Release All Files! - Part 2

[Oldcarpy2]

So who are the 28 co-conspirators, oops 27 because thats what you're labeling Trump... I'm fine with that, who else?
Wexner
Andy
Clinton

Who else?

You did see where some of the co-conspirators listed were actually girls who were trafficked, and then did the same to others.

Can we expect Kamala/Gavin to run on the promise that they will release the Epstein files in 2028, since it worked so well for Trump?

One can be shady, scuzzy, skeevy, but will still need the evidence of co-conspirator guilt, Frank, and we are running out of files to be released.

So far Im thinking Trump covered forIsrael/Mossad/Ehud's involvement pretty much like every other admin. There's no evidence he was with any girls or women in a criminal way. I can't find evidence that he ever got Epstein's famous massages or a hummer from Ghislaine

That's because it's all redacted..FFS.

[putnam6]

I don’t know who they are, because of the illegal redactions.

Congressmen found a document listing a possible labled co conspirator who was redacted and forced the DOJ to follow the law and show the unredacted name (Les Wexner).

The original sweetheart deal Epstein got also gave immunity to 4 named co conspirators and any potential co conspirators.

This isn’t new or unique to this admin which I’ve consistently noted.

Just because other admins ran cover doesn’t make it OK now. It just means this is bigger than watergate because it doesn’t just involve one admin. And if this admin actively ran cover, it means at the very least other admins tried to ignore it.

The unredacted list(s) were on X.com and the DOJ website they look authentic 

exhibit A

https://x.com/tHATsWEETbROWN/status/2021...49355?s=20

Exhibit B

https://x.com/AaronParnas/status/2021053...66370?s=20

exhibit C

https://x.com/TheRebelReport1/status/202...89320?s=20
 

 
Yes, the documents shared in the post appear to be real and factual based on multiple reliable sources.
These are excerpts from a declassified FBI situation report (SITREP) dated August 15, 2019, created shortly after Jeffrey Epstein's death. The report lists several individuals as co-conspirators in the child sex trafficking investigation, including Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean-Luc Brunel, Lesley Groff, Les Wexner, and others (with some names redacted). Karyna Shuliak is mentioned separately as Epstein's former girlfriend, not as a co-conspirator.
Verification Details:

• Authenticity: The document was part of the massive Epstein files release by the U.S. Department of Justice in late January and early February 2026, mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act signed into law in November 2025. The DOJ has publicly released over 3.5 million pages, including this 2019 FBI internal memo, which aligns with the images in the post (e.g., the formatting, classifications like "UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE," and specific intelligence sources such as HUMINT and FISUR). News outlets like BBC, CBS, PBS, and NPR have reported on this specific document, confirming it identifies these individuals based on FBI intelligence at the time, though only Epstein and Maxwell were ultimately indicted. 
  
• Factual Content: The listings reflect the FBI's investigative assessments in 2019, drawing from sources like human intelligence (HUMINT), foreign intelligence surveillance (FISUR), financials, and OGA (Other Government Agency) liaisons. However, these are not formal charges—only Epstein (deceased) and Maxwell (convicted in 2021) faced indictments. The document notes access to weapons and financials but doesn't provide evidence of crimes beyond the co-conspirator labels. Some controversy exists over redactions and the DOJ's decision to withhold about half of the identified 6+ million pages, with critics like Rep. Jamie Raskin calling for more transparency. 
  

The full Epstein files are available on the DOJ's public repository for anyone to review. If you're looking for more specifics on any name or section, let me know!

[ANNEE]

Of course the property story was the cause of the bromance taking a nose dive and Trump contacting the police there did absolutely nothing, but then again Epstein donated $90,000 to that police department, so, of course nothing was done about it and there is no context to what exactly Trump meant if he did report Epstein (because Epstein was stealing girls from his spa? which Trump did nothing about before Epstein was arrested).

What do you think of the Virginia's Law which is a new Bill to be presented and voted on, that will serve to eliminate the statute of limitations for civil claims on a number of abuses. I always wondered why there had to be a time limit put on justice.

