Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (34) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84361 
Subject: Re: Files
Date: 07/23/25 6:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 3
You likely know more than any of us here in that regard. I would assume that once the prosecution is over, everything is fair game (except names of victims, especially if they were minors). But maybe that's wrong.

Nope, that's wrong.

For example, it's pretty likely that at least some of those 2.7 million pages of documents are Epstein's medical records - documents from his doctors, copies of prescriptions, health insurance forms, and the like. Those are all protected from disclosure by governmental agencies. They're absolutely free to introduce those records in a court proceeding of any kind...but they aren't free to just publish them for the heck of it.

Isn't there a legal thing where in discovery you just dump everything on opposing counsel? And hope they are so overwhelmed that they miss stuff?**

Sure, and they did that with Maxwell. Her lawyers filed to delay her trial because they dumped so much information on her. But they're allowed to do that in the context of a criminal trial, because the defendant is allowed to see every piece of paper and because what the defendant can do with every piece of paper is limited by the court's discovery orders. So Maxwell gets to see Epstein's medical records (for example) to determine if that's useful for her defense, but only for the purposes of her defense. She doesn't have the legal right to publish his medical records. Similarly, the government has the right (nay the obligation) to provide Maxwell with Epstein's medical records, even though they couldn't just decide to publish them - because again, they're used for the purpose of the criminal justice proceeding.

The government can't just publish all of Epstein's medical records and auto loan statements and Costco membership cards and such simply because it wants to.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (34) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community