Epstein client list, does it exist or not?

[Gary Patterson]

That's not the flex China thinks it is.

If the brother of Xi had been visiting Epstein's island, and it was reported to the South China Morning Post, Xi's brother would not be the one to go to trial.

Did that happen? Because if not, you’re just saying “Well, you’d do it too!” Which is the lamest of defences and it’s one Republicans constantly use.

I think until you have evidence of anything similar about the Chinese, you have to concede the point. Let’s prosecute actual crimes, not whataboutery.

 

[Coriolanus]

Quick google search for escorts in New York City shows on just one page (top result on Google) 600 available today, with 140 "visiting." Anything from 18 year old freelancers to pornstars.

Guess you're on a list somewhere now.

 

[Lt_Storm]

So, I just read an interesting article about how, when we talk about powerful men and rape, we are always talking about how they get away with it and never about why powerful men want to rape people in the first place, which is to say hegemony and patriarchy, which are obviously essential to understanding both the causes of these crimes as well as how they get away with them.

Honestly, this desire to avoid acknowledging hegemony and patriarchy is probably very helpful for people doing things like Epstein did. After all, to publically acknowledge that what they were doing is fucked up, you have to suggest that the way men approach sex is often fucked up. And, since hegemony prescribes that proper men should approach sex in a particular way, well, that would require behaving in ways counter to hegemonic gender roles. Which is to say, it's pretty easy to suggest that challenging powerful men raping women is an unmanly thing to do, at least according to patrriarchal hegemonic gender roles.

 

[llanitedave]

So, I just read an interesting article about how, when we talk about powerful men and rape, we are always talking about how they get away with it and never about why powerful men want to rape people in the first place, which is to say hegemony and patriarchy, which are obviously essential to understanding both the causes of these crimes as well as how they get away with them.

Honestly, this desire to avoid acknowledging hegemony and patriarchy is probably very helpful for people doing things like Epstein did. After all, to publically acknowledge that what they were doing is fucked up, you have to suggest that the way men approach sex is often fucked up. And, since hegemony prescribes that proper men should approach sex in a particular way, well, that would require behaving in ways counter to hegemonic gender roles. Which is to say, it's pretty easy to suggest that challenging powerful men raping women is an unmanly thing to do, at least according to patrriarchal hegemonic gender roles.

Narcissism, sociopathy and misogyny are not limited to the rich and powerful. It's not wealth and power that pushes monstrous men into raping, its the narcissism, sociopathy and misogyny, which is shared by poor and powerless men who also commit rape. The wealth and power is what helps them get away with it, unlike the poor and powerless monsters. So no, hegemony and patriarchy are in no way the why of rape, they are simply the cultural biases that allow it to go unpunished.

Fortunately, cultures change, and can BE changed, if society is determined to do that. If nothing else, the global revulsion cased by Epstein and his cronies may help shape the cultural changes that ensure that powerful men are made aware that raping women, or girls, or men, or boys, is specifically an unmanly thing to do, and that society is richer and more powerful than they are, and will not allow them to get away with it.

Rape will never be completely eliminated until the character flaws and self-justifying delusions that enable it are eliminated, but society can make certain that the victims can find justice, and that the perpetrators do not escape consequences. That will at least reduce the incidence of it.

 

[Lt_Storm]

Narcissism, sociopathy and misogyny are not limited to the rich and powerful. It's not wealth and power that pushes monstrous men into raping, its the narcissism, sociopathy and misogyny, which is shared by poor and powerless men who also commit rape. The wealth and power is what helps them get away with it, unlike the poor and powerless monsters. So no, hegemony and patriarchy are in no way the why of rape, they are simply the cultural biases that allow it to go unpunished.

Right because patriarchy and hegemony are limited to the rich and powerful. but, of course, that's bullshit.

