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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
Isn't this huge?
Like, put aside your "they can do anything" caps. Isn't this prosecutable and actionable?
My guess is there's other crimes/compliance failures going on.
(I posted this elsewhere already)
What documents, I wonder? It's not like there's going to be forms documenting "hey we killed this guy" that need to be shredded, we already have suspicious visitor logs and the medical records and so forth, like... what would they have wanted to shred? And why shred it there, instead of just taking it as part of the investigation and disappearing it like they did with so many other documents?
So people in pedokistan can proudly, unironically say "do you have evidence to your claims?" like it's some sort of gotcha.
They think they have a moral high ground with the levels of cover ups for atrocities they have had all throughout history.
But they're quite confident any claims about their political or geopolitical opponents are 100% accurate without any evidence.
They know it works so they do not hide destroying evidence.
They could be destroying evidence of weaknesses in their security procedures, or evidence of strong security procedures that were not followed around the time of Epstein's death. They could be destroying evidence that indicates who was around, who was responsible for his oversight, maintenance records for security cameras that "failed", or any number of things. It could just be "we fucked up and the FBI are going to be looking into everything, so destroy everything that might suggest we're incompetent." Creating unclarity by destroying documents can hinder an investigation in many ways. It certainly merits attention.
Except that we have all those records. We know who was responsible for him, who was on duty, when the cameras were last supposed to be serviced, his medical records, his transfer records, the access records for the facility and his ward in particular, the list goes on. Shredded documents don't take up that much space - to produce remarkably large amounts would require a ton of documents to be shredded, and I'm struggling to figure out what documents could be plausibly contributing to both that excess volume and at the same time be part of the coverup.
Correspondence between two bff's
We don't have much of his correspondence from prison, no - if that's because it was shredded, didn't exist or just haven't been released who knows, but that wouldn't account for several bags of additional shredded documents. But this group was tasked with document preservation - so of course they destroyed documents, that's literally their job. What is there to be gained from investigating if documents we can't know existed have been shredded - instead of just looking at the documents we do have?
We already know literally every single billionaire and every politician youve heard of who didmt get shamed for hiring a sex worker or assassinated for not being fasch enough is part of a pedo island cabal. If that's not enough to act on, what is?
You want the fucking details? You want to know what orifices they liked to penetrate or specific ages of victims? How do more details help? What could possibly be in there that changes anything? It's just voyeurism at this point. Act or don't.
I can't tell if you think investigating this is a good or bad thing
It's just voyeurism at this point. Celebrity gossip. You know already if and what you want to do about it.
The way that government systems work is that there are a ton of redundancies and there are usually hard copies. If they had documents with just the coming and going of people who visited, in theory investigators can put together timelines. I wouldn’t be surprised if the DOGE people destroyed digital records.
If you know that a lot of this stuff may get out, destroying any trails of evidence disrupts the process.
I’m not saying I know this happened but it does make me wonder.
That's not really how government systems work, spoken as a government data wonk. They don't have exhaustive records on anything except the most sensitive data, and hard copy archived records are even more uncommon. I have never worked on a project where we physically archived our work - but from working with archived prison data, the only hardcopies were some limited categories of case reports, billing and prisoner records (medical, social/legal and case reports). Visitor logs, shift rosters, employee communications, memos, etc. were all required to be retained for at most a week and were never hardcopied unless they were going to be put on a corkboard or put in a binder report or something mundane like that, which is why it's so notable that we do have those things in this case. Clearly they were saved for a reason.
I just can't imagine what bags and bags of shredded records they could have possibly added that were part of the coverup but didn't merit being taken as part of the investigation. Surely if they were doing this, they would have shredded everything incriminating?
Well when I worked in government we had a ton of paperwork all over the place. Was early 2000s and we were scanning everything into archives. Maybe things have changed.
I would imagine the prison holding the most notorious and infamous people would have more records than even a normal federal prison.
But maybe not. If shit was destroyed the medical and incoming/outgoing records would be the only things that I would think relevant to destroy. And destroying it all is probably better than just destroying specific items. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Things have for sure changed, but almost exclusively in that the attitude has become that while there's still lots of paperwork, said paperwork is now the bulk of what's shredded. If it's not worth digitizing it's not worth archiving, and once it's digitized why do you need to keep the hard copies? It's far easier to store a few boxes of 40TB LTO than it is the millions of documents they contain. As a result practically nothing is worth archiving as hard copies.
I don't know why MCC would have been any different - it wasn't a supermax or something fancy, it was mostly just a holding facility for people pending trial / a glorified jail.
Yeah. IDK. This facility holds high profile people who are indeed awaiting trial. If I was there I would probably want to keep good records. But like I said, it’s all conjecture.
I was thinking along the lines of documents within a few days of his death.
Obviously this is just my imagination at this point but if I was gonna kill someone and wanted to leave as little evidence as possible I would probably burn it all. Destroying everything I could find would be the next best thing. If I were there for nefarious reasons, I wouldn’t want even a scribble of a note in a some document margin saying I was there.
