As wild as some of the stories in this latest drop are (not just sexual indiscretions, but blatant sex trafficking, and even murder), I can accept that they are just tips that came in to law enforcement. Maybe they are just rumors and nothing more.
But why are these young women name dropping names like Donald Trump? That’s what I find most disturbing. Even if not true, why is his name even being mentioned.
And, of course, I want to know how these tips were deemed not credible.
Some of the accusations seem in the same vein as the lady that was told by her spirit guide that Antony Scalia used to hunt humans. Since we live in a world with crazy people and liars, the merit of any one accusation - without any information about any deeper investigation - is difficult to say much about.
In general, I think that you’d want to look for any sort of pattern of behavior that comes from unrelated sources. That’s the sort of thing that might have meaning in a list like this.
Oh and the other value is to validate the completeness of the release. Per the document, for example, the first row says that an agent was sent to Washington to question the person who reported the matter.
That says that there’s an interview document somewhere. If that’s not found among the documents then it’s not a complete release.
Associated Press: Redactions inconsistent
You would think they would identify duplicates first, right?
Has the Justice Department showed such incompetence in data releases in past administrations?
Rhetorical question, I presume?
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico’s adviser resigns after reports linking name to Epstein case
Fico is too Trumpy to feel bad about his administration being harmed. But the general principle of not releasing raw law enforcement documents mentioning people against whom there is no probably cause is of course a good one. Who knows, maybe this guy is more or less innocent. I suppose the obvious response is that in the Epstein case normal law enforcement has so totally broken down that another approach must be taken.
The founder of 4chan launched /pol, the far-right message board where QAnon started, the day after a meeting with Epstein.
It would appear that the literal biggest conspiracy theory movement of the last decade was just part of an elaborate psyop to gaslight the American public as to which group of elitists was doing the child abuse.
Also, “PDF File” for “pedophile.”
Another embarrassment for the new CBS new chief, Bari Weiss: a newly hired contributor, anti-aging guru and influencer Peter Attia M.D. has turned up in the latest trove of Epstein documents, behaving quite badly.
Zoran Mamdani’s mother went to a Maxwell party. Of course, the folks who dislike him are eating it up even though there’s no evidence that she was involved in anything unsavory. I’m even seen a wild social media rumor that Epstein was Zoran’s dad.
Trump comments on the new release
Where, prey tell, are the Qanon believers?! The comments in the released email messages are rife with the exact sort of messaging that should send them in a tizzy.
I mean, the references to child sex trafficking are all right there.
Even more concerning, to me, is none of his communications seem to relate to business. Powerful business people? Yes. But nothing about financial investing, or other legitimate things that supposedly made Epstein wealthy.
I’m hopeful that if the Democrats win the midterms we will start to see some people publicly testify.
In the files, I presume.
Update: a rumor started by Alex Jones. Which is unsurprising.
Where?
The latest file drop literally included 40 unredacted images of child porn.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/01/us/nude-photos-epstein-files.html
But in the process of reviewing more than three million pages uploaded to the Justice Department’s website on Friday, The New York Times came across nearly 40 unredacted images that appeared to be part of a personal photo collection, showing both nude bodies and the faces of the people portrayed.
The people in the photos appeared to be young, although it was unclear whether they were minors. Some of the images seemed to show Mr. Epstein’s private island, including a beach. Others were taken in bedrooms and other private spaces…
The Times notified the Justice Department on Saturday of nude images that journalists had encountered and flagged more of them on Sunday. A spokeswoman said that the department was “working around the clock to address any victim concerns, additional redactions of personally identifiable information, as well as any files that require further redactions under the act, to include images of a sexual nature.”
“Once proper redactions have been made, any responsive documents will repopulate online,” the spokeswoman said.
Officials have largely removed or redacted the images that The Times flagged for them. The images appeared to show at least seven different people, although The Times did not seek to identify them.
Not even the Times say they were Child porn. Maybe?
The Times isn’t going to say it because unless they’re literally holding up their birth certificates for the camera there’s no way to determine their age for certain.
I am not restrained by journalistic timidity and am free to connect the dots myself.
From your link:
If the law in question is the Epstein Files Transparency Act, as I believe, it does NOT require protecting victims. It just says that withholding names and images of victims is “PERMITTED.”
If I was president, I would have vetoed that law. It doesn’t give nearly enough time to do a good job, even if they had started review months earlier. And a lot of what it requires to be released should not be as it violates the normal and proper rights of the accused.
It passed both houses by a veto-proof margin, and Trump’s ego won’t allow him to be publicly forced into doing something, so he signed it while declaring that that was exactly what he wanted all along.
There are bipartisan demands to explain why only half of the files were released, and further demands to allow the unredacted files to be examined.
Later Friday, Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, of Kentucky, the other half of the bipartisan duo that spearheaded the law mandating DOJ release the Epstein files, sent a letter to Blanche requesting an in-person meeting to review unredacted Epstein files material.
The response is, don’t worry about it, there’s nothing you care about in there anyway.
“We comply with the act, and there is no ‘protect President Trump.’ We didn’t protect or not protect anybody,” Blanche said when questioned by ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas. “I mean, I think that there’s a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents. And there’s nothing I can do about that.”
There’s obviously a lot of really damning stuff on Trump they’re desperate to hide.