Epstein Secrets

, but we decline to draw an arbitrary line. The victims' argument has an ipse dixit quality—that is, because our Court has never before applied the Penman doctrine outside of the grand jury context, we should not do so now. But we must ask instead whether applying the doctrine here makes sense. 11 E

kins'. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we review for clear error factual findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2007). HI. DISCUSSION We divide our discussion in two parts. First, we explain that we have jurisdiction ov

, but we decline to draw an arbitrary line. The victims' argument has an ipse dixit quality—that is, because our Court has never before applied the Penman doctrine outside of the grand jury context, we should not do so now. But we must ask instead whether applying the doctrine here makes sense. 11 E

kins'. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we review for clear error factual findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2007). HI. DISCUSSION We divide our discussion in two parts. First, we explain that we have jurisdiction ov

, but we decline to draw an arbitrary line. The victims' argument has an ipse dixit quality—that is, because our Court has never before applied the Penman doctrine outside of the grand jury context, we should not do so now. But we must ask instead whether applying the doctrine here makes sense. 11 E

dkins' Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we review for clear error factual findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2007). III. DISCUSSION We divide our discussion in two parts. First, we explain that we have jurisdiction o