Posts

Judge Richard Berman Had to Remind Todd Blanche to Think of Jeffrey Epstein’s Victims

/32 Comments/in /by

In response to his motions to unseal grand jury testimony in the Epstein and Maxwell dockets, Judges Richard Berman and Paul Engelmayer (who got the case on reassignment from Alison Nathan, who is now at Second Circuit) gave Blanche a homework assignment.

[T]he Court cannot rule on the motion without additional submissions.

[snip]

The Second Circuit has identified the following as a non-exhaustive list of factors for district courts to weigh in considering applications for disclosure:

  • the identity of the party seeking disclosure;
  • whether the defendant to the grand jury proceeding or the Government opposes the disclosure;
  • why disclosure is being sought in the particular case;
  • what specific information is being sought for disclosure;
  • the current status of the principals of the grand jury proceedings and that of their families;
  • the extent to which the desired material — either permissibly or impermissibly — has been previously made public;
  • whether witnesses to the grand jury proceedings who might be affected by the disclosure are still alive; and
  • [whether there is an] additional need for maintaining secrecy in the particular case in question.

The letters are largely identical. They both ask, for example, whether Blanche bothered to notify the victims.

The Court also directs the Government to state in the memorandum whether, before filing the instant motion, counsel for the Government reviewed the [Epstein/Maxwell] grand jury transcripts and whether the Government provided notice to the victims of the motion to unseal.

Berman, who had this to say at the hearing on dismissing the indictment against Epstein, added one detail.

The victims have been included in the proceeding today both because of their relevant experiences and because they should always be involved before rather than after the fact.

In his unsealing memo, Blanche cited the DOJ/FBI memo attempting to shut all this down, focusing on whether there was evidence to predicate a case.

On July 6, 2025, the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a memorandum describing an exhaustive review undertaken of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein (the “Memorandum”).1 The Memorandum detailed the steps taken by the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether evidence existed that could predicate an investigation into uncharged third parties.

1. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl?inline.

It took Judge Berman, in his paragraph instructing victims to weigh in by August 5, to also mention the later reference in the DOJ/FBI letter”

See Gov’t Motion at 1 n.1. (This is a 2 page, undated, unsigned U.S. Department of Justice and Federal bureau of Investigation memo. According to the Government, “Epstein harmed over one thousand victims. Each suffered unique trauma. Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials. This includes specific details such as victim names and likenesses, physical descriptions, places of birth, associates, and employment history.”)

Todd Blanche — the President’s defense attorney — was focused on declaring uncharged third parties free of criminal liability. Berman had to remind him that DOJ claimed this is about victims.

A SDNY AUSA, Jeffrey Oestericher, who is representing the government in some of the high profile immigration cases, has joined these dockets. Sadly, Blanche won’t have to do this homework assignment himself. Because I bet that after firing Maurene Comey, it will take some time to do the victim notification that DOJ did not do.

Remember, too, that Blanche said he was making a similar request in SDFL, but thus far it has not been identified yet. For all we know Aileen Cannon could be intervening here without public notice!

Incidentally, the 2019 transcript is worth perusing for the victims’ statements, as well as the way that Comey spoke of the victims and vice versa.

I would also like to note that, as the government has previously mentioned, this dismissal in no way lessens the government’s resolve to stand up for the victims in this case, both those who have come forward and those who have yet to do so. We agree with your Honor’s sentiment that those victims should be respected, and we appreciate your Honor’s recognition of that.

[snip]

[Brad Edwards] And on behalf of all of victims, I would like to thank your Honor for the fairness with which they’ve been treated, and the United States Attorney’s office for the way in which you have handled this investigation, and especially how you have treated the victims in this case.

[snip]

[David Boies] I want to, as prior counsel have, commend both the Court and counsel for the Department of Justice for the consideration and respect and attention that they have paid to the victims. We believe that that is not only right, as a matter of human dignity, but we think that is exactly what the law requires and intends.

Update: This, from Lawrence O’Donnell, notes that the only one Trump has said anything nice about was Ghislaine Maxwell.

Share this entry

Trump’s Defense Attorney Todd Blanche Will Meet with Sex Trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell to Make a Deal for His Client

/129 Comments/in /by

Trump Defense Attorney Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi just announced that Blanche will meet with Ghislaine Maxwell and discuss potential cooperation deals with her.

