what kind of argument are you trying to make?
That it's okay to have sexual interactions with underage girls as long as you have a corresponding number of adult female friends?
I'm wondering, too.
@Venom , what are you even doing?
There is
no need to play up the controversy with sinister redactions out of a ridiculous abundance of caution, including blacking out faces of obvious adult women and friends. At this point it's
political propaganda. Pics featuring Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson from the early 2000s don't prove they knew anything illegal went on; Epstein's criminal case came long after that. If you are familiar with the case and timeline, they can release 10,000 pics of Clinton or David Copperfield or whoever they want and redact it all they want it doesn't change the fact that not a single accuser in the Palm Beach case, where the underage allegations originated, had ever alleged wrongdoing by prominent people.
A good number of those pics have also been public for ages, including photos of Michael Jackson at a fundraiser and one ironically with one of Epstein's alleged co-conspirators who had girl-on-girl sex with the 17 year old who Epstein was jailed over.
@Safe-Keeper I am trying to be a skeptic on this case, since it legitimately interests me, and every logical fallacy and false claim under the sun is allowed to go unchallenged whenever the p-word is invoked.
wonder if his legitimate female friends teasted him for being a pedophile too.
but also a part of the issue is that they didn't release hundreds of thousands of documents at all. even if there's probably no evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone other than epstein in them. you have to wonder though, and given it's pretty likely the trump admin isn't withholding and redacting everything to protect the women, what are they doing? you've officially lost by court order, you must release this exonerating evidence and finally put the matter to rest so we can move on from epstein. pretty weird imo
Reminder that a few weeks ago lawyers for the accusers successfully argued that any “victim-identifying information” should be redacted. That can include some very valuable info for context. Virginia Roberts’ original memoir reclassified as “fiction”, Clinton in the island, fake sex with Prince Andrew in New Mexico, Epstein abusing “thousands of children”, etc etc. many of these claims and refutations were redacted or withheld for years.
So plaintiffs lawyers who, from civil litigation on Epstein-related complaints in the 2010s, have been shown to be untrustworthy on the facts and have an
obvious financial interest in the case were allowed to manage the release of Epstein related case files, which could only have happened from relentless public pressure on our lawmakers. But Brad Edwards, David Boies, Sigrid McCawley and colleagues get to decide what we see (and don't see).
Michael Tracey put it better than me in a
letter to Judge Richard M. Berman:
And yet, a striking paradox has since emerged. When he’s not speaking in front of television cameras alongside politicians and media, but rather submitting letters to this Court, Mr. Edwards has adamantly opposed the comprehensive release of records believed to comprise the putative “Epstein Files.” In their letter to Your Honor, Mr. Edwards and Ms. Henderson inveigh that it is “absolutely unacceptable” (emphasis theirs) that certain records have already been published by the House Oversight Committee without the record custodians having first conferred with Mr. Edwards and Ms. Henderson, to allow them to impose their own preferred redactions — or, in other words, to ensure that certain records are concealed based on the private opinion formed by Mr. Edwards and Ms. Henderson as to which records ought to be shielded from public inspection. In so doing, Mr. Edwards and Ms. Henderson have strangely demanded that a critical state function — determining which records qualify for disclosure in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act — be outsourced to them, as private parties. They curiously demand in their letter that Your Honor issue an “order” on their behalf, requiring that the Department of Justice “consult” with Mr. Edwards and Ms. Henderson as additional records are prepared for disclosure.
You should read Tracey's entire letter it's pretty good.
If you complain about all the files
not being released, you ought to know who to blame for the bulk of it.
Scope of Redactions: As noted in our prior letters, the Department will endeavor to redact victim-identifying information—this includes, at a minimum, victims identified through the Department’s prior prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell, individuals who have been identified by counsel as known or suspected victims, and any victims who contact the Department through the above-described process requesting redaction.
Going forward, the Department will also redact victim names even if the victim has otherwise been identified publicly. This approach is specifically responsive to concerns recently raised by victim counsel. For example, victim counsel expressed concern about one instance in which victim-identifying information was released by Congress (See United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), Dkt. 87) and sought to attribute culpability to the Department. The Department now has confirmed that the document flagged by counsel is a publicly filed court exhibit, but nonetheless contained information for which the victims now request redaction, and the Department will honor that request for future redactions.
