4 ms·
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 jus
by Arn_Thor 10mo 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 10mo agoI 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 10mo agoThere’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 10mo agoIt is perfectly possible, even common, to frame the guilty. It’s easier than finding real evidence.
- dontlaugh 10mo agoSure, but in this case there already is plenty of real evidence.
- mlrtime 10mo agoThere 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?
- gruez 10mo ago>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 They were supposed to redact all minors, not just "victims".
- wahnfrieden 10mo agoEveryone is distracted by the redaction policy discussion. The concern is that it is from a charity event that is seemingly unrelated to Epstein.