the myth in the life of Marsha P. Johnson. Listen to afterlives on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

[Unnamed Host]

We continue now on Amy and tj Again, going through the ruling by this judge in New York, Engel 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 Ghislaine 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 was the most important quote in there before we took a quick break. The next note I have in here. I'm just not going to joke you, you all. Before I wrote the quote down, I wrote a note to us on the side that said, holy judge. And that's what it said, because some of the stuff in there I couldn't believe.

[Amy Robach]

All right, so the judge goes on to say, insofar as the motion to unseal implies, that the grand jury materials are an untapped Mine load of undisclosed information about Epstein or Maxwell or confederates. They definitely are.

[Unnamed Host]

Not that he's saying it as plain.

[Amy Robach]

As day in many ways, in different sentences throughout those 30 pages. He just. He keeps hammering it home. There ain't nothing in these documents, period.

[Unnamed Host]

He said, anybody out there? Another one? He said. He said you would come away feeling disappointed and misled because there is no there there. Now, Robes, 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 grand jury information just to prove that their whole public argument is a farce that was strong. He wanted to release it just to prove your liars.

[Amy Robach]

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 on to acknowledge all the people who 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.

[Unnamed Host]

To speak, in this way, for the victims as well. He mentioned them at the end, 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 for a certain degree of his ruling. But Robes, 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 named Mario Biaggi wanted grand jury testimony released. And the court in that case released it to prove a point, because he was out there telling the public, as he was running for mayor, release 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 release the grand jury stuff, and sure enough, he had been lying to the public. This judge in this case cited that one and said, you know what? I had good mind to release this anyway. Just so the public could see you for what you're doing.

[Amy Robach]

Ooh, 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 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 goes far beyond that.

[Olivia Carville]

And he.

[Amy Robach]

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, liars.

[Unnamed Host]

And Biaggi was, in fact, yes, New York should have known, but it was Mario Biaggi. Makes a lot of sense who was running, but that was the case. So the judge. And again, we are not interpreting. We're gonna 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 and as disingenuous the government's public explanations for moving to unseal. Holy hell, yes.

[Amy Robach]

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 at the illusion of such.

[Unnamed Host]

I mean, he couldn't make it any more plain.

[Amy Robach]

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?

[Unnamed Host]

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 as 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 be an Obama appointee, which he is.

[Amy Robach]

He is. 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.

[Unnamed Host]

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 definitive and I would say, sweetheart, 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 you all here without violating grand jury secrecy.

[Amy Robach]

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 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 other people have been incredibly 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. And girls, young girls, were not being protected. And that's where a lot of this anger comes from, and that's where a lot of the skepticism comes from.

[Unnamed Host]

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 20 minutes we've been on here, and that's on all of us, that the victims get mentioned once at the end kind of a thing. And it's. And I understand what the story is today, but I just. It's. It's always something to keep in mind and something that's important there. And I mentioned earlier this Judge Engelmeier it was in February. Was it robes? He was. 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 gave an unfavorable ruling to the Trump administration that had to do with the Treasury Department using granny access to doge. He ruled against them. Two weeks later, articles of impeachment were introduced by a Republican out of Arizona.

[Amy Robach]

And that's just so frustrating because that's just not, I mean, I, I know supposed to, isn't maybe something we should be harping on, but that isn't how our, 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 to happen. That ain't how it's supposed to work.

[Unnamed Host]

Well, folks, we know this story is apparently not going anywhere.

[Amy Robach]

No, it's not.

[Unnamed Host]

Anytime soon. Even after Ghislaine Maxwell is pardoned, this story will probably.

[Amy Robach]

That's very funny.

[Unnamed Host]

Kidding. 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 screen where our homepage is, just top right corner says follow. Just click on that, you can get these updates coming straight to you. You won't have to look for them. But we always appreciate you hanging with us. I'm TJ Holmes.

[Amy Robach]

And I'm Amy Robach. Have a great day, everybody.

[TJ Holmes]

The Girlfriends is back with a new season, and this time I'm telling you the story of Kelly Harnett. Kelly spent over a decade in prison for a murder she says she didn't commit. As she fought for her freedom, she taught herself the law.

[Amy Robach]

He goes, oh, God. Harnett Jailhouse Lawyer.

[TJ Holmes]

And became a beacon of hope for the women locked up alongside her.

[Kelly Harnett]

You're supposed to have your faith in God, but I had nothing but faith in her.

[Amy Robach]

I think I was put here to save souls by getting people out of prison.

[TJ Holmes]

The Girlfriends Jailhouse Lawyer listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Kelly Harnett]

Every case that is a cold case that has DNA right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime.

[Unnamed Host]

On the new podcast America's Crime Lab. Every case has a story to tell, and the DNA holds the truth.

He never thought he was going to get caught.

[Amy Robach]

And I just looked at my computer screen, I was just like, ah, gotcha.

[Unnamed Host]

This Technology's already solving so many cases.

Listen to America's Crime Lab on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Kelly Harnett]

I knew I wanted to obey and submit, but I didn't fully grasp for the rest of my life what that.

[Unnamed Host]

Meant for my heart. Podcasts and Rococo Punch this is the Turning River Road. In the woods of Minnesota, a cult leader married himself to 10 girls and forced them into a secret life of abuse. But in 2014, the youngest escaped. Listen to the Turning river road on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Margie Murphy]

In 2020, a group of young women found themselves in an AI fueled nightmare.

[Olivia Carville]

Someone was posting photos.

[Kelly Harnett]

It was just me naked. Well, not me, but me with someone else's body parts.

[Margie Murphy]

This is Levittown, a new podcast from iHeart podcasts Bloomberg and Kaleidoscope about the rise of deepfake pornography and the battle to stop it. Listen to Levittown on Bloomberg's Big Take podcast. Find it on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Olivia Carville]

Maybe you've heard that Stonewall was a riot where queer people fought back against police. Or that it's the reason pride is celebrated this time of year.

[Amy Robach]

It was one of the most liberating things that I have ever done.

[Olivia Carville]

Legend says Marsha P. Johnson threw the very first brick, started banging on the.

[Amy Robach]

Door of the Stonewall like one.

[Unnamed Host]

Boom.

[Olivia Carville]

This week on Afterlives, we'll separate the truth from the myth in the life of Marsha P. Johnson. Listen to afterlives on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Amy Robach]

This is an iHeart podcast.