21 ms·

Yes, it has been redacted far in excess of what the law allows, and the material is a tiny fraction of what the administration was required by law to release by

by medler 10mo ago

Yes, it has been redacted far in excess of what the law allows, and the material is a tiny fraction of what the administration was required by law to release by this date

wahnfrieden 10mo ago
Images were also planted that were not part of the files.
- epistasis 10mo ago
  Planted by whom? That were not part of the files? That seems dubious at best. What is your source? It doesn't even make sense.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
  - dboreham 10mo ago
    Makes sense if you are a criminal.
  - 9dev 10mo ago
    There is a picture of Bill Clinton with Michael Jackson and Diana Ross that was just publicly available before: https://www.threads.com/@meidastouch/post/DSfEKJslM1H https://www.threads.com/@meidastouch/post/DSfEKJslM1H It doesn't belong into the Epstein Files, and doesn't need to be censored either, but the way it is framed in the DoJ release implies guilt where there is none.
    - _heimdall 10mo ago
      How can you be sure the image wasn't part of the files collected during investigation? What makes you so sure Epstein didn't have the file saved somewhere on a device, server, or account that was collected?
      - 9dev 10mo ago
        I don’t think I expressed a particular opinion here, I just stated where the suspicion comes from. That being said, I think we can demand a level of due diligence from public institutions that entails only censoring actual victims on actual pieces of evidence, instead of mindlessly placing black squares on the faces of news article pictures found on his computer. Nevermind that nobody can explain yet how this particular picture ended up in the grand jury files anyway.
      - goatlover 10mo ago
        This is the same DOJ that released the edited Epstein jail video as "raw", with the attorney general claiming the missing minute was from how the video system reset for a new day, when they had the actual raw video with the missing minute.
        _heimdall 10mo ago
        Yes, though that was a different situation. If my wallet goes missing I'm not going to immediately blame a person while previously stole something with no other evidence.
- edm0nd 10mo ago
  Surely you can link me to the exact "planted" images you are talking about... who planted them?
  - Zambyte 10mo ago
    https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.com/post/3mag7myutmc2d https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.com/post/3mag7myutmc2d Here's at least one notable image.
    - Arn_Thor 10mo ago
      That's not the exact same image, though. It's a separate image, from the same time and place. The one released may have been in Epstein's possession and therefore part of the files. Either some DoJ drone just redacted all children and non-celebrities due to procedure, or it was deliberately done in such a way as to make Clinton and Jackson look suspicious. Whatever the reason, this was not a Getty stock image planted in the files.
      - Zambyte 10mo ago
        You can see the erroneously redacted image here: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r38ne1x2mo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r38ne1x2mo
        Amezarak 10mo ago
        It wasn’t erroneous. The DoJ said they were redacting the faces of all non-celebrity women and children under the presumption they could be victims.
        Arn_Thor 9mo ago
        In that case it makes perfect sense
        Arn_Thor 9mo ago
        I know what picture we're talking about. 1) it's not the same as the Getty stock image everyone seems to mistake it for. 2) we don't know if the redaction is erroneous or intentionally misleading, but either way the non-celebrity faces were redacted even though another image of them exists in the public domain. Probably easier to just apply a blanket policy when handling all these images rather than observing edge cases.

by medler 10mo ago

Yes, it has been redacted far in excess of what the law allows, and the material is a tiny fraction of what the administration was required by law to release by this date

wahnfrieden 10mo ago

Images were also planted that were not part of the files.

epistasis 10mo ago
Planted by whom? That were not part of the files? That seems dubious at best. What is your source? It doesn't even make sense.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- dboreham 10mo ago
  Makes sense if you are a criminal.
- 9dev 10mo ago
  There is a picture of Bill Clinton with Michael Jackson and Diana Ross that was just publicly available before: https://www.threads.com/@meidastouch/post/DSfEKJslM1H https://www.threads.com/@meidastouch/post/DSfEKJslM1H It doesn't belong into the Epstein Files, and doesn't need to be censored either, but the way it is framed in the DoJ release implies guilt where there is none.
  - _heimdall 10mo ago
    How can you be sure the image wasn't part of the files collected during investigation? What makes you so sure Epstein didn't have the file saved somewhere on a device, server, or account that was collected?
    - 9dev 10mo ago
      I don’t think I expressed a particular opinion here, I just stated where the suspicion comes from. That being said, I think we can demand a level of due diligence from public institutions that entails only censoring actual victims on actual pieces of evidence, instead of mindlessly placing black squares on the faces of news article pictures found on his computer. Nevermind that nobody can explain yet how this particular picture ended up in the grand jury files anyway.
    - goatlover 10mo ago
      This is the same DOJ that released the edited Epstein jail video as "raw", with the attorney general claiming the missing minute was from how the video system reset for a new day, when they had the actual raw video with the missing minute.
      - _heimdall 10mo ago
        Yes, though that was a different situation. If my wallet goes missing I'm not going to immediately blame a person while previously stole something with no other evidence.
edm0nd 10mo ago
Surely you can link me to the exact "planted" images you are talking about... who planted them?
- Zambyte 10mo ago
  https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.com/post/3mag7myutmc2d https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.com/post/3mag7myutmc2d Here's at least one notable image.
  - Arn_Thor 10mo ago
    That's not the exact same image, though. It's a separate image, from the same time and place. The one released may have been in Epstein's possession and therefore part of the files. Either some DoJ drone just redacted all children and non-celebrities due to procedure, or it was deliberately done in such a way as to make Clinton and Jackson look suspicious. Whatever the reason, this was not a Getty stock image planted in the files.
    - Zambyte 10mo ago
      You can see the erroneously redacted image here: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r38ne1x2mo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r38ne1x2mo
      - Amezarak 10mo ago
        It wasn’t erroneous. The DoJ said they were redacting the faces of all non-celebrity women and children under the presumption they could be victims.
        Arn_Thor 9mo ago
        In that case it makes perfect sense
      - Arn_Thor 9mo ago
        I know what picture we're talking about. 1) it's not the same as the Getty stock image everyone seems to mistake it for. 2) we don't know if the redaction is erroneous or intentionally misleading, but either way the non-celebrity faces were redacted even though another image of them exists in the public domain. Probably easier to just apply a blanket policy when handling all these images rather than observing edge cases.