Like, let’s just step back and review what we’ve just witnessed. Damning and viral evidence ofremoved and abuse of little girls by presidents and the most publicly famous people on Earth. The democrats wanted the release of the files and now that they have them, there’s no response because they forgot they are weak and pathetic, and beholden to these same people in the files. So nothing will be done. These people are committing the most taboo of crimes in the open, with impunity.

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Dessa@hexbear.net 20 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I expected absolutely nothing to come of this, so I'm not disappointed when nothing does. My cynicism is my shield

[–] Carcharodonna@hexbear.net 39 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

They were doing this stuff before, the only difference is that now everyone knows about it. Doesn’t that seem like a good thing from the perspective of delegitimizing the capitalist class and the bourgeois democracy that keeps them in power?

[–] crazycraw@crazypeople.online 18 points 14 hours ago

yeah it's like why not form more perfect union?

[–] Dort_Owl@hexbear.net 29 points 13 hours ago

yes-honey-left

[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 27 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Apparently the black bars are over readable and selectable text in the existing dumps. Not all files but a lot of them. So you can select the redaction and copy paste it. You can also do a Ctrl+f in the docs and see it highlight redactions. I have not personally verified this.

[–] FumpyAer@hexbear.net 18 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Here is a github repo with a program that unredacts poorly done redactions: https://github.com/leedrake5/unredact

[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 11 points 10 hours ago

Have the unredactions revealed anything useful?

[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 5 points 12 hours ago

Hmmmm seems useful.

[–] LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 10 points 13 hours ago

i thought I saw a post about that on here but then I went through 3 pages from the front page and didn't see it again

[–] hamid@crazypeople.online 23 points 13 hours ago

Not really, nothing new. This stuff has been known for decades about these people in various dumps that get written off as conspiracy.

[–] DaMummy@hexbear.net 24 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

There's a saying, in many different communities, even some white supremacist communities (but that's a story for another day) that says "Success isn't earned, it's given". I've been thinking about that quote a lot with all this Epstein stuff going around. There seems to be some truth to it. They couldn't have possibly all earned their billions. It takes having to have blackmail on you.

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 17 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

They couldn't have possibly all earned their billions.

I've never read a good explanation as to how Epstein amassed his gigantic money horde. And reporters seem to have been insanely lazy in their efforts to find out. They always write that he somehow "convinced" a few billionaires into giving him train cars full of cash. They never say how.

---

Ninja edit

Here's a ~9,000 word NYT article from last week: Scams, Schemes, Ruthless Cons: The Untold Story of How Jeffrey Epstein Got Rich. I assume it's shit but I'll read it tomorrow anyway. I want to know but I assume it's like every other shit article I've read. It's filled with generalities and vagueness. I swear - some media outlets and journos write this shit to try to impress each other. Just give the public under 1,000 words and get to the fucking point. And if you're going to mention his mysterious billionaires connection without explaining it yet again - put that in your first paragraph so we know your reportage is copypasta crap.

[–] DaMummy@hexbear.net 10 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Best I've gotten so far is(not including from that article) that he was a teacher... So yeah. Utterly fucking useless piles of shit media. Though it is a weird coinky-dink that western media is literally owned by the Epstein class.

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 1 points 3 minutes ago

I assumed the article would be bad but the NYT surprised me. On a scale of 1 to 10 - I rate it a zero.

The article is fucking awful and it beggars belief. I only managed to read about a couple thousand words but I was already highly annoyed and irritated. I'm shocked at how awful it is. Besides it being garbage - they blindside the reader with a gigantic mass of information, details, and names. You'd need a flowchart to keep track and it would still be a gigantic slog to follow their ever meandering narrative.

What's fascinating and notable is that they don't say there was no evidence of a blackmail operation. They make it seem that any pooh-pooh any reasonable guess about Epstein's wealth is being a "conspiracy theory".

Abundant conspiracy theories hold that Epstein worked for spy services or ran a lucrative blackmail operation, but we found a more prosaic explanation for how he built a fortune.

The NYT actually pretends Epstein became a billionaire because he had "many extraordinarily lucky breaks" and that he was "a prodigious manipulator, liar, and scammer".

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 2 points 2 hours ago

Teacher + Brains + Billionaire connections + Investments + Hustle = Self-made billionaire

The average person looks at that as nonsense but that's because we haven't been to j-school and we have no idea how to understand that really fancy journalism math.