Instead, they are the power structures and social expectations that lead to the desire. Sexual violence is rooted in gender inequity, a belief in male entitlement, the idea that virgins just aren't proper men, etc. Which is to say: hegemony and patriarchy. You teach men that those things are right, as our society do often does, and rape is the predictable outcome. Not because there is some inherent desire to rape people, at least not so commonly, but because we effectively teach men that rape is how they can prove their masculinity.

 

[dio82]

Right because patriarchy and hegemony are limited to the rich and powerful. but, of course, that's bullshit.

Instead, they are the power structures and social expectations that lead to the desire. Sexual violence is rooted in gender inequity, a belief in male entitlement, the idea that virgins just aren't proper men, etc. Which is to say: hegemony and patriarchy. You teach men that those things are right, as our society do often does, and rape is the predictable outcome. Not because there is some inherent desire to rape people, at least not so commonly, but because we effectively teach men that rape is how they can prove their masculinity.

Psychological and criminal studies are AFAIK unanimous: Sexual violence is about the excercise of power / demonstration of dominance.
It is the ultimate power play and demonstration of physical power over a percieved priviliged "other". Women have a monopoly on sexual access, so robbing them of that power is central to SA. It is not about "rubbing one out", it is the dopamine hit of establishing their dominance over a percieved priviliged "other". This mechanism cuts accross all societal classes and also genders. Perhaps with women there is the twist that they get the dopamine hit from undercutting societal norms / expectaions and exerting dominance over them.

How does this then tie in to our Epstein class?
In the billionaire class everything is about virtue signalling of power. It is the only motivation and metric by which they measure their self-image. So the above mechanism is dialled up to 11. Normal women aren't nearly good enough, it needs to be children. In addition they can virtue signal power by blatantly and openly committing criminal acts with no legal repurcussions. It is the ultimate flexing of power: "see, rules don't apply to me".
It also acts as a perfect filter to weed out access to the billionaire class. You only have sufficient power if you can demonstrate that you can rape with impunity.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

NPR details some 53 pages of missing documents from the released Epstein tranche.
https://www.npr.org/2026/02/24/nx-s1-5723968/epstein-files-trump-accusation-maxwell
It certainly points to information implicating Trump being withheld by the DoJ. Some files have not been made public despite a law mandating their release. These include what appears to be more than 50 pages of FBI interviews, and notes from conversations with a woman who accused Trump of sexual abuse decades ago when she was a minor.

NPR reviewed multiple sets of unique serial numbers appearing before and after the pages in question, stamped onto documents in the Epstein files database, FBI case records, emails and discovery document logs in the latest tranche of documents published at the end of January. NPR's investigation found dozens of pages that appear to be catalogued by the Justice Department but not shared publicly.

The Justice Department declined to answer NPR's questions on the record about these specific files, what's in them, and why they are not published.

Other files scrubbed from public view pertain to a separate woman who was a key witness for the prosecution in the criminal trial of Epstein's co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking. Maxwell is seeking clemency from Trump.

Some of those documents were briefly taken down and put back online last week, while others remain hidden, according to NPR's comparison of the initial dataset from Jan. 30 with document metadata of those files currently on the Justice Department website.
[...]
Of 15 documents listed in a log of the Maxwell discovery material for this first accuser, only seven are in the Epstein files database. Those missing also include notes that accompany three of the interviews. The discrepancy in the file for the Trump accuser was first reported by independent journalist Roger Sollenberger.

According to NPR's review of three different sets of serial numbers stamped onto the files, there appear to be 53 pages of interview documents and notes missing from the public Epstein database.

 

[llanitedave]

Right because patriarchy and hegemony are limited to the rich and powerful. but, of course, that's bullshit.

Instead, they are the power structures and social expectations that lead to the desire. Sexual violence is rooted in gender inequity, a belief in male entitlement, the idea that virgins just aren't proper men, etc. Which is to say: hegemony and patriarchy. You teach men that those things are right, as our society do often does, and rape is the predictable outcome. Not because there is some inherent desire to rape people, at least not so commonly, but because we effectively teach men that rape is how they can prove their masculinity.

