Some of the formatting weirdness is probably from HTML->plain text conversion. I suspect that the random "=" that frequently appear might be from sloppy GPG decryption on the FBI's part?

[–] VladimirLimeMint@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's just IMAP soft line break FYI

[–] i_c_b_m@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 days ago

I hadn't thought of that. These aren't raw email though; so what did they use to retrieve them that failed to parse/strip basic imap commands? Seems even weirder.

[–] MinekPo1@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

so were the emails encrypted ?

[–] i_c_b_m@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm curious about that myself. Seems like insanely bad opsec for someone associated with Mossad (to say the least) to just put all this out there on gmail servers in plaintext.

[–] MinekPo1@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

pretty sure saw some "sent from my IPhone" , which suggests apple mail , which only supports S/MIME encryption , same with "sent from my Samsung"/Samsung mail

[–] i_c_b_m@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 4 days ago

That's a good point. I've definitely seen some iPhone signatures in a number of the emails. Although, you can always copy-paste the encrypted text to/from any other tool. In which case -- and maybe I'm being too ungenerous here, two steps to compose or read an email does seem pretty complicated for people who can't write a coherent sentence.

[–] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The bourgeois literally pay people to think for them, im not surprised their interpersonal communications read so shitty

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 days ago

I thought about that in another thread. When you know you're truly above the law, does it really matter? Anything nasty comes out you can blame drugs?

[–] Evilsandwichman@hexbear.net 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Epstein was the same mental age of his victims

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That is kind of one theory of CSAs, that that is the age they were themselves abused. It seems to fit with certain cases, idk about all.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

The counterargument is that because they were abused with little recourse at that age, they might see victims of that age as easy prey with minimal chance of being caught.

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 days ago

Some, certainly. After all, at the end of the day, abuse of any sort is a power play. But it takes far more power to control our own inner beasts, and sheer willpower ain't it.

At any rate, that theory can not be applied wholesale across the board, not any other, imo. What can be is that the abused either grow up to become abusers or victims or both, without deep reckoning and usually some sort of professional intervention. I suppose there are exceptions, but I've never met any, in 3D, despite much protestation to the contrary.