3 ms·

One interesting thread to pull is "Stuff released and then Yanked back" ... Images removed from Epstein files less than a day after being posted - https://www.

• wahnfrieden 11mo ago
  Images were also planted to falsely suggest incriminating evidence.
  • wahnfrieden 11mo ago
    I see people are not clued into this and incredulously downvote because the file release appears to be in good faith to them such that illegal evidence tampering is out of the question See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46341688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46341688
    • zahlman 11mo ago
      The post you link to is deleted.
  • bryanrasmussen 11mo ago
    while true, it would probably be useful to provide examples. The one that I am aware of seems to be a picture showing Clinton, Michael Jackson, and Diana Ross with "redacted" victims https://www.imdb.com/news/ni65628031/ https://www.imdb.com/news/ni65628031/ https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.com/post/3mag7myutmc2d https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.com/post/3mag7myutmc2d however it seems that this photo is actually taken from a 2003 Democratic fundraiser, and the redacted images of victims were of Diana Ross' son Evan, and Michael Jackson's kids, Paris and Prince Jackson. This may or may not be accurate either, since I have not been able to dig down into the photo and determine if it has any connections to a supposed 2003 fundraiser. But it seems more likely to be true than not that this was sloppily planted evidence that was especially insultingly fake. on edit: looking closer does not seem to be exact same photos, but instead two different photos taken at the same time and place, so in the 2003 Dem fundraising, but a different photo of that. So it could be that Epstein had it and DOJ thought hey, look at these pervs! Let's release!!
    • Arn_Thor 11mo ago
      As you say, it's not the same photo. If the one in the dump was in Epstein's possession, the reason for the redactions are either that some drone in the DOJ just redacted all children out of habit, or that it was deliberately done in such a way as to frame Clinton. I can't decide which I find more credible.
      • bryanrasmussen 11mo ago
        I think if it hadn't been those adults with the kids an alert staffer might have thought "whose kids are these, these aren't young teenage girls, I better double check" But Michael Jackson, kids, Clinton arms around him, Diana Ross with young male, they're thinking they walked into an armory filled with nothing but smoking guns!
      • dontlaugh 11mo ago
        There’s no need to frame Clinton, there is plenty of evidence he was friends with and spent a lot of time with Epstein. Similarly situation with Trump, for that matter.
        • brookst 11mo ago
          It is perfectly possible, even common, to frame the guilty. It’s easier than finding real evidence.
          • dontlaugh 11mo ago
            Sure, but in this case there already is plenty of real evidence.
            • mlrtime 11mo ago
              There is actually no evidence that isn't circumstantial. Or correct me if I'm wrong? All the evidence I've seen is person A knew or spoke to Epstein. Where is the evidence linking any person to a specific sexual encounter?
• gazabbqparty 11mo ago
  [flagged]