Your argument, then, is that Ghislane Maxwell is the victim, and should be released? While in lesser numbers, women do occasionally commit rape, and not always at the behest of men. That alone is enough to illustrate that your purported root cause is simplistic at best, and the answer is not what you've comfortably settled upon.

 

[papadage]

Your argument, then, is that Ghislane Maxwell is the victim, and should be released? While in lesser numbers, women do occasionally commit rape, and not always at the behest of men. That alone is enough to illustrate that your purported root cause is simplistic at best, and the answer is not what you've comfortably settled upon.

No, she was a willing collaborator. Patriarchy does not mean that women can't also be scumbags. Just like institutional racism does not mean minority members can't be murderers.

Stop the bad-faith oversimplification of arguments. It's hard to take someone seriously when it's a race to the bottom.

 

[Lt_Storm]

Your argument, then, is that Ghislane Maxwell is the victim, and should be released? While in lesser numbers, women do occasionally commit rape, and not always at the behest of men. That alone is enough to illustrate that your purported root cause is simplistic at best, and the answer is not what you've comfortably settled upon.

Women, it turns out, often are as invested in patriarchy as the men are. I mean, being the wife of the patriarch is a pretty comfortable position; when your husband abuses you you are perfectly permitted to take it out on the help.

Really, you should just go read the article. You would probably understand it better after reading a few pages than just my summary.

 

[Lt_Storm]

Or, another way to put all of this, patriarchy is merely systemic misogyny. It's the system that is built on the idea that misogyny is correct; it helps men hold power over women and also demands that men align themselves into a pecking order which they must maintain by controlling their women and pecking on other men of lower social standing. Patriarch elevate a small elect of men willing to fulfill those roles into power and helps keep them there when they violate the law or the normal of decency. And patriarchal hegemony is the set of stories that justify that status quo.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Patriarchy incentivizes women to "police" other women in everyday contexts, let alone sharing in wealth and power.

 

[wallinbl]

Women, it turns out, often are as invested in patriarchy as the men are. I mean, being the wife of the patriarch is a pretty comfortable position; when your husband abuses you you are perfectly permitted to take it out on the help.

Really, you should just go read the article. You would probably understand it better after reading a few pages than just my summary.

I haven't read the article, but for the most part, people don't actually want freedom. They want someone strong to lead them, tell them what to do, what to think, and that they're safe. Actual freedom scares the shit out of most people, even though they don't realize it. It's disconcerting because you have to decide for yourself what's right and what to do, and there's no certainty in that. When you know clearly what to think and what to do because someone plainly told you the "right" thing to think and do, it's easy and it's comfortable.

But, no one is really willing to think of themselves that way.

 

[BrangdonJ]

Women, it turns out, often are as invested in patriarchy as the men are. I mean, being the wife of the patriarch is a pretty comfortable position; when your husband abuses you you are perfectly permitted to take it out on the help.

Really, you should just go read the article. You would probably understand it better after reading a few pages than just my summary.

I suspect labels like "patriarchy" only help here for people already woke^† enough not to need them. (And the article doesn't use the word "hegemony" that I can see.)

---

^† I'm not using "woke" in a pejorative way.

 

[Shavano]

I suspect labels like "patriarchy" only help here for people already woke^† enough not to need them. (And the article doesn't use the word "hegemony" that I can see.)

---

^† I'm not using "woke" in a pejorative way.

I'm guessing the use of the word in regard to rape is that it describes a system and most people think of rape as an individual crime rather than a systemic problem.

 

[Lt_Storm]

I suspect labels like "patriarchy" only help here for people already woke^† enough not to need them. (And the article doesn't use the word "hegemony" that I can see.)

---

^† I'm not using "woke" in a pejorative way.

That is indeed one of the bigger problems with feminism in general.