----
(LLM)
"Virginia’s Law, a proposed U.S. bill named after Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, was introduced on February 10, 2026, by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Representative Teresa Leger Fernández.  The legislation aims to eliminate the statute of limitations for civil sexual abuse and human trafficking cases, allowing adult survivors to file lawsuits regardless of when the abuse occurred.  It also creates a one-year "look-back window" after enactment for survivors to pursue claims for past abuses. 
The bill seeks to close legal loopholes that allow abusers to evade accountability by committing crimes in foreign jurisdictions—such as Epstein’s private island or his Zorro Ranch in New Mexico. It is supported by Giuffre’s family, other Epstein survivors, and advocacy groups, who argue that "justice should not expire" and that healing should not be constrained by government-imposed time limits. 
The bill is named in honor of Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide in 2025, and is part of a broader push for accountability following the release of millions of pages of Epstein-related documents under the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act.  While the bill has strong support among Democrats and survivor advocates, its passage remains uncertain due to Republican control of Congress"

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/rep-lege...aw/2978179

That’s a slippery slope. 

Minors — yes. 

I see too much opportunity for entrapment. Suppose you date someone when you’re both young and stupid. But later on they become famous and wealthy. I’m not OK with destroying someone’s life. Many have been harmed just by someone reporting abuse without proof. 

It would require undeniable proof. Which is next to impossible. 

Provisions for unusual circumstances — such as the Epstein situation with multiple victims — that I can see. 

Gotta say though as a child/teen of the 50’s — I do appreciate the progression in making men accountable for their behavior toward women (other).

[cherokeetroy]

"Hundreds of gallons of sulfuric acid ordered to a private residence raised no red flags?" 

https://x.com/RepNancyMace/status/202166...58589?s=20 

"On the same exact day that the FBI opened a child sex trafficking case against Epstein in 2018, he ordered half a dozen 55-gallon containers full of sulfuric acid to his private island. It could be a coincidence, but what are the odds? On the same day? Was he tipped off?" 

https://x.com/davenewworld_2/status/2020...70442?s=20



Maybe the next file dump will shed some light on the Bronfmans, Rothschilds and Cemex

[quintessentone]

That’s a slippery slope. 

Minors — yes. 

I see too much opportunity for entrapment. Suppose you date someone when you’re both young and stupid. But later on they become famous and wealthy. I’m not OK with destroying someone’s life. Many have been harmed just by someone reporting abuse without proof. 

It would require undeniable proof. Which is next to impossible. 

Provisions for unusual circumstances — such as the Epstein situation with multiple victims — that I can see. 

Gotta say though as a child/teen of the 50’s — I do appreciate the progression in making men accountable for their behavior toward women (other).

Same here, as a child/teen of the 60s I too appreciate any attempt to making abusers accountable. I tend to see or think that younger generations of girls/women don't have the same self-blame/self-shaming programming from days gone by and hopefully they would know to get themselves to a hospital for a rape examination to collect the perp's DNA and/or go directly to the police - I would hope.

I also think this type of law would make people think twice because now there will be that 'they can come for me in the future' threat.

Look at J. Carroll, she didn't have DNA she had a witness who corroborated location/date perp was there, and she told two women friends immediately after it happened who testified as to same, and she won. Civil court - all you need is a preponderance of the evidence or 50% belief that it was probable.

[CriticalStinker]

The unredacted list(s) were on X.com and the DOJ website they look authentic 

exhibit A

https://x.com/tHATsWEETbROWN/status/2021...49355?s=20

Exhibit B

https://x.com/AaronParnas/status/2021053...66370?s=20

exhibit C

https://x.com/TheRebelReport1/status/202...89320?s=20

I see names that weren't previously mentioned, which begs the questions why was the case closed?

In fact, I remember a few months back the FBI and DOJ telling us they had released everything, and the only thing that remained were CSAM and Victim names/information they were keeping to protect them. They attempted to gaslight the American people to feel like they were trying to get access to illegal material, or private data on victims if they wanted more transparency. 

And we have to ask ourselves, if they are willing to lie about all this to protect elites, what's to stop them from making policy decisions that will explicitly benefit them (like many admins have)?

I think the biggest rub is if there was a drain the swamp moment, this is it. Then again, we don't really hear that being part of the agenda anymore, and hasn't been since the campaign 10 years ago.

