He's also friends with Captain Fingerpaint.
He works with Sergeant Play-Dough under the watchful eyes of General glue eater.
Jeffrey Epstein’s Brother Claims He Heard ‘from a Pretty Good Source’ That Epstein Files Are Being Scrubbed of Republican Names
7 months ago by vegeta to c/politics
SeeMarkFly 24 points 7 months ago
jdredbeard 32 points 7 months ago
We just need one to break ranks. I know it's unlikely, any whistleblower's life is pretty much over. But come one, it's time to wikileaks this shit
jaaake 22 points 7 months ago
One did. On a date. This made mainstream news 2 months ago: https://youtu.be/tx5F6llyaVw
Samuelwankenobi 118 points 7 months ago
As I've said before we are probably going to get two versions of the Epstein files the one edited by trump that will probably be released first and the real one that will be released later when Trump is dead or out of office in some way
ArmchairAce1944 77 points 7 months ago
The real files might be released decades from now when they are no longer relevant.
Samuelwankenobi 15 points 7 months ago
Yep that's the problem we might not see the real files until after Trump is long dead
maxxadrenaline 6 points 7 months ago
Better hope that hoarse throat is telling of something then
RoidingOldMan 28 points 7 months ago
Like the Mueller Report "summary"
CharlesDarwin 5 points 7 months ago
Much like the way that Barr did with Mueller.
Salamanderwizard 12 points 7 months ago
What are steps we should take when this happens? I'm not directly asking you, but more the room. Like what is gonna happen if he releases the files and only Dems are on it? That's what got me worried.
TachyonTele 18 points 7 months ago
Theyre going to pretend only dems were in it and use politics to go after them. And the news reporters will go along with it.
jdredbeard 9 points 7 months ago
Hundreds, possibly thousands, of vicitims are alive right now and can and will identify any perps one both sides of the isle.
Salamanderwizard 17 points 7 months ago
I hope the world takes em seriously. I'm so tired of folks. As a person who is married to a rape victim..that no one believed....it kills me folks don't take this shit seriously..
Don_alForno 6 points 7 months ago
Why are they not doing that right now? That's what I've been asking myself since Epstein didn't kill himself.
Rentlar 52 points 7 months ago
I think it depends on how much the implicated billionaires and some of the smarter Republicans are involved in editing the files.
If the Trump admin is doing it alone, I bet that this redaction will be completed so sloppily and incompetently, there will be enough crumbs and hints leftover that we'll be able to paint a picture to see more on how Trump and Republicans are involved.
criss_cross 6 points 7 months ago
Some of it may just be due to circumstances too. They were working nights and weekends tracking in an excel spreadsheet that was accidentally available to other agents.
So yeah like this wasn’t done slowly and methodically.
jaybone 11 points 7 months ago
I’m guessing the web of people involved is becoming difficult to manage. Like Bill Gates calls up and says hey don’t forget to remove my name. And then Bezos calls. And so on. If the billionaires start to become unhappy, I predict it won’t be another kid who couldn’t make the high school rifle club that takes the next shot. It won’t be maxipad on the ear week. But unless they redact like 99% of it, yeah it will be sloppy and fully of fuckups.
pelespirit 7 points 7 months ago
It won’t be maxipad on the ear week
I forgot that happened. JFC
Yawweee877h444 30 points 7 months ago
We know. That's why trump is now approving the release, he got word they've been cleaned.
ClassStruggle 20 points 7 months ago
He approved them because they are now part of an active investigation he asked Bondi to open last week. Can't release investigation evidence to the public
RememberTheApollo_ 28 points 7 months ago
Of course they are.
I would have been shocked had they not been.
snausagesinablanket 29 points 7 months ago
Do you believe they will comply?
nondescripthandle 52 points 7 months ago
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, even if they don't believe he will, they have no enforcement mechanic they're willing to leverage. They're gonna release heavily redacted files, call it a day, and wait for the media cycle to change.
Every scandal is just this image on repeat.
samus12345 9 points 7 months ago
snausagesinablanket 7 points 7 months ago
path: 0 20567519 20567889 20568027 20569052, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0
Don_alForno 5 points 7 months ago
And how would you know if that report will be telling the truth?
Formfiller 25 points 7 months ago
From a historical context when does the public start getting mad enough to guillotine the wealthy pedofile cabal?
MedicPigBabySaver 1 point 7 months ago
Not gonna happen.
nosuchanon 23 points 7 months ago
Maybe he should release the originals?
pelespirit 16 points 7 months ago
He did.
https://oversight.house.gov/...
Helpful tool to research the documents:
BlameThePeacock 20 points 7 months ago
That's not all of it.
defaultusername 16 points 7 months ago
Those are the Epstein emails, not the Epstein files.
pelespirit 4 points 7 months ago
True, but the family released what they had. That's a response to:
Maybe he should release the originals?
webghost0101 8 points 7 months ago
This is a legit official site??
