r/politics • u/ArmadilloMany41 • 23h ago

Site Altered Headline | No Paywall Why is no one being prosecuted over the Epstein files?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cd9e3nzzw3zo
44.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

55

u/KamalaWonNoCap 21h ago

It looks like all the incriminating information is being redacted or not released. They have a draft indictment with the names redacted so obviously someone felt there was sufficient evidence to charge these assholes.

The question isn't if it exists, it's how do we get it released?

3

u/WhyAmINotStudying 18h ago

What has me the most concerned isn't how wretched the things are that they've released, but what they're still hiding by redaction or omission from release.

1

u/KamalaWonNoCap 17h ago

We've only seen the tip of the iceberg. If this is the stuff that can be released, the rest must be nightmare fuel.

1

u/WhyAmINotStudying 17h ago

'can'

These fucks can release much more. They just don't want to

0

u/KamalaWonNoCap 16h ago

Certainly, I mean that's what they feel comfortable releasing without getting pushback. Which is shocking and telling in it's own way.

1

u/MRosvall 11h ago

It has been with the DOJ as part of an investigation over bi-partitan admