Release All Files! - Part 1

[Bush Master]

Maybe they're doing it on purpose at the DoJ

There's no way anybody in the process could make that mistake these days. My wife even saw thru magic marker redactions on local docs we obtained. What a laugh, we had a good one with that.

[CriticalStinker]

Judge’s opinion doesn’t mean shit. It’s no different than mine or yours.  He wasn’t even tried for rape, besides she had absolutely ZERO proof of anything. He was convicted of a civil suit on hearsay.   The whole trial was a sham.  You should read the facts of the case and then make an unbiased and educated decision.   No unbiased, court could’ve or would’ve ever found him guilty of rape without no evidence.  You can take that to the bank.

I understand and appreciate the devils advocate approach to all of this. It's why I've never acted as if Trump was directly involved with the actions.

But, with Epstein specifically, there are times it's blatant he got a slap on the wrist, and even allowed to reintegrate with high society. 

The "official" narrative is he killed himself while all the cameras malfunctioned, and the guards were asleep. But also, him and Ghislaine acted alone to create a human trafficking ring for just them. Once we enter the political battle of it all, partisans try to paint one side or the other as the chief offender.

But it's like the Santa moment for adults. Some just don't want to admit their reality isn't real.

Even if him and Ghislaine acted alone, other people knew what they were doing, and that's complicit. But looking at all the evidence, I think it's clear there were other participants. I think most people are adult enough to understand that politicians on both sides are deeply flawed. If someone is a student of history, and still willing to say that one side is deeply evil, and the other is righteous, I think they're adult Santa believers.

[cherokeetroy]

Link

People examining documents released by the Department of Justice in the Jeffrey Epstein case discovered that some of the file redaction can be undone with Photoshop techniques, or by simply highlighting text to paste into a word processing file.
 
Un-redacted text from these documents began circulating through social media on Monday evening. An exhibit in a civil case in the Virgin Islands against Darren K Indyke and Richard D Kahn, two executors of Epstein’s estate, contains redacted allegations explaining how Epstein and his associates had facilitated the sexual abuse of children. The exhibit was the second amended complaint in the state case against Indyke and Kahn.
 
 
In section 85, the redacted portion states: “Between September 2015 and June 2019, Indyke signed (FAC) for over $400,000 made payable to young female models and actresses, including a former Russian model who received over $380,000 through monthly payments of $8,333 made over a period of more than three and a half years until the middle of 2019.”
 
Prosecutors in the Virgin Islands settled its civil sex-trafficking case against Epstein’s estate, Indyke and Kahn in 2022 for $105m, plus one half of the proceeds from the sale of Little St James, the island on which Epstein resided and on which many of his crimes occurred. The justice department press release announcing the settlement did not include an admission of liability.
 
Indyke, an attorney who represented Epstein for decades, has not been criminally indicted by federal authorities. He was hired by the Parlatore Law Group in 2022, before the justice department settled the Epstein case. That firm represents the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and previously represented Donald Trump in his defense against charges stemming from the discovery of classified government documents stored at Trump’s Florida estate. Calls and email seeking comment from Indyke and the Parlatore Law Group have not yet been returned.

Role in Hegseth's Defense: While Indyke is part of the firm representing Hegseth, Parlatore remains the primary public face and legal counsel for the Secretary of Defense. Parlatore has navigated numerous controversies for Hegseth, including a confidential settlement paid to a woman who accused Hegseth of sexual assault in 2017—an incident Hegseth maintains was consensual.

[chr0naut]

I would hope my President would chop down a few cherry trees as they go along.

Cherry Trees, is that a prostitute name?

He’d hit that!

[KrustyKrab]

I understand and appreciate the devils advocate approach to all of this. It's why I've never acted as if Trump was directly involved with the actions.

But, with Epstein specifically, there are times it's blatant he got a slap on the wrist, and even allowed to reintegrate with high society. 

The "official" narrative is he killed himself while all the cameras malfunctioned, and the guards were asleep. But also, him and Ghislaine acted alone to create a human trafficking ring for just them. Once we enter the political battle of it all, partisans try to paint one side or the other as the chief offender.

But it's like the Santa moment for adults. Some just don't want to admit their reality isn't real.

Even if him and Ghislaine acted alone, other people knew what they were doing, and that's complicit. But looking at all the evidence, I think it's clear there were other participants. I think most people are adult enough to understand that politicians on both sides are deeply flawed. If someone is a student of history, and still willing to say that one side is deeply evil, and the other is righteous, I think they're adult Santa believers.

Well… you conflated what could be let’s say…a bunch of threads together.  I agree with most everything you said. 

I know Trump knew what was going on…..ff.. Trump was willing to testify on the fact and was willing to disclose everything he knew about Epstein and his operations.

My understanding and correct me if I’m wrong,is that “they” refused and deemed it unnecessary (out of convenience I believe)  

Tell me who refused his testimony and I’ll tell you who the killer is.  

Trump knew and was willing to testify

[cherokeetroy]

In 2019, Whitney Webb reported US Ambassador to Austria, Ronald Lauder, issued a fake Austrian passport for Epstein

The DOJ released an Austrian passport containing Epstein’s photo but issued under the name “Marius Robert"

Lauder is the President of the World Jewish Congress and a member of the Billionaire Mega Group 

[KrustyKrab]

FWIW, if anyone can prove Trump is a ped and raped underage girls I’ll be the first to get the rope.  But I refuse to nail someone on a a cross that hasn’t been proven by his peers, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he’s guilty. No one has done that, not here, not anywhere.  

Present your case and prove me wrong.

[chr0naut]

In 2019, Whitney Webb reported US Ambassador to Austria, Ronald Lauder, issued a fake Austrian passport for Epstein

The DOJ released an Austrian passport containing Epstein’s photo but issued under the name “Marius Robert"

Lauder is the President of the World Jewish Congress and a member of the Billionaire Mega Group 

[Image: https://i.imgur.com/g18BIzF.jpeg]

Lauder is a Republican. Became ambassador to Austria under Reagan (a Republican President) and in 2019 when he gave Epstein that fake passport, it was during the first Trump administration (another Republican President). Theres a pattern here, perhaps?

[chr0naut]

FWIW, if anyone can prove Trump is a ped and raped underage girls I’ll be the first to get the rope.  But I refuse to nail someone on a a cross that hasn’t been proven by his peers, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he’s guilty. No one has done that, not here, not anywhere.  

Present your case and prove me wrong.

So, are you saying that you have proof of Epstein reoffending after his 2008 conviction?

He probably was, but i haven’t heard of any evidence, even with names redacted, that definitively proves what was charged against him (and he wasn't convicted of this second time because he was ‘Epstiened’).

[KrustyKrab]

So, are you saying that you have proof of Epstein reoffending after his 2008 conviction?

He probably was, but i haven’t heard of any evidence, even with names redacted, that definitively proves what was charged against him (and he wasn't convicted of this second time because he was ‘Epstiened’

#1 Your first question isn’t legible or in context

#2 neither is your 2nd

What are you trying to say???

He probably was but wasn’t?

Make it make sense.