Statement from @DAGToddBlanche: This Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable truths, nor from the responsibility to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead.  The joint statement by the DOJ and FBI of July 6 remains as accurate today as it was when it was written.  Namely, that in the recent thorough review of the files maintained by the FBI in the Epstein case, no evidence was uncovered that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.  President Trump has told us to release all credible evidence. If Ghislane Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say.   Therefore, at the direction of Attorney General Bondi, I have communicated with counsel for Ms. Maxwell to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the Department.  I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days.  Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government.  That changes now.

Justice demands courage. For the first time, the Department of Justice is reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell to ask: what do you know? At @AGPamBondi’s direction, I’ve contacted her counsel. I intend to meet with her soon. No one is above the law—and no lead is off-limits.

So here’s what happened.

Maxwell delayed her appeal to SCOTUS until after the inauguration. Trump’s DOJ twice delayed the decision whether they were going to defend the appeal, finally filing their response on Monday.

That day, Maxwell’s defense attorney, David Markus, insinuated that Trump was reneging on a deal.

In a statement Monday, an attorney for Maxwell hinted at the swirling controversy surrounding the Trump administration’s decision not to release any further records related to investigations of Epstein.

“I’d be surprised if President Trump knew his lawyers were asking the Supreme Court to let the government break a deal. He’s the ultimate dealmaker—and I’m sure he’d agree that when the United States gives its word, it should keep it. With all the talk about who’s being prosecuted and who isn’t, it’s especially unfair that Ghislaine Maxwell remains in prison based on a promise the government made and broke,” wrote David Oscar Markus.

The next day, Tuesday, WSJ moved forward with a story implicating Trump in “daily secrets” with Jeffrey Epstein.

The following day, Wednesday, Pam Bondi fired Maurene Comey, the prosecutor who would be competent to assess any cooperation offered from Maxwell.

Friday, in a false show of transparency, Todd Blanche (filing under his defense attorney identity) moved to unseal grand jury transcripts that DOJ has in a form it could release immediately.

Meanwhile, Trump’s DNI Tulsi Gabbard created a false diversion to distract his rubes.

Yesterday, the Speaker of the House ceded his majority for a week to give Trump “space” to cover up his pedophile problem.

My belief is we need the administration to have the space to do what it is doing,

And today, Trump’s Defense Attorney Todd Blanche announces he will meet with Maxwell soon to make the kind of deal that could excuse releasing her early. Probably, he’ll ask her to implicate someone like Bill Clinton.

Absent that deal, it seems clear, the WSJ will continue to publish stories implicating the President in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking.

Update: Markus, in his Tweet about the deal, does Trump a real solid by suggesting Trump is taking action to “uncover the truth.”

I can confirm that we are in discussions with the government and that Ghislaine will always testify truthfully. We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.” David Oscar Markus We have no other comment at this time.

Update: Oversight just agreed to subpoena Maxwell for a deposition in a voice vote. This could complicate Blanche’s plans.

Timeline:

February 16, 2017: Alex Acosta nominated Secretary of Labor.

July 2, 2019: Jeffrey Epstein indicted.

July 12, 2019: Alex Acosta resigns.

August 10, 2019: Epstein dies by suicide.

June 20, 2020: Geoffrey Berman fired.

June 29, 2020: Ghislaine Maxwell indicted.

March 29, 2021: Superseding indictment.

November 16, 2021: Jury selection begins.

December 29, 2021: Maxwell convicted on 5 of 6 counts.

February 28, 2023: Maxwell appeals.

September 17, 2024: Second Circuit rejects appeal.

January 15, 2025: Maxwell delays appeal.

February 10, 2025: Dan Bongino promises he’ll never let Epstein story go.

February 21, 2025: Pam Bondi claims Epstein client list is on her desk.

February 27, 2025: Bondi orchestrates re-release of previously released Epstein files.

March 4, 2025: James Dennehy forced to retire.

March 14, 2025: Pam Bondi conducts emergency review of Epstein and Maxwell documents.

April 10, 2025: Maxwell files cert petition.