All that to say, it may be good to investigate what/if things were indeed destroyed.
While I agree, my issue here is that the investigation saved so many documents that were incriminating. There's not much to investigate in the destruction of documents since document destruction is absolutely routine - it just seems pointless to investigate it since those documents will have already been destroyed, and we have heaping mounds of documents from that same time frame that are already massively damning and which may indicate missing records id they're ever actually examined.
Totally fair. But to destroy evidence they probably had to involve more people. Conspiracies collapse when there are a lot of people. If they can flip one of the lower players, they can work their way up the ladder. A random security guard probably can’t afford a lengthy legal battle. Isn’t that how investigations usually go?
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean.
No worries. Wasn’t clear. I’m saying they should investigate to see if they catch one of the guys doing the shredding. If they find them, prosecutors can try to “flip” them. Get the person to give up (or turn) who told them to destroy things.
Imagine Bill Barr ordered the destruction. The guy he ordered could turn him in.
We know that, though - according to this it was ordered by the BoP team, and they aren't some unknown group. If you mean who were ordering them then yeah, there may be something there - but they haven't flipped yet, and if they were in on the conspiracy it's weird they left so many incriminating documents unshredded which were then later released.
There’s a reason that they say: “It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.”
Don’t underestimate what people will do when they think they are up against a wall.
In this case the cover-up has been pretty good.
But nobody's up against a wall here - they saved tons of relevant documents, plenty of it incriminating. Beyond this vague claim that there was more shredding than usual, there's no evidence that this was part of the coverup - that there is a coverup is obvious, but then they keep releasing documents that could have been destroyed by the BoP team and weren't, and which make them look just awful. I don't see what there is to gain from investigation into documents destroyed by Team Document Destruction! when we already know they both destroyed lots of documents and didnt destroy ones that punch big holes in the coverup.
I, too, am curious. So we should investigate, right?
If we can't establish a reason why, no not really. This isn't suspicious on it's own - there's shitloads of evidence they didn't shred that's pretty damning, and prisons shred all kinds of documents. It's way more reasonable, if this report is true, for the explanation to be something like "they weren't shredding documents because of the investigation, and once they'd gone through and picked everything important out, the remainder was shredded". That fits with my experience being inspected like this, explains why they still have piles of incriminating unshredded evidence, why there would be a sudden surplus of shredded records and why they'd be bothering to shred sensitive documents at the prision (they were normal documents that had just gone unshredded while they were being investigated.)
There's so much more that can and should be investigated here, this just seems like clickbait.
Wow
Wow...?
No one should read past you saying this shouldn't be investigated.
So you've got a reason why a vague report of documents being shredded should be explicitly investigated, instead of investigating the mountains of documents that this group saved and which have already been highly incriminating?
It just seems like a real waste of time to investigate the destruction of documents by a group of known individuals whose job is to selectively destroy documents. What is there to gain?
Understanding is to be gained. You can dance around that all you want but it's clearly suspicious even if there was no wrongdoing
Understanding of what, though? We already know they destroyed documents, and there's mundane procedural explanations for the hypothetical discrepancy in amounts, and the group under suspicion has demonstrated they kept plenty of incriminating documents unshredded. What's the question an investigation here would answer?
Are you really trying to suggest that investigation should only happen if you already know what you'll find? This is so intelligence insulting I don't know if you're calling me stupid, you stupid, or both. 👋
Nnnnno, I'm suggesting that unless you have a question that you want answers to there's not much point in investigating something. Even a fact-finding mission has a goal, so whats the goal with investigating this?
"why were these fucking files destroyed?"
How is that not abundantly obvious? Answer: it is.
Yeah, this is exactly my initial point. You already have that answer - the BoP's team's job was to, among other things, preserve relevant material (ergo the rest aren't preserved). Shredding documents is so routine that they have a shredded document dumpster, so presumably documents are regularly shredded when they are deemed not worth preserving.
I admittedly didn't read the article, but if anything people are saying itt is true then some investigation would be required. Honestly I am way too fatigued to read every article about these fascists. If I hadn't seen 100 pieces of undeniable evidence about their crimes, I'd probably be less likely to make quick judgements like these 🤷♂️
While I 100% understand and sympathize with the fatigue, maybe you should read the article before you spend a couple hours calling someone stupid. At the very least it would give you more ammunition.
you spend a couple hours calling someone stupid
This is not what happened. At all. So I'm back to assuming anything you said is false.
This is so intelligence insulting I don’t know if you’re calling me stupid, you stupid, or both.
You use the term stupid to describe what I'm saying, and repeatedly insult me / my argument while admitting you don't have context for what you're arguing about. So yes, that's exactly what happened.
No, it isn't
I went back and re-read because your lies made me second guess myself. Nope. At no point did I even imply you were stupid. I said you seemed to be calling me stupid. So awesome convo man. I'm so convinced that we should absolutely not investigate this. /s
You literally use the word "stupid" to characterize my arguments, I don't... know how you could possibly be denying that.
Absolutely a lie and you know it. Blocking you now
Dear sweet jesus what just happened.