This is an article on “the biggest political scandal in presidential history” not only does presidential use of autopen go back for decades, it reads like it was written by ai.
floofloof 8 points 7 months ago
Presidential use of autopen-type devices goes back hundreds of years:
The first president to use the autopen extensively was Thomas Jefferson. ... Since Jefferson, various US presidents have made use of the autopen; some were guarded about it while others were more open about its use. Whereas once the official White House position was to deny the existence or usage of the autopen, today its existence is more of an open secret.
Harry Truman was rumored to make use of the device; Gerald Ford was open about his utilization of the autopen, but it was Lyndon B. Johnson who blew the doors off the entire affair by allowing the device to be photographed in the White House, appearing on the cover of The National Enquirer with the article “The Robot That Sits in for the President.”
John F. Kennedy was so dependent on the autopen, that he became the subject of a book entitled The Robot That Helped to Make a President.
But sure, the biggest political scandal of all time is not putting a Russia-compromised 34-times convicted felon and serial pedophile rapist who aims to turn the USA into a fascist autocracy into the presidency twice, but when Biden used a machine (as Trump also does) to sign things.
pelespirit 1 point 7 months ago
This is the release of the files from the oversight committee. Yes, it's legit, lol. It depends on what committee is releasing what.
TropicalDingdong 7 points 7 months ago
Thanks for sharing this.
I've been running OCR on the images folder of the files since last week and just reached out to the creator to see if they want the data I've processed. Right now that entire graph is ONLY the "text" portion of the dump. There are 26k images, which are mostly pictures of emails and other documents. I'm like 80% through processing them (although I've had some hiccups in the past 24 hours).
TropicalDingdong 3 points 7 months ago
Its phenomenal. I have found a few places where it falls down, and its usually when the text is incredibly small. You can see its being down sampled before it gets handed off to the model. It falls down on like, one example I found, some bank disclosure documentation from bank of america:
It just came out as all I's and o's.
For the emails, book text, letters, etc.. I genuinely haven't found a place it didn't work correctly as I've been spot checking the output.
If you have colab you can just try the script I put up. All you need to do to have it run is to book mark the house oversite committee google drive folder to your local google drive.
pelespirit 3 points 7 months ago
Whoa, I hope they're interested. I didn't realize the pics info wasn't included. Thanks for doing all that work. I looked through some of it and there's a ton there.
TropicalDingdong 3 points 7 months ago
Yeah its ridiculous how much is in there. I'm pulling their current repo to see how they are building their DB so if they don't get back to me, I can at least combine the two databases.
And if any one reading this wants a copy of what I've processed so far, I'm more than happy to share.
But it looks to me like they dropped a couple hundred on just processing those text files. It would be north of 2.5k additional to process the data I'm creating.
That being said, mine only goes as far as extracting the contents and creating a sha256 hash to keep track of the documents themselves/ document tampering. It doesn't take the next step to extract names, locations, dates, etc..
I'm working that out now but it seems like the way to do this would be so it fits into their DB seamlessly.
just_another_person 19 points 7 months ago
Good fucking luck. These aren't paper files you can burn, and the reference trees are fucking DEEP.
Federal agencies use digital reference and versioning to make sure there is always a paper trail back to access and fucking with records. You can't go back and scrub these things just on the surface.
If you're familiar with code repositories like git or svn, it's like that. Anyone who accesses or changes a file is logged. Any deletions have revisions saved. All the links to external sources like court documents or witness testimony is kept on record similarly, and you can't go back and scrub the history like you could by just burning shit without breaking a whole bunch of stuff. There's always a source of truth in these systems.
I think they are imagining they keep access to these systems out of touch if anyone until Trump is safely out office is my guess. Then he thinks he can pardon it all away, but the history will be saved and accessible eventually.
Congress (or at least some of them) know how these systems work, and they'll find broken references or bad links to things that should exist and have gone "missing" once they dig in. I'd like to see the excuses for the disappearing of data when new subpoenas come out.
sudo 18 points 7 months ago
without breaking a whole bunch of other stuff
They have shown a penchant for doing exactly that. The Whitehouse is literally in shambles. People need to stop acting like anything they say or do would ever be in good faith.
just_another_person 7 points 7 months ago
Regardless of their intentions, you just can't hope and wish the underlying systems to obey your wants.
Think of it like you creating a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, except when it says to go to page 43, that page is missing. Or a reference to a character later in the book was missing from previous pages.
It's a digital statement of record, and attempts to alter the history of said statement breaks everything in the "future" created in this system. If you try and go back to delete stuff, the record will be broken if you break a link to something previously created.
They don't have the manpower to dump and completely recreate the entire FBI database to solely remove Trump's name from these files, and even if they did, there would still be references in documents to things that no longer exist, like "Evidence Document #328", and then it shockingly doesn't exist anymore? No fucking way.
just_another_person 5 points 7 months ago
path: 0 20567346 20568439 20569365, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
FluorideMind 19 points 7 months ago
I recently got heavily down voted for suggesting that if they release, we couldn't trust the validity anyway.
bold_atlas 14 points 7 months ago
And not a single victim's name will be redacted.
BanMe 14 points 7 months ago
The redacting has already occurred when Trump tasked the Justice Department with it, now it's in too many hands to be edited by one person. Senate committees and judges. The redacting that did happen was obviously not very thorough or else they were busy erasing really bad shit. Don't look for the guys Trump hired to have been very good at their jobs.