April 25, 2025: Virginia Giuffre dies by suicide.

May 7, 2025: John Sauer delays response; Bondi claims there are thousands of videos.

May 18, 2025: Kash Patel and Dan Bongino affirm that Epstein killed himself.

May 22, 2025: Epstein prison video created.

June 6, 2025: John Sauer delays response.

July 7, 2025: Pam Bondi claims there’s no there there.

July 8, 2025: Trump loses it over questions about Epstein.

July 12, 2025: Trump attempts to claim Epstein is a Democratic plot.

July 14, 2025: DOJ defends Maxwell prosecution; David Markus suggests Trump is reneging on a deal.

July 15, 2025: WSJ interviews Trump about Epstein book.

July 16, 2025: Pam Bondi fires Maurene Comey, on Trump’s personal authority.

July 17, 2025: Trump yells at supporters who won’t move on from Epstein. WSJ publishes story.

July 18, 2025: Todd Blanche files to unseal grand jury materials; Trump sues WSJ.

July 21, 2025: Mike Johnson dodges week of work to give Trump “space” to fix his Epstein problem.

July 22, 2025: Blanche announces he’ll meet with Maxwell; Oversight votes to subpoena Maxwell for deposition.

Share this entry

Why Is Todd Blanche Risking the Conviction of a Sex Trafficker Rather Than Use Fruits of Already-Completed Review?

/51 Comments/in /by

As I’ve mentioned, Todd Blanche was in such a rush to ask a judge to unseal Jeffrey Epstein grand jury files that he didn’t update his SDNY filing profile first. As a result, his request to unseal grand jury records was filed under the identity he had when formally serving as Donald Trump’s defense attorney: Todd Blanche, Blanche Law, a firm set up exclusively to serve Trump.

In his request to unseal the files, Blanche waves away the concern that unsealing these files should wait until Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal has been exhausted.

While the Government recognizes that Maxwell’s case is currently pending before the Supreme Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari, it nonetheless moves this Court for relief due to the intense public scrutiny into this matter.

As Josh Gerstein noted, in a filing submitted in a FOIA lawsuit last year, Maurene Comey described at great length the risks posed by releasing files before Maxwell’s appeals are exhausted.

12. As noted above, the Maxwell criminal prosecution is still pending on appeal. If the Second Circuit grants Maxwell the relief she seeks, there could be a new trial. Therefore, public disclosure of the FBI’s records relating to the investigation and prosecution of Epstein that were withheld in full or in part under Exemption 7(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with the pending prosecution of Maxwell.

[snip]

14. Public disclosure of the first category of records, identified in the First Seidel Declaration as Evidentiary/Investigative Materials, could reasonably be expected to interfere with the pending prosecution of Maxwell. As noted in paragraphs 61 through 63 of the First Seidel Declaration, this first category includes copies of records or evidence, analysis of that evidence, and derivative communications summarizing or otherwise referencing evidence. Those records or evidence include, among other things: business records (for example, phone records, travel records, financial records, and shipping records) gathered during criminal investigations, including through the service of grand jury subpoenas, and analysis of those records; documents and evidence provided by witnesses to law enforcement; documents regarding witness background information (for example, criminal history records, medical records, employment records, social media records, and educational records); reports, notes, or transcripts of witness statements; and communications with and about witnesses. The documents contained in this category include confidential witness statements from dozens of witnesses, and the discussion of evidence among members of law enforcement. The release of these records to the public risks the following harms to the pending prosecution of Maxwell:

a. Impact on Witness Testimony: Premature disclosure of the business records and witness statements within this category (including disclosure of analysis and summaries of those materials) could reasonably be expected to influence potential witnesses’ testimony at trial. These records include details that are not publicly known or known to other witnesses, and include information and documents authored by and about potential witnesses. Because the majority of the records in this category were not introduced as public exhibits during Maxwell’s first trial, they remain non-public, though the Government may still seek to introduce them should Maxwell be granted a retrial. The premature release of these materials could influence the testimony of witnesses by providing the opportunity for witnesses to shape their testimony to conform with other evidence gathered during the investigation, including both records and witness statements. For example, witnesses may shade their testimony to match the descriptions of events and places given by other witnesses about whom they might not otherwise know, or witnesses may shade their testimony to match the timing of travel, financial transactions, phone calls, and/or shipments reflected in the records. In order to preserve the independent integrity of its witnesses’ testimony, the Government has worked to ensure that its witnesses are not exposed to other parts of its investigative file, the accounts of other witnesses, or the full scope of exhibits it may offer at a retrial. The release of these materials would undermine the Government’s efforts to present witness testimony that is uninfluenced by exposure to other evidence in the case and can therefore be independently corroborated by other witness accounts and exhibits at trial. Additionally, premature release of witness statements and background materials in this category could prevent the Government from effectively questioning witnesses in a manner that would allow jurors to assess their credibility because the witnesses may have already viewed records that counsel may use for impeachment purposes, including witness background materials, witness statements, and business records that might contradict witnesses’ testimony.

b. Impact on Witnesses’ Willingness to Testify: The business records, witness statements, and witness background materials within this category (including summaries and analysis thereof) contain sensitive personal and private information about dozens of potential witnesses, including some witnesses who testified at Maxwell’s first trial and many witnesses who were not called at Maxwell’s first trial, but who may be called to testify if Maxwell is granted a retrial. By their very nature, all of the witness statements and witness background materials necessarily include identifying information and sensitive details regarding numerous witnesses. Similarly, the business records—including financial records, travel records, phone records, and shipping records—include the names, addresses, phone numbers, and other identifying information of numerous witnesses. The public release of this information could lead to the identification and intimidation of witnesses, who may decline to cooperate with the parties and be disinclined to testify if their personal information is released to the public. Indeed, multiple witnesses at Maxwell’s first trial testified under pseudonyms or just their first name to protect their privacy. Those same witnesses likely would not have agreed to testify if their identities or sensitive information about them were publicly revealed. The premature release of these records could reasonably be expected to interfere with a potential retrial of Maxwell by causing witnesses to be identified in the media and face embarrassment and potential harassment from members of the public as a result. Should these records be released, many witnesses, including some witnesses who agreed to testify at Maxwell’s first trial and others who did not testify at Maxwell’s first trial but may be called at a retrial, may decline to cooperate in trial preparation with the Government and may refuse to testify at a retrial. This outcome is likely because many witnesses only agreed to cooperate with the Government’s investigation because they understood that the Government would take every effort to protect their privacy.

c. Impact on Jury: Premature public disclosure of the records withheld under Exemption 7(A) within this first category, including those which the Government anticipates will be entered into evidence at trial, could reasonably be expected to further impair the Government’s pending prosecution of Maxwell by affecting its ability to present its case in court in any Maxwell retrial because it risks prejudicing the jury pool. As noted above, the majority of records in this category—including phone records, bank records, travel records, and shipping records—were not admitted into evidence at Maxwell’s first trial. Similarly, many witnesses whose statements and background information fall within this category did not testify at Maxwell’s first trial. The premature release of these materials risks prejudicing the jury pool so as to hinder the Government’s ability to present its case in court in two distinct respects. First, to the extent materials within this category are never admitted at a retrial, the jury may wonder why those materials were absent from the trial and may suspect the Government of trying to hide evidence from the jury, causing jurors to draw an unwarranted adverse inference against the Government. In this scenario, the jury may also improperly consider publicly released materials that were not introduced as evidence at the trial in their deliberations. The materials in this category, including business records and witness statements, may seem relevant to a layperson but may be inadmissible at trial for various reasons under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Potential jurors’ consideration of the records that are being withheld under Exemption 7(A) but will not be presented at trial may impact the consideration jurors give to the actual evidence presented by the Government. If some or all of this evidence is excluded at trial, pre-trial publication of these materials would risk exposing potential jurors to material they would otherwise not be shown during trial, which risks unduly influencing jurors’ views of the case and would impair the Government’s ability to effectively and fairly present its case in court. Second, if materials within this category are admitted at trial after being prematurely released, members of the jury could have preconceived notions of that evidence’s relevance or importance. This is especially concerning given the intense media scrutiny surrounding the Maxwell case and commentary that is likely to follow the release of any records of substance from the investigative file.

