USA Today spoke with former FBI agents and prosecutors to understand what the so-called “Epstein files” contain and the pros and cons of releasing them.
The Epstein case stirs up Congress as the closing deadline approaches
As the House leaves early amid pressure on Epstein’s case record, the Senate faces delays and looming deadlines to avoid government shutdowns.
The White House continues to appeal from Congress and President Donald Trump’s own base, asking the court to release the testimony of the Great Jue Trial in order to release the FBI investigation file at Jeffrey Epstein instead, interviewing convicted Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell to meet his demands for transparency.
So far, these alternatives have not satisfied conservatives who believe it, as Trump allies have suggested for years that Epstein had been involved in sex trafficking conspiracy with many other rich and powerful people. Top Trump officials have taken office with the promise of a new level of transparency in the Epstein case. And many Trump supporters argue that the administration should release all the files it has.
But what exactly is the required file? What do the public learn from their releases? To answer these questions, USA Today spoke with former FBI agents and prosecutors. They said the file is likely to be much more vast than the testimony of the Great Ju Court, including interviews with eyewitnesses and records of the investigation trajectory.
“It could be a huge universe of original documents, interview notes and analysis notes,” said Michelle Epner, a former New Jersey federal prosecutor who handled the sex trafficking case.
R-Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and R-Colorado Lauren Boebert co-hosted a law this month with compilation to protect victims, aggressive investigations and national defense to announce the government’s Epstein Records. House Speaker R-Louisiana Mike Johnson announced on July 22 that he was closing his home early for a summer break to avoid voting for the release of the Epstein file.
Let’s look at the arguments for and against transparency, what kind of material the government is hiding.
What are the FBI’s Epstein Files?
The FBI’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein died in solitary cells at Manhattan federal prison in 2019 while awaiting a federal sex trafficking trial, and can include a wide range of material dating back decades.
Around 2006, federal agents considered allegations that Epstein was paying several minor girls to have sex with him. That investigation led to what many consider Epstein’s Sweet Heart deal, making Florida’s prostitution twice in 2008, avoiding sexual personnel charges and serving just 13 months in a local prison.
The incident involving criminal activity at Epstein’s Palm Beach Mansion was about two miles away from Trump’s Mar Arago Club. The federal prosecutor who negotiated the contract, Alex Acosta became Labor Secretary in Trump’s first administration, but resigned after a fallout from the Miami Herald investigation in 2018, revealing Acosta’s role in the contract.
In July 2019, a convicted sex offender was arrested on a more serious charge of a minor. On the same day, the FBI stormed Epstein’s Manhattan mansion, gathering computer hard drives and other potential evidence. After Epstein’s death, law enforcement also raided property in the US Virgin Islands.
These investigations would have produced a variety of materials and documents, according to former law enforcement officials. This includes interviews and detailed records of various witnesses, far beyond information relating to criminal charges against Epstein and Maxwell.
“People volunteer for anything, and sometimes people are so vocal that they teach you personal things that have nothing to do with the investigation,” said Katherine Schweit, a former special FBI agent and former Illinois prosecutor.
That means the file contains information or allegations dealing with a third party that has never been charged with a crime.
In a February press release, the Department of Justice said it plans to release “thousands of pages” of undeveloped documents after reviewing and editing them to protect the identity of Epstein victims.
However, a July memo said the department reversed the course and no further disclosure was justified.
Trump reportedly was told he was nominated for multiple times on the file in May. Trump and Epstein have been friends for many years, living close to each other and partying together until the early 1990s. Archived video footage and photos show that it was revealed on July 22nd of Epstein, who was attending Trump’s wedding with his second wife, Marla Maples, at the Plaza Hotel in 1993.
According to the Washington Post, the friendship between the two men ended around 2004. Trump recently said Epstein has banned Epstein from the Florida Mar a Lago Club after he “stole” staff from a spa, including Virginia Giuffre, a well-known Epstein victim who died of suicide earlier this year.
Does the transcript of the large ju appellate cover the Epstein file?
According to Epner, the transcript of the large ju judge requested by the Department of Justice will likely depend on a small sliver that is owned by the FBI.