Edit: Also, if those are the ones that slipped through, I imagine there is a possibility (I would speculate a strong one) there are more names.

[ANNEE]

Same here, as a child/teen of the 60s I too appreciate any attempt to making abusers accountable. I tend to see or think that younger generations of girls/women don't have the same self-blame/self-shaming programming from days gone by and hopefully they would know to get themselves to a hospital for a rape examination to collect the perp's DNA and/or go directly to the police - I would hope.

I also think this type of law would make people think twice because now there will be that 'they can come for me in the future' threat.

Look at J. Carroll, she didn't have DNA she had a witness who corroborated location/date perp was there, and she told two women friends immediately after it happened who testified as to same, and she won. Civil court - all you need is a preponderance of the evidence or 50% belief that it was probable.

Hearsay is not a very reliable source of proof/fact/witness. 

I doubt J. Carroll would have won what she won — if Trump had a “cleaner” history with women. 

This might fall under special provisions. 

I can’t support a blanket law that you can accuse basically an unprovable crime 30 years after the fact. 

However — the legal system needs to be more respectable to victims of “sexual” crimes. You already feel guilty — even if it’s not your fault. 

What is the backlog on rape kits?

[Vermilion]

That’s a slippery slope. 

Minors — yes. 

I see too much opportunity for entrapment. Suppose you date someone when you’re both young and stupid. But later on they become famous and wealthy. I’m not OK with destroying someone’s life. Many have been harmed just by someone reporting abuse without proof. 

It would require undeniable proof. Which is next to impossible. 

Provisions for unusual circumstances — such as the Epstein situation with multiple victims — that I can see. 

Gotta say though as a child/teen of the 50’s — I do appreciate the progression in making men accountable for their behavior toward women (other).

Four co-conspirators, all women, plus Maxwell.

What is a woman?

[quintessentone]

Hearsay is not a very reliable source of proof/fact/witness. 

I doubt J. Carroll would have won what she won — if Trump had a “cleaner” history with women. 

This might fall under special provisions. 

I can’t support a blanket law that you can accuse basically an unprovable crime 30 years after the fact. 

However — the legal system needs to be more respectable to victims of “sexual” crimes. You already feel guilty — even if it’s not your fault. 

What is the backlog on rape kits?

Well, I believe the younger generations of people that are sexually assaulted will be more likely to go to the authorities and/or hospital for DNA collection these days, so there is evidence and of course the police/hospital staff are also trained to observe other signs of trauma. Not to mention all the surveillance video cameras all over the place, so it is much easier to place the perp and/or their vehicle in the area - you know that type of evidence that the police search for. Preponderance of the evidence!

As for rape kit retention, it varies by state, where the time limit is suppose to coincide with the statute of limitations, which, if the Bill is voted into law, will have no time limit of retention. Right now the longest retention period is in Idaho @ 55 years.

[putnam6]

I see names that weren't previously mentioned, which begs the questions why was the case closed?

In fact, I remember a few months back the FBI and DOJ telling us they had released everything, and the only thing that remained were CSAM and Victim names/information they were keeping to protect them. They attempted to gaslight the American people to feel like they were trying to get access to illegal material, or private data on victims if they wanted more transparency. 

And we have to ask ourselves, if they are willing to lie about all this to protect elites, what's to stop them from making policy decisions that will explicitly benefit them (like many admins have)?

I think the biggest rub is if there was a drain the swamp moment, this is it. Then again, we don't really hear that being part of the agenda anymore, and hasn't been since the campaign 10 years ago.

Edit: Also, if those are the ones that slipped through, I imagine there is a possibility (I would speculate a strong one) there are more names.

Speculate would be the keyword.

Those cases, the cases with enough evidence, have already been adjudicated...

You speculate on the redacted list, thats everybody the DOJ found that they had credible evidence AND witnesses to convict .

Not saying there aren't ones slipping through, BUT who has the smoke that we usually see if there is fire?

Did you watch the Anna Paulina video? on the evidence she saw in the SCIF

She believes it will take a brand new DOJ task force to get more evidence and perhaps approach those behind the NDAs and the other co-conspirators to even start to talk about indictments

In other words, even if we had fully redacted files, indictments and convictions will not be easy....

thats how I read it, and she is all for it