Epstein documents unsealed: read them now

Overheal

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/secret-jeffrey-epstein-documents-have-been-released-by-court-order-read-them-all-here/

638 pages in all have been released. I haven’t viewed them myself but do enjoy.

(Sorry folks I know we have a lot of scattershot threads about epstein and cohorts that we could possibly pull together later if there’s high demand to do so, I wanted people to be readily aware there’d been such a large development today)

Electronic searches of the documents came up blank for the words “Trump” and “Clinton.” However, the names of both presidents do appear in the documents; the names are simply not easy to find.

Cheerful Spring2

I stopped reading the release (page 48) after i saw this.



Someone very important got named here, but they blacked out the name and I suspect the whole 638 pages has similar censored redactions? Another waste of time.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I stopped reading the release (page 48) after i saw this.



Someone very important got named here, but they blacked out the name and I suspect the whole 638 pages has similar censored redactions? Another waste of time.

Kudos for making it that far. Keep at it tbh, these redactions I agree should be explained. In other redactions on documents for example that were impeachment related there would be explainers attached for say if it was a national security redaction or a reasonable privacy redaction or an ongoing criminal investigation redaction etc. I assume the latter applies here. I’d be interested to know if there are names not redacted in this manner, as that could illuminate what kind of people they might be trying to protect - ie if they would redact a prince Andrew type name and not a bill Cosby

listermint

Would naming them in public not ruin any ongoing or future legal opportunities?

Overheal

listermint wrote: »

Would naming them in public not ruin any ongoing or future legal opportunities?

Basically the issue I’m afraid.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Kudos for making it that far. Keep at it tbh, these redactions I agree should be explained. In other redactions on documents for example that were impeachment related there would be explainers attached for say if it was a national security redaction or a reasonable privacy redaction or an ongoing criminal investigation redaction etc. I assume the latter applies here. I’d be interested to know if there are names not redacted in this manner, as that could illuminate what kind of people they might be trying to protect - ie if they would redact a prince Andrew type name and not a bill Cosby

There people in high society named in the files and they have not yet got convicted of anything in court. It could be a pencil pusher with an agenda protecting these people's names from coming out? Trust the FBI? Are they going to go after everyone here is an open question? Since we can't see the names, they could easily be protected from within. One of the victims alleges the FBI covered up for Epstein at the beginning and who inside the agency did not want to go after him has never got published.

Viscount Aggro

He is named in Irish media, not in UK media reports. Funny that.

Treppen

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

He is named in Irish media, not in UK media reports. Funny that.

Who is named?

c.p.w.g.w

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

He is named in Irish media, not in UK media reports. Funny that.

Will take the name via PM

joeguevara

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

He is named in Irish media, not in UK media reports. Funny that.

This is all you need to figure it out!

But here you go:

https://nypost.com/2020/07/31/epstein-accuser-allegedly-forced-into-sex-with-prince-andrew/