As for hegemony, I find the concept to be useful in explaining why people put up with such crap even when they themselves clearly despise the thing. Hegemony is what allows them, requires even, to come out and defend a things that they really hate. It's what explains why labels like patriarchy, feminism, and even egalitarianism tend to get such decrision even by people who otherwise agree with their conclusions.

 

[Mikie]

No, she was a willing collaborator. Patriarchy does not mean that women can't also be scumbags. Just like institutional racism does not mean minority members can't be murderers.

Stop the bad-faith oversimplification of arguments. It's hard to take someone seriously when it's a race to the bottom.

Maybe collaborator, but for sure a facilitator. I would like to think that the foreign powers that are actually prosecuting their powerful people will release those 53 pages. Assuming they won't "Use" them to get better tariff rates or other things against the person in those pages.

I can only imagine what those 53 pages say, if those were the worst of the worst pages, compared to what was released, how bad must they be?

 

[LTParis]

4Chan knew about Jeffrey Epstein's death 38 minutes before the rest of the world. The FBI tried to figure out how.​

Ain’t that damn peculiar.

 

[Stern]

Not really though. 4chan still gets something like 22 million unique monthly visitors, so there's a decent chance at least one user found out before it reached the press.

 

[flipside]

Or, another way to put all of this, patriarchy is merely systemic misogyny. It's the system that is built on the idea that misogyny is correct; it helps men hold power over women and also demands that men align themselves into a pecking order which they must maintain by controlling their women and pecking on other men of lower social standing. Patriarch elevate a small elect of men willing to fulfill those roles into power and helps keep them there when they violate the law or the normal of decency. And patriarchal hegemony is the set of stories that justify that status quo.

Or is it just plain hegemony (as in power, money) primarily and the femism/patriarch angle (not denying those issues exist) is just a smoke screen divider here.

 

[Lt_Storm]

Or is it just plain hegemony (as in power, money) primarily and the femism/patriarch angle (not denying those issues exist) is just a smoke screen divider here.

No, don't get me wrong here, power and money are indeed part of the problem, but, in a system like ours, where patriarchy is so deeply embedded, you can't really ignore it. It's no smokescreen, instead it (and the racist version) are deeply embedded in how the power and money propagate themselves in our society.

That's to say: in America, the hegemony that exists is of the patriarchal and racist sort. So, if you want to address our hegemony you have to address the patriarch and racism of it directly. In our society, power and money use racism and sexism to justify themselves as well as to model their acceptable use.

 

[Alexander]

This is sort of like saying, “yes it was uncovered that billionaires were hunting people for sport on Death Skull Island, and the authorities and social elites were helping cover it up or even participating, but the real fundamental problem here is that we live in a society where people want to hunt other people for sport “

 

[BrangdonJ]

[...] Which is to say, it's pretty easy to suggest that challenging powerful men raping women is an unmanly thing to do, at least according to patrriarchal hegemonic gender roles.

Maybe this is because I'm not woke enough myself, but I don't think that's what's going on. It's not that men are seeing rape and deciding not to denounce it for fear of appearing unmanly. It's that they don't see it as rape. Especially when it involves adult women who present as consenting.

There's a group of people that think that all prostitution is rape, and another group that doesn't think that. And I think that article is largely someone from the first group calling out people from the second group. They believe prostitution only happens becomes women are conditioned or groomed into it by patriarchal society.

I'm British so I have a particular interest in the then Prince Andrew. I grew up through a time when the royal princes were the most eligible bachelors in the country. Young women would pretty much throw themselves at them. For a while I was willing to believe Mountbatten-Windsor thought Virginia Giuffre was one of those. In the Epstein files there's an email from Maxwell saying that the infamous picture of Giuffre and Mountbatten-Windsor was taken at Giuffre's request, so that she could show her mother she'd been socialising with a prince, as an accomplishment to celebrate. That may or may not be true — Maxwell had a vested interest in portraying Giuffre as consenting, and the email is mainly interesting for confirming the photo as real and not faked — but I think it's at least plausible on the face of it, in that women like that existed even if Giuffre wasn't one of them. I think Giuffre was required to appear as consenting, even enthusiastic, to the men she was trafficked to, so those men may not have realised she was being at best groomed and at worse coerced. (What turned me against Mountbatten-Windsor was his subsequent reaction. If I learned that anyone I'd had sex with had been trafficked, I'd be horrified and want to do all I could to help. I wouldn't deny the sex had happened.)