Of course, Ms. Comey was fired on Wednesday, as Trump waited for the WSJ story on his ties to Epstein to drop. So now Blanche can do whatever he wants with this case, without anyone to protect the equities of the prosecution.

And the grand jury request is not only completely unnecessary, but it represents a colossal waste of the time that Pam Bondi already invested when she ordered up to 1,000 people to spend reviewing the FBI case files in March.

Bondi could release those files without involving a judge. But she’s not. She’s going to instead meddle with grand jury records, a smaller subset of the whole, but one that could do more damage if Maxwell wins a retrial.

Donald Trump can’t pardon Maxwell, in spite of his past expression of well wishes for the sex trafficker, because his mob would go nuts.

But Todd Blanche could do something to intentionally fuck up her case.

Share this entry

Pam Bondi Fired the Avenger of Sex Trafficking Victims on Donald Trump’s Personal Authority

/66 Comments/in /by

I’ve often said that, this time, Donald Trump has chosen poorly of which people to make political martyrs.

Less than eight hours after proclaiming that the Jeffrey Epstein scandal was just some “new SCAM” perpetrated by Democrats, about four days after he first attempted to float the wildly illogical claim that the Epstein “Files [were] written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration,” DOJ fired Jim Comey’s daughter, Maurene.

According to the NYT, the letter terminating Ms. Comey cited Article II authority.

Ms. Comey was informed of her firing in a letter that cited Article II of the Constitution, which describes the powers of the president, according to two of the people.

In recent weeks, Pam Bondi’s DOJ has pursued an accelerating purge of prosecutors, public affairs professionals, and ethics advisors protected by civil service protections, also citing Article II authority. But somehow Ms. Comey’s firing took place after Trump started to lose his shit over his inability to squelch his own supporters’ mania about the Epstein scandal.

After Donald Trump started to go nuts about Epstein, Ms. Comey was fired on Trump’s own personal authority. It’s certainly possible this SCOTUS would uphold his authority to do so, if sued. But he’d have to spend a lot of time arguing about his own personal discretion in the decision to fire her.

He did this. Donald Trump did this.

And all the while, her role as a prosecutor in the Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Diddy cases would be at the forefront.

Even ignoring the insanely stupid timing of Ms. Comey’s termination, creating at least the appearance of a connection between Trump’s failing attempts to squelch conspiracy theories and her firing, there are two other details that Pam Bondi cannot have thought through.

First, the indictment of Epstein and the prosecution of Maxwell depended — as did the reporting from Julie Brown (which Miami Herald has now posted together) it built on — on developing the trust of the victims. Here’s how Geoffrey Berman described it in his book.

Over the next weeks and months, a team of FBI agents, NYPD detectives, and our prosecutors scrambled to make that happen. This meant that they identified victims, interviewed them, and went about the sensitive task of getting them to agree to testify in open court against their tormentor. Without the voices of these young women—girls when Epstein raped them—there was not a case. That our team accomplished these tasks without word leaking to Epstein or his lawyers that he was under investigation is a testament to their intelligence and deftness.

[snip]

I made a plea to the victims: Our job is not over, there is justice to be done, and we need your help. Epstein could not have done what he did without the assistance of others. We ask for your cooperation in our ongoing investigation into Epstein’s co-conspirators. The response was overwhelming. We conducted interviews that afternoon and in the days that followed. Over time, many other victims agreed to be interviewed. After the initial shock of Epstein’s death, I could feel the team refocusing and reenergizing.

One big break was the cooperation of a victim, one of Epstein’s first, whom Maxwell and Epstein had recruited at a summer arts camp back when she was just fourteen years old. She is now an actress and married with children. She told us that Epstein and Maxwell approached her at the camp when she was fourteen. They took what seemed to her, at first, to be a genuine interest in her life and aspirations. Epstein paid for her voice lessons and some other arts instruction.

She had told no one about the abuse that followed, and specifically not her mother, who had naively believed that Epstein’s interest was benign—that he was a kind, wealthy man helping her daughter reach her dreams. It was difficult for her to come forward. She had never wanted her mother to feel guilty. (Her name, thankfully, has not been publicly revealed. Judge Alison Nathan, who was assigned the Maxwell case, allowed the victims to remain anonymous if they so chose.)

