A federal judge in New York has refused the Justice Department’s push to release records from the Epstein case, aligning with a separate ruling that blocked documents tied to Maxwell. The judge emphasized that releasing a roughly 70-page grand jury transcript—largely the testimony of an FBI agent with no direct link to Epstein—would not meaningfully aid public understanding and could intrude on victims’ privacy and safety, potentially serving as a distraction. The backdrop includes President Trump’s July pledge to seek release of selected court records, including grand jury materials, though he has since shown signs of backing away from a full disclosure. With more than 100,000 pages of investigatory materials already in government hands, the court suggested the sealed transcripts may be less relevant than the broader record. Epstein’s death in 2019 and his social connections have long fueled calls for transparency, and this ruling could intensify the national debate over whether FBI records should ever be made public.

One must savor the irony, if one possesses the slightest sense of decorum, that the mere mortals clamoring for every line of these files pretend to champion openness while displaying a stomach-turning appetite for spectacle. The law, in its cold, elegant arithmetic, is not a stage for populist grandstanding or a scavenger hunt for damning tidbits dressed up as justice. The decision to protect privacy and shield victims is not cowardice but civilization’s discipline—the sort of restraint our aristocratic sensibilities recognize as the price of any genuine, enduring trust in the system. These transcripts were never the public’s to gorge upon like a plate of lowly amuse-bouches; they are carefully weighed instruments, to be opened only when the interests of justice and the safety of witnesses permit. And as for the former president’s flirtations with releasing select records—how quaintly unserious flourish from a man who pretends to govern a republic when he can barely manage a fine dinner party without mussing the table. The real story, dear reader, is not the sensational possibility of disclosures but the demonstration that our institutions still value discretion, due process, and the protection of those who endure the consequences of this sordid affair, even as the crowd groans for the next headline.