So I think a lot of people who socialised with Epstein, including on his island, would have noted there were a lot of women around, and understood they were having sex out of marriage, but would have assumed they were there because, at best, they wanted to hang out with rich and powerful men, and at worst were paid prostitutes. They would have allowed those women some agency. And I think one of the sea changes in society over the last few decades is an increase in understanding of how real and effective grooming is. (This also applies to UK situations like the Rochdale child grooming gang.) And even today, with that understanding, prostitution remains a difficult area to deal with because, for me at least, it can be hard to say whether a woman is genuinely consenting or whether she only thinks she is. Merely asking the question can feel arrogant. (Again, this is all where adults are concerned. Nowadays we would not say that a 15-year-old had chosen that lifestyle, as some police said of Rochdale victims.)

It's now clear that Epstein wasn't just grooming; that violent rape was happening too, undeniably bad. But I'm still willing to believe that that was kept to a carefully curated inner circle. Many of the people going to Epstein's island would not have seen it. Even some of the ones having sex with the furnished women. So it's not that they were seeing rape and not denouncing it. It's that they didn't see it as rape, because what they did see wasn't violent, and they didn't subscribe to the view that the women were automatically victims because they had been conditioned by the patriarchy. But I agree they (the men) probably saw it as part of the natural order of things, because they themselves had been conditioned by patriarchy to believe that young women want to have sex with successful and powerful men. (And part of Epstein's appeal is that he flattered men into believing they were included in that category.)

 

[Mikie]

14TB of video and files from all cameras. My home server has 8Tb and 1/2 empty. Holds movies, songs, backups to numerous iPads, iPhones, and MacBook's.

So maybe this is on the low end, that being the storage we know about, much less other drives or swapped drives.

I bet his cameras didn't record Survivor or Amazing race, or CNN and some of the videos have found things... Some have leaked as PDF's renamed to MP4 and they played.

With some of the aligations, Cannibalism, human hunting, human experimentation, child pregnancy fetishism, red room tapes, animal rape, etc. If its ever been done by humans before, they've done it. Just the worst things you can imagine, depravity for the sake of novel depravity.

This is just a guess, I cannot wrap my mind around this. I want one of the other countries to release or just extridite some people here that cannot seem to be touched. With China now making fun of us, how can, or can we ever recover from this?

To be honest the number of high level people involved I am suprised any of this has come to light.

 

[thunderous_funker]

I've been very leery of following links in the later parts of this thread since I'm often on a work computer when reading the forum.

Can someone help clarify if the truly lurid accusations being discussed were credibly documented or just part of the FBI "tip line" and other gathering sources that may not be well substantiated?

Is there a reasonable taxonomy of some of these really grotesque activities and from what source categories they arise? Or perhaps a good SFW reference somewhere? I'm honestly trying to figure out how we got from what seemed like QANON fever dreams to what sounds like actual horrors that somehow no-one ever took seriously.

 

[timby]

Not really though. 4chan still gets something like 22 million unique monthly visitors, so there's a decent chance at least one user found out before it reached the press.

I was going to say, the odds of an employee in that prison or jail facility being a 4channer are definitely nonzero.

 

[Stern]

I was going to say, the odds of an employee in that prison or jail facility being a 4channer are definitely nonzero.

Or at the hospital where his body was taken. I would assume the news that they had Epstein's body on lying on a slab in the basement would have spread very quickly.

 

[Stern]

I would like to think that the foreign powers that are actually prosecuting their powerful people will release those 53 pages.

Does anyone outside the US DoJ have access to the full, unredacted files? AFAIK everyone is just going by what's been released to the public.

 

[Lt_Storm]

Maybe this is because I'm not woke enough myself, but I don't think that's what's going on. It's not that men are seeing rape and deciding not to denounce it for fear of appearing unmanly. It's that they don't see it as rape. Especially when it involves adult women who present as consenting.

I would argue that this comes down to "why not both", especially given how good people are at lying to themselves.

There's a group of people that think that all prostitution is rape, and another group that doesn't think that. And I think that article is largely someone from the first group calling out people from the second group. They believe prostitution only happens becomes women are conditioned or groomed into it by patriarchal society.

Whether prostititution amounts to rape is a question that depends on circumstances. If the prostitute is drugged out when you meet them, then yes, it is almost certainly rape. "Come fuck my drugged out wife" is a invitation to rape her. That isn't complicated. On the other hand, if the prostitute walks into the room stone cold sober and says "it will cost $1000", well, that isn't rape, some people do like to make money that way, and I for one will not shame them. Sex positive feminism is a thing after all, and it means it isn't my job tell women either how much or how little sex they should want.

Which is to say: the distinction between rape and not rape is fairly simple: consent; if you have it, it isn't rape even if it is prostitution. It is your responsibility to make certain you have it. And if you didn't bother to find out if you did before getting a chick drunk and fucking her well, there's a pretty good chance you just raped someone. So, don't be that asshole; do your diligence while everyone is relatively sober.

That said, there is something to how patriarchy likes to use power to complicate this. That is one of the larger reasons why societies where there is more gender equality suffer significantly less rape. And that, by itself, is a pretty good reason to think that the patriarchal norms you are discussing are a problem which we should probably address. And frankly, from my perspective, all this patriarchal baggage just makes sex less fun.

It's now clear that Epstein wasn't just grooming; that violent rape was happening too, undeniably bad. But I'm still willing to believe that that was kept to a carefully curated inner circle. Many of the people going to Epstein's island would not have seen it. Even some of the ones having sex with the furnished women. So it's not that they were seeing rape and not denouncing it. It's that they didn't see it as rape, because what they did see wasn't violent, and they didn't subscribe to the view that the women were automatically victims because they had been conditioned by the patriarchy. But I agree they (the men) probably saw it as part of the natural order of things, because they themselves had been conditioned by patriarchy to believe that young women want to have sex with successful and powerful men. (And part of Epstein's appeal is that he flattered men into believing they were included in that category.)

And this is why the article mentioned Gisele Pelicot, which is to say: an example of someone pimping their drugged wife out on social media. That kind of think is pretty clearly across the line and at least suggests someone ought do their due diligence. Perhaps the wife is ok with it (though, honestly, given she wasn't conscious, I don't really see how she could be). But, if you make that offer, the police should show up at your door to make certain that your wife is aware of what's going down and is cool with it. The fact that didn't happen for so long strongly suggests that men are far too happy to ignore rape happening in their sight.

I've been very leery of following links in the later parts of this thread since I'm often on a work computer when reading the forum.

Can someone help clarify if the truly lurid accusations being discussed were credibly documented or just part of the FBI "tip line" and other gathering sources that may not be well substantiated?

Is there a reasonable taxonomy of some of these really grotesque activities and from what source categories they arise? Or perhaps a good SFW reference somewhere? I'm honestly trying to figure out how we got from what seemed like QANON fever dreams to what sounds like actual horrors that somehow no-one ever took seriously.

To my knowledge, none of the particularly strange accusations are credibly documented. Rape, abuse, and murder to cover it up are reasonably believable if not firmly established. Cannibalism, human hunting, etc. probably not. Honestly, I sort of think that stuff gets thrown in for much the same reason that this has to be about pedophilia rather than us just being outraged about rape: we want this to be about monsters so that we don't have to ask difficult questions about things that are closer to home. And that says just about everything one needs say about patriarchy in this situation.