Trump's actually weak for once, this is one of several spears in his soft disgusting underbelly. Redistricting is not looking good all of a sudden, Texas's map was rejected but California's might yet stand, oops! Self inflicted wound there. So now he's suddenly being perceived as a lame duck because, how's he supposed to get a third term without Congress on his side?
Once they feel like the ground is soft, his entire party will run to a better camp... notice how other leaders are setting up big tents right now... his only threat is his ability to primary people, but that'll be gone in an instant when public perception slides out of his control. Trump is trying to stay ahead of it right now, playing it the usual way.
This article is just Jeff's brother trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. Bet he's got a book deal brewing. I do like that the media is showing this idea to people tho, lots of idiots read People.
Tl;dr I am not worried about it so much, Trump's undoing may be right at hand.
fodor 1 point 7 months ago
And Trump will immediately lose power a year from now unless he can find a way to change the Constitution to let himself serve a third term, which I don't think is very likely, and also he's old so no one really thinks he's going to live that long.
So I'm interested to see how long these sick bastards drag this process out.
Gammelfisch 12 points 7 months ago
Not surprised, but someone has the original and copies. Fuck the Government of Putin.
Morphite88 9 points 7 months ago
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
LuckingFurker 8 points 7 months ago
Then any redacted names must be a Republican, simple
ctrl_alt_esc 6 points 7 months ago
One thing I don't get about this whole Epstein files thing - there are multiple people who have already had access to all of them for quite a while, including many democrats, right? If there were anything incriminating in them, wouldn't they be required by law to report it and otherwise incriminate themselves? Where I come from there are certain crimes for which you are required to do so and I'm pretty sure human trafficking and abuse of minors falls into that category. Is that not the case in the US?
borari 6 points 7 months ago
I am not a lawyer and I do not work in one of the fields I’m about to mention, so this is just what I’m assuming based on things I’ve pieced together from articles and conversions I’ve had over the years, I might be completely wrong idk.
Afaik, there’s no law requiring a regular person to report a crime they’re aware of. There’s crimes I personally would report if I knew happened, but other types of crimes that I absolutely would not ever report because I’m morally/ethically opposed to that law existing. I don’t think I could get in trouble for that.
In the us, there are professions where the people in them are considered “mandatory reporters”. Teachers, CPS people, daycare workers, stuff like that. People in those fields will absolutely be charged if they don’t report a crime that requires mandatory reporting. I don’t think all crimes fall under that umbrella either though, I think it’s more just crimes against children etc. Like I’ve shared my media server with a person who is a mandatory reporter, but they’ve never reported me for distribution of copyrighted materials, and I’ve done drugs with another mandatory reporter and they didn’t report me for eating a bunch of mdma like a degenerate raver.
So I don’t think people in Congress are mandatory reporters, but if they are the crimes at the heart of the Epstein files would definitely be the kind that have to be reported. Also if they’re being briefed in closed door sessions on classified materials, obviously the classification handling procedures would supersede the mandatory reporting requirements. I think, that’s actually an interesting question, is there someone with clearance mandatory reporters can report to if they’re coming across reportable stuff in classified materials? Idk.
Hopefully someone comes along who knows a bit more than me about this stuff.
ultranaut 5 points 7 months ago
I don't understand this line of thinking. The Epstein files are the product of criminal investigations. The DOJ has the files and so anyone who has seen them thus far would be authorized to access them by the DOJ (primarily FBI agents and DOJ lawyers). There isn't any scenario where people like that would be obligated to publicly report incriminating information in the Epstein files. That's exactly why the DOJ created the Epstein files, to gather incriminating information that can potentially be used in court by Federal prosecutors. If you are under the impression that Democratic politicians have access to the Epstein files, that is not correct.
ctrl_alt_esc 3 points 7 months ago
If you are under the impression that Democratic politicians have access to the Epstein files, that is not correct.
I was under that impression, yes, weren't they given access some time ago? Seems like I was wrong, thanks for the info!
ultranaut 5 points 7 months ago
No. They have access to a variety of things (e.g. Epstein's estate provided them with a bunch of his emails) but they just voted to force the DOJ to release the Epstein files, it has not happened yet.
tinfoilhat 5 points 7 months ago
Edit > Find > Replace
F: Trump R: BIDEN!!!
Result: Donald BIDEN!!! is the dog that hasn't barked.
TankovayaDiviziya 4 points 7 months ago
Insert all idioms that emphasise at how obvious it is.
yakko 2 points 7 months ago
I haven't seen anyone talk about how that's only a win for the evidence tamperers if there are no clean copies in the hands of other actors - and it's absurd to imagine there's not. All they've done is put themselves in the power of another (likely to be a state actor), and probably one they were already vulnerable to, if I'm any guess.
demizerone -1 points 7 months ago
I'm rest assured these democrat fucks will take everyone down with them.
politics
@lemmy.world
30158
30920
9765
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
politics
@lemmy.world
30158
30920
9765
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
I wasn’t aware Jeffrey’s brother knew Captain Obvious
save