this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
457 points (99.6% liked)

News

35256 readers
2588 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
 

Advocates call for further disclosures after Trump’s justice department released more than 3m files last week

The release of about 3m Jeffrey Epstein investigative files has failed to quell outrage over justice department officials’ handling of these disclosures, with advocates claiming potentially millions of documents are still being withheld.

Donald Trump’s Department of Justice was required to disclose all investigative files by 19 December under The Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA). While the justice department did release some documents on that date, last week’s disclosure came nearly six weeks after this deadline.

The missed deadline and up to 3m files that remain unreleased have prompted criticism and calls for further disclosure to answer how Epstein sexually abused girls with impunity for decades and landed a sweetheart plea deal about 20 years ago that allowed him to avoid federal prosecution.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 0 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It's pretty clear they're saying they should only be redacted to protect victims, not perpetrators.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan -1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

They literally said that the full unredacted files are the only way forward. They were very clearly not saying that.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

it’s improperly redacted- exposing victims and CSAM

You are very clearly ignoring that they said this, meaning that some kinds of redactions are appropriate.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm very clearly not ignoring it because I addressed it in my comment. The contradiction between their two statements is the entire point of my comment.

They didn't say, "release the files with only the victims redacted." They said release the full, unredacted files.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

They did indeed, and using the context of what was said before that, you can reasonably deduce that they meant the full, unredacted files as far as the perpetrators go. You are being willfully obtuse by choosing to take the literal meaning of the last thing that was said and ignoring everything prior.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 0 points 5 hours ago

No, you can't reasonably deduce it. "Releasing the full UNREDACTED files is the only way forward," is an absolute statement. The context doesn't change this.

It's wild that instead of admitting they misspoke and meant there should be caveats, y'all are doubling down on intentions that were not present in the statement.