What she told us, and would later testify to, was that Maxwell was walking her pet Yorkie when she approached her at the camp. Epstein soon joined them and began asking questions. “He seemed very interested to know what I thought about the camp, what my favorite classes were,” she said.

They stayed in touch, and at one point he took her to Victoria’s Secret and bought her white cotton panties. Soon after, when she was alone with Epstein at his Palm Beach residence, he pulled his pants down, got on top of her, and masturbated. As she later testified at trial, “I was frozen and in fear. I had never seen a penis before. I was terrified and felt gross and like I felt ashamed.” What followed were group sessions involving Epstein, Maxwell, and other women, which began with “Ghislaine or Jeffrey” summoning everyone to follow them to Jeffrey’s bedroom or massage room. We continued to build the case and search for other victims.

The SDNY team, including Ms. Comey, spent a lot of time assuring victims that their willingness to testify might bring them some kind of justice.

I don’t know how the victims will respond to the news that Ms. Comey was fired before Maxwell’s appeals were exhausted (to say nothing of the Diddy sentencing, currently scheduled for October 3). But these victims put trust into Maurene Comey. Maurene Comey was one of the few people who convinced them she would take on very powerful people in search of justice for them.

And Pam Bondi fired her, on Donald Trump’s personal authority.

There’s one more detail. According to Berman, not long before he killed himself, Epstein proffered cooperation with SDNY, in another bid to get a sweetheart plea deal.

[Reid Weingarten] said that he had just come from meeting with Epstein at the Metropolitan Correctional Center and that his client was not happy. (Good! I remember thinking.) “I think my client might want to have an interesting conversation with your office,” he said.

I had expected an overture. With Epstein facing forty-five years in prison—a life sentence for a man his age—it made sense for him to want a deal. But my openness to one was quite limited. He’d already been given the deal of the century in South Florida, buying him more than a decade of undeserved freedom.

Prosecutors, though, never foreclose the conversation. At minimum, you may get new leads, more victims to talk to, additional perpetrators. “The Southern District is always interested in having interesting conversations,”

I said. I told my team to expect a call. A few days later, Weingarten reached out. He said that his client would come in for a proffer—an agreement between a defendant and a prosecutor’s office in which the defendant agrees to share information with the understanding that his statements won’t be used against him at trial.

But Epstein had one condition: he wanted assurances that the SDNY did not see him as a rapist. That was the end of that. He was a rapist, and we were not about to give him some other, more polite-sounding label.

Ms. Comey would be one of the people privy to that proffered testimony.

That doesn’t mean she’ll go release it, or even start naming the rapists who victimized the girls Epstein trafficked. Unlike Bondi and her top aides, Ms. Comey will presumably honor her ethical duty.

But having fired Ms. Comey, one of a few people who earned the trust of sex trafficking victims that she would go after the powerful to seek justice for them, and having claimed to do so on the President’s own authority, Pam Bondi has chosen to fire precisely the person who championed justice for sex trafficking victims … and she did so in Donald Trump’s name.

Update: I should say one more thing. It’s possible Bondi (“Blondi,” as Laura Loomer has dubbed her) did this in response to pressure from Loomer. As I noted here, Trump seems loathe to confront Loomer directly, and Bondi is trying hard to shrug off the pressure of Loomer.

But Loomer, for all her hubris, really is pretty dumb about politics outside of her bubble, to say nothing of the law. For example, she’s calling for a Special Counsel to be appointed on Epstein, but under Trump’s FL Get out of Jail Free Card, that would likely require Senate confirmation. So it would be especially rich if Bondi did something this stupid in response to pressure from Loomer.

Update: Politico reports that Ms. Comey sent a letter to colleagues warning against fear.

“If a career prosecutor can be fired without reason, fear may seep into the decisions of those who remain. Do not let that happen,” she wrote. “Fear is the tool of a tyrant, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place. A fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power. Of commitment to seek justice for victims. Of dedication to truth above all else.”

[snip]

In her parting message, Comey wrote that during her nearly 10 years at the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, her goal was “making sure people with access, money, and power were not treated differently than anyone else; and making sure this office remained separate from politics and focused only on the facts and the law.”

“Fear,” she wrote, “was never really conceivable.”

Share this entry