“The testimony of the Great Jury – in theory it may be very broad, but in this case it is very narrow,” Epner said.
A federal judge in Florida has already rejected the Department of Justice’s request for the release of the transcripts of the Great Ju Court from around 2006. Two separate requests for the transcripts of the Great Ju judge that led to the charges against Epstein and Maxwell in New York more than a decade later are still pending.
Epner explained that the materials from the Great Juju Court are merely a subset of the working products compiled by the FBI and DOJ during the course of their Epstein-related investigation. And the Department of Justice does not even ask for all the materials from the Great Ju Court – only the transcripts of the Great Ju Court. For example, it does not include bank records obtained through a subpoena of the Great Ju judge.
In theory, the list of witnesses for the Great Jue could be long. Prosecutors can call many witnesses before a large ju trial, so they can be sure that the witnesses say under oath at trial. Some large ju judges also conduct an investigation and call a wide range of witnesses for that purpose.
But that wasn’t what happened in Maxwell and Epstein’s New York criminal case. According to the Ministry of Justice, only two witnesses testified before the large ju trial. They were FBI agents, New York police detectives, and at the time worked with the FBI’s Child Exploitation and Trafficking Task Force. These witnesses summarized what the interview subject said.
In other words, the transcription does not include direct testimony from the victim. It also suggests that the process of the big juice in two cases was streamlined rather than vast.
Additionally, if a federal court in Manhattan agrees to release the transcript, the Department of Justice plans to compile “other personal identification information” as well as victim-related information. That may mean blocking third party identifiers tied to Epstein. This is the type of people that the public wants to investigate as potential clients of Epstein.
“I think the people behind all this, those who are very protesting about this, will be happy with the information from the Great Juice, unless you know what it is,” said Rick Smith, a former FBI special agent who provided investigative services to the law firm today.
That does not mean that some revelation could not be included in the transcript of the Great Jue. Schweit said that court rules restricting testimony in trials have been relaxed before the big ju trial, so the ju judges who indicted Maxwell and Epstein may have heard that they were not discussed in Maxwell’s public trial in 2021.
“You might include someone’s criminal history on the big ju judge, or ask them about where they went to college and who their roommates are. Did they know this person or that person? They might not be deaf in a normal courthouse, that could be secondary information,” Schweite said.
Would you like to release a file?
There is a debate about releasing files. The Justice Department says the file review did not produce evidence justifying investigations of people who have not been previously charged. Assuming that is a fair assessment of the evidence, releasing the file could unfairly associate a third party with Epstein’s alleged crime.
“What happens with things like this is that there are a lot of people who are scared of this and are scared of it.
Trump is not the only celebrities already tied to Epstein in how he promoted speculation without evidence of Epstein-related criminal activity. Former President Bill Clinton repeatedly flew on Epstein’s private jet, according to flight logs reported by the Palm Beach Post. According to a Wall Street Journal investigation, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met dozens of times and also flew by jet plane. Others may have only been at one of the many fascinating parties Epstein attended during his heyday.
If one day the Department of Justice finds new evidence and concludes that it is appropriate to investigate someone else, it releases evidence that could put that investigation into. There is no restriction law that restricts federal prosecutors from chasing someone else for sex trafficking.
“We want to be able to continue to search for the truth whether or not we need to do further investigations and whether someone is guilty or innocent,” Schweid said.
Still, releasing files also helps clear all the doubters in every corner of the court of public opinion. According to law and crime, actor Kevin Spacey, who was recognized in court testimony flying on an Epstein plane with Clinton, wants to release a file to clear his name.
“Releasing the Epstein Files. All Files,” 65-year-old Spacey, posted on July 15th.
And what makes Epstein-related research different is the level and spread of conspiracy theories surrounding how Epstein died and who was involved in his crime. Several members of Trump’s own administration have incited the flames of these conspiracy theories for years.
Now these same officials face a broad segment of the public who don’t trust that all investigative leads are protected.
“There was a conspiracy, so if there weren’t that much protest, I don’t think we’re where we are,” Smith said. “But now, that’s a problem because the people who said the most about it are in a position to do something about it.”
