A Justice Department request to unseal grand jury transcripts in the prosecution of chronic sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein and his former girlfriend is unlikely to produce much, if anything, to satisfy the public’s appetite for new revelations about the financier’s crimes, former federal prosecutors say.

Attorney Sarah Krissoff, an assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan from 2008 to 2021, called the request in the prosecutions of Epstein and imprisoned British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell “a distraction.”

“The president is trying to present himself as if he’s doing something here and it really is nothing,” Krissoff told The Associated Press in a weekend interview.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche made the request Friday, asking judges to unseal transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and Maxwell, saying “transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.”

The request came as the administration sought to contain the firestorm that followed its announcement that it would not be releasing additional files from the Epstein probe despite previously promising that it would.

Epstein is dead while Maxwell serves a 20-year prison sentence

Epstein killed himself at age 66 in his federal jail cell in August 2019, a month after his arrest on sex trafficking charges, while Maxwell, 63, is serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed after her December 2021 sex trafficking conviction for luring girls to be sexually abused by Epstein.

Krissoff and Joshua Naftalis, a Manhattan federal prosecutor for 11 years before entering private practice in 2023, said grand jury presentations are purposely brief.

Naftalis said Southern District prosecutors present just enough to a grand jury to get an indictment but “it’s not going to be everything the FBI and investigators have figured out about Maxwell and Epstein.”

“People want the entire file from however long. That’s just not what this is,” he said, estimating that the transcripts, at most, probably amount to a few hundred pages.

“It’s not going to be much,” Krissoff said, estimating the length at as little as 60 pages “because the Southern District of New York’s practice is to put as little information as possible into the grand jury.”

“They basically spoon feed the indictment to the grand jury. That’s what we’re going to see,” she said. “I just think it’s not going to be that interesting. … I don’t think it’s going to be anything new.”

Ex-prosecutors say grand jury transcript unlikely to be long

Both ex-prosecutors said that grand jury witnesses in Manhattan are usually federal agents summarizing their witness interviews.

That practice might conflict with the public perception of some state and federal grand jury proceedings, where witnesses likely to testify at a trial are brought before grand juries during lengthy proceedings prior to indictments or when grand juries are used as an investigatory tool.

In Manhattan, federal prosecutors “are trying to get a particular result so they present the case very narrowly and inform the grand jury what they want them to do,” Krissoff said.

Krissoff predicted that judges who presided over the Epstein and Maxwell cases will reject the government’s request.

With Maxwell, a petition is before the U.S. Supreme Court so appeals have not been exhausted. With Epstein, the charges are related to the Maxwell case and the anonymity of scores of victims who have not gone public is at stake, although Blanche requested that victim identities be protected.

“This is not a 50-, 60-, 80-year-old case,” Krissoff noted. “There’s still someone in custody.”

Appeals court’s 1997 ruling might matter

She said citing “public intrigue, interest and excitement” about a case was likely not enough to convince a judge to release the transcripts despite a 1997 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said judges have wide discretion and that public interest alone can justify releasing grand jury information.

Krissoff called it “mind-blowingly strange” that Washington Justice Department officials are increasingly directly filing requests and arguments in the Southern District of New York, where the prosecutor’s office has long been labeled the “Sovereign District of New York” for its independence from outside influence.

“To have the attorney general and deputy attorney general meddling in an SDNY case is unheard of,” she said.

Cheryl Bader, a former federal prosecutor and Fordham Law School criminal law professor, said judges who presided over the Epstein and Maxwell cases may take weeks or months to rule.

“Especially here where the case involved witnesses or victims of sexual abuse, many of which are underage, the judge is going to be very cautious about what the judge releases,” she said.

Tradition of grand jury secrecy might block release of transcripts

Bader said she didn’t see the government’s quest aimed at satisfying the public’s desire to explore conspiracy theories “trumping — pardon the pun — the well-established notions of protecting the secrecy of the grand jury process.”

“I’m sure that all the line prosecutors who really sort of appreciate the secrecy and special relationship they have with the grand jury are not happy that DOJ is asking the court to release these transcripts,” she added.

Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, called Trump’s comments and influence in the Epstein matter “unprecedented” and “extraordinarily unusual” because he is a sitting president.

He said it was not surprising that some former prosecutors are alarmed that the request to unseal the grand jury materials came two days after the firing of Manhattan Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey, who worked on the Epstein and Maxwell cases.

“If federal prosecutors have to worry about the professional consequences of refusing to go along with the political or personal agenda of powerful people, then we are in a very different place than I’ve understood the federal Department of Justice to be in over the last 30 years of my career,” he said.

Krissoff said the uncertain environment that has current prosecutors feeling unsettled is shared by government employees she speaks with at other agencies as part of her work in private practice.

“The thing I hear most often is this is a strange time. Things aren’t working the way we’re used to them working,” she said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Richard Drew, Jose Luis Magana, Julia Demaree Nikhinson, Alex Brandon—AP Photo

A former chief executive of two clothing technology companies was released on $1 million bail Friday after pleading not guilty to charges alleging she cheated investors of over $300 million over the past six years.

Christine Hunsicker, 48, of Lafayette, New Jersey, was charged with six counts, including fraud, aggravated identity theft and false statement charges in the indictment in Manhattan federal court.

U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton said in a release that Hunsicker forged documents, fabricated audits and made material misrepresentations about her company’s financial condition to defraud investors in CaaStle Inc. and P180.

The indictment said Hunsicker, once portrayed as an on-the-rise fashion entrepreneur, portrayed CaaStle as a high-growth, private company with substantial cash on hand when she knew it faced significant financial distress.

In a statement, defense lawyers Michael Levy and Anna Skotko said prosecutors “have chosen to present to the public an incomplete and very distorted picture in today’s indictment,” despite Hunsicker’s efforts to be “fully cooperative and transparent” with prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“There is much more to this story, and we look forward to telling it,” they said.

Hunsicker did not comment as she left the courthouse with Skotko after entering the not-guilty plea and agreeing to the rules of her $1 million bail, which included not having any contact with former or current investors or employees.

According to the indictment, Hunsicker continued her fraudulent scheme even after the CaaStle board of directors removed her and prohibited her from soliciting investments or taking other actions on the company’s behalf.

She “persisted in her scheme” even after law enforcement agents confronted her over the fraud, the indictment said.

Before the fraud allegations emerged, Hunsicker seemed to be a rising star in the fashion world after she was named to Crain’s New York Business “40 under 40” lists, was selected as one of Inc.’s “Most Impressive Women Entrepreneurs” and was recognized by the National Retail Federation as someone shaping the future of retail, the indictment noted.

At a time when the business was in financial distress with limited cash available and significant expenses, CaaStle was valued by Hunsicker at $1.4 billion, the indictment said.

Hunsicker was lying to investors in February 2019 and continued to do so through this March, prosecutors alleged.

They said she fed investors falsely inflated income statements, fake audited financial statements, fictitious bank account records and sham corporate records.

She allegedly told one investor in August 2023 that CaaStle reported an operating profit of nearly $24 million in the second quarter of 2023 when its operating profit that quarter was actually less than $30,000.

The indictment alleged that she carried out the majority of the fraud by bilking CaaStle investors of $275 million before forming P180 last year to infuse CaaStle with cash before its investors could discover her fraud.

Through misrepresentations and omissions, she cheated P180 investors out of about $30 million, the indictment said.

It said CaaStle filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy last month, leaving hundreds of investors holding now-worthless CaaStle shares. Hunsicker was forced to resign from CaaStle’s board in December and formally resigned as chief executive in March.

In a related civil filing, the SEC said Hunsicker’s “fake financials” supported her narrative that CaaStle was nearing an initial public offering or sale in late 2022 as it enjoyed rapid and steady revenue growth after launching a new monetization model called “Clothing-as-a-Service.”

“In reality, CaaStle’s revenues were shrinking, its losses were increasing, and the company was never profitable,” the lawsuit said. “Not a single existing or prospective CaaStle investor received accurate monthly, quarterly, or annual CaaStle financial statements from Hunsicker.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Larry Neumeister—AP Photo