Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Epstein documents unsealed: read them now

  • 31-07-2020 1:10pm
    #1
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,053 ✭✭✭✭


    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.


Comments

  • #2
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


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

    attachment.php?attachmentid=521739&stc=1&d=1596246550

    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.


  • #3
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,053 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I stopped reading the release (page 48) after i saw this.

    attachment.php?attachmentid=521739&stc=1&d=1596246550

    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


  • #4
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,105 ✭✭✭✭listermint


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


  • #5
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,053 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    listermint wrote: »
    Would naming them in public not ruin any ongoing or future legal opportunities?

    Basically the issue I’m afraid.


  • #6
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Viscount Aggro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭Viscount Aggro


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


  • #8
    Treppen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,621 ✭✭✭Treppen


    Viscount Aggro wrote: »
    He is named in Irish media, not in UK media reports. Funny that.

    Who is named?


  • #9
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭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


  • #10
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,100 ✭✭✭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/


Advertisement