Well, there’s Trump’s Secretary of Commerce arranging a play date on Epstein Island and promising to bring his kids AND another couple’s kids, all of which he lists off by age.
It sort of goes the other way: among other things, it accuses Robin Leach (“lifestyles of the rich and famous”) of choking a girl to death at a party.
We have reached the point where I’m not sure what counts as absurd anymore.
From the Guardian:
Blanche said that what was withheld were personal and medical files, documents depicting death, physical abuse and injury, as well as any depiction of child sexual abuse “that would jeopardize an active federal investigation”
(Emphasis mine)
I know there are rumors of about snuff films and men on Epstein Island murdering girls, but is this Blanche basically admitting the evidence is there? There’s some dark shit in these files.
Maybe, but not necessarily. Some of what was released involved details around Epstein’s death:
True.
Still, I just don’t know how to wrap my head around some of what’s been released. Are these anonymous tips? Police reports? Depositions? They’re heinous stories.
I would think that the competence level at DOJ has gone down a lot over the past year. If you could get a better job, wouldn’t you have quit? Maybe the Bondi DOJ cannot possibly do this correctly.
Not everything in the Epstein files is necessarily tied directly to Epstein and his island and all that. A bunch of stuff got lumped in there. Remember some random photo of Bill Clinton with Michael Jackson and Diana Ross, and both Michael’s kids and Diana’s son were in the photo. It was from a 2003 Democratic fundraising event in NYC for voter registration, and they blacked out the faces of the kids just because they were minors. It didn’t really have anything to do with Epstein as far as I know, and when folks first got hold of it, they thought it was something really scandalous.
Some of these files are going to be difficult to really grasp the relevance or importance of without proper context.
I think this is the hope - just dump such a massive number of files that range from credible to unverifiable anonymous tip to attention seeking person with mental disorders. Now the credible reports get lost in the noise of the ridiculous.
I believe these types of reports are tips that were made to the FBI.
It’s unclear what was done about them or what was discovered in any sort of investigation. But as you said, heinous.
NBC News links to a seven page document in the new release that is 100% redacted:
Age Verification | United States Department of Justice
Could be DOJ malfeasance, could be incompetence.
I’d argue that if you’re ever in the position to say “Despite what the DoJ has released, I never put my fingers into the vaginas of young girls at a country club while my own children were present,” you’ve already lost the PR campaign. You’re a terrible, terrible human being.
Here’s one that mentions Trump’s Fed pick:
Unless I’m missing something late at night, the redactions in the above link often make no sense. Why are the names of the senders of those email redacted? Could Epstein have had victims doing that kind of organizational work? And look at item 21 on my link. If you believe the redactions are for victims, that means, by the preponderance of the evidence (not proof!), that Warsh was traveling with a victim.
And what is the tiny redaction on line 22 about? I could make some guesses and but might be wrong about all of them.
I wonder if they had some sexist rule that if the name sounds female, and the name is not Ghislaine Maxwell, redact it. Even if you bought into the general principle, this rubric would lead to a great many accidents, such as when first names that do not align well with gender.
The one about Bill Gates is all over X.
A draft indictment with Epstein’s co-defendants redacted.
Blues Traveler is in the files.
(Insert “I never wanna do bad things to you” joke here)
What is SA in this context?
Sexual assault. “SA” is one of those neologisms people have come up with on Youtube and Tiktok to get around AI content moderators that demonetize or block videos for using naughty words, a la “unalived” and “grape” and “commit sewer slide”.
I’ve yet to see ‘grape’ in this context, but I wouldn’t be able to read it, just like I couldn’t read it here, without the Whitest Kids You Know sketch popping into my head.
Looking at the graphic in your post, most of redactions do not appear to be consistent with the enacted Epstein Files Transparency Act. See Section 2 under the heading “PERMITTED WITHHOLDINGS” for acceptable types of redactions:
Also in Section 2:
"All redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register "
I haven’t checked, but I presume the administration is not in compliance with the sentence immediately above – because if they were, I would be reading about how they justify redacting the identifies of persons who allegedly helped Epstein in exchange for money, which is how I would characterize most of the redactions in your graphic.
The Mueller report had a little subscript written on top of the black bars, with a code number to indicate the legal basis.
In the case, here, they largely seem to be saying that there are ongoing criminal investigations and they’re hiding stuff on that basis.
The problem with that being that they already said that there are no further crimes worth investigating (July 2025):
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl?hl=en-US
Likewise, they said that they couldn’t release the documents on time because they only had the space of time from the passing of the Epstein transparency law until the 30 days later due date. But the reality is that, per public statements by the government, there’s been an effort to declassify all of these documents since January of last year:
And then there’s the whole issue that the interview with Ghislaine Maxwell consisted of her saying:
- Epstein never did anything with anyone underage prior to the year 2000 (when Trump was hanging out with him).
- Maxwell had no idea of the activities that he was engaged in and wasn’t a participant.
Both of which are comically each to disprove and the administration would have been aware of, per a wide range of witness testimony.
But she said the above and the administration moved her to a nicer room and special time with puppies.
In general, I’ll accept a name or two being blacked out. But any release that wasn’t overseen by Maureen Comey, there’s no reason to expect to actually be honest about Donald Trump and what he’s seen and done.
We still just want to know, “What did he know, and when?” If the guy knew about kiddy diddling and didn’t report it, he’s got another star up next to cheering for a mob to murder his own VP if he won’t throw out the vote of the American people.