904
US justice department has released less than 1% of Epstein files, filing reveals
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2026
904 points (99.5% liked)
News
34073 readers
3006 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That 1% contains Trump's name hundreds of times and has credible evidence of him being party to his own child's infanticide
What could even be worse at that point
Actually, the tip doesn't allege that it was Trump's child, it alleges that Trump was present when her uncle killed the baby. It makes no allegation about who the father is, and sadly the list of candidates would be very large in that scenario. He was there near the birth, no claim about who was there for the conception.
I also hate to admit it, but that specific "credible evidence" was a tip submitted via an online form in October 2020. Certainly worth searching for/demanding more to see where, if anywhere, the tip went, but by itself it isn't credible evidence. There's so much more credible bad stuff about Trump that makes this quite believable, but until linked to more substantive stuff, probably best to stick to the more concrete stuff. I suspect there were quite a few crafted attempts at 'October Surprises' during the 2020 race and Epstein was a solid topic well known by the populace to try those sorts of things.
The more interesting thing about that particular piece of evidence is that it's concrete proof of what we already know: that they're censoring Trump's name in the documents.
Actually, that tip didn't even pretend to redact Trump's name. This was not one of the documents where someone had to highlight/copy/paste to 'defeat' the redaction.
There may be other places where they did redact his name, I don't know. I haven't bothered and the specific examples that people bothered to highlight weren't Trump.
They retracted it and then republished it with his name redacted.
I missed that, currently it's published without that redaction.... https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00025010.pdf
When did they redact it?
My bad it was a different Trump Epstein reference.
https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.com/post/3mahwlfgxdc2p
Ok, now that makes sense, and I can see the strategy.
Some unsubstantiated tip submitted during the 2020 election? Leave Trump's name in and emphasize how tenuous Trump's presence is in the Epstein files.
Your linked document appears to be a part of more substantial testimony, so redact Trump since it's not really suitable for debunking.