 

[thunderous_funker]

And consent is not a binary state. A person may have given consent at one stage of events and then found themselves coerced into something for which they did not consent. Our society has been utterly shitty at acknowledging and supporting victims in that scenario. Not to mention all the other factors when 'consent' isn't even a voluntary consideration due to drugs, alcohol, age, power asymmetries, etc.

There's nothing trivial about handling that from a criminal justice POV, but the critical baseline has to be to take it such accusations seriously. Whatever you are wearing, no matter if you drank too much, and even if you were somewhat aware of what kind of party you're going to, there is absolutely zero merit to the notion of 'deserving' terrible things happening. We need to scrub that shit out of our collective biases.

 

[Technarch]

Does anyone outside the US DoJ have access to the full, unredacted files?

Mossad and the FSB, at least.

 

[Lt_Storm]

And consent is not a binary state. A person may have given consent at one stage of events and then found themselves coerced into something for which they did not consent. Our society has been utterly shitty at acknowledging and supporting victims in that scenario. Not to mention all the other factors when 'consent' isn't even a voluntary consideration due to drugs, alcohol, age, power asymmetries, etc.

There's nothing trivial about handling that from a criminal justice POV, but the critical baseline has to be to take it such accusations seriously. Whatever you are wearing, no matter if you drank too much, and even if you were somewhat aware of what kind of party you're going to, there is absolutely zero merit to the notion of 'deserving' terrible things happening. We need to scrub that shit out of our collective biases.

And, at some point, miscommunication is inevitable, which is why open and frank communication before proceedings get started are the most important matter here, well that and actually respecting boundaries. Ideally, everyone would talk through boundaries well before the first piece of clothing comes of.

Honestly, so long as everyone continually strives for honest communication and does their best to respect whatever boundaries their partner offers, nobody is likely to be particularly upset. About the only place where that seriously breaks down is where power is involved. I mean, if sex is the cost of getting that promotion, well, now we are dealing with fairly corrosive forces which aren't easy to manage.

 

[wco81]

Does anyone outside the US DoJ have access to the full, unredacted files? AFAIK everyone is just going by what's been released to the public.

Would be cool if hackers got the files and released them all in unredacted form.

 

[CPX]

Would be cool if hackers got the files and released them all in unredacted form.

How would you know whatever gets released is the actual files?

 

[wco81]

Probably some subset would match up with the content DOJ has released?

And if it is fake, DOJ would have the burden to prove it's fake.

Maybe by releasing more files!

 

[CPX]

Probably some subset would match up with the content DOJ has released?

"That's AI generated!" Hell, the DOJ at this point would probably blame Claude since Anthropic dared to tell someone no.

And if it is fake, DOJ would have the burden to prove it's fake.

Under what logic? Hackers releasing anything claiming to be the remaining files likely gives the DOJ any more credibility than it deserves to scream FAKE NEWS petulantly to every camera.

 

[wco81]

They can claim fake news all they want, now a lot of Americans believe Trump was in up to his knees.

Even some MAGA is tuning Trump out on the Epstein issue.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Probably some subset would match up with the content DOJ has released?

Which is public. So not exactly firm, independent verification.

And I don't trust random hypothetical hackers to be meticulous about protecting victims, let alone sticklers for authenticity. At the very least there would be no chain of custody, like the doctored documents 'leaked' from Hunter Biden's laptop.

 

[CPX]

They can claim fake news all they want, now a lot of Americans believe Trump was in up to his knees.

Even some MAGA is tuning Trump out on the Epstein issue.

Yes, and hackers intervening give said retiscent MAGA cover to crawl back. You really need to stop underestimating the human capacity to disappoint.

 

[wco81]

Which is public. So not exactly firm, independent verification.

And I don't trust random hypothetical hackers to be meticulous about protecting victims, let alone sticklers for authenticity. At the very least there would be no chain of custody, like the doctored documents 'leaked' from Hunter Biden's laptop.

Unredacted versions of the redacted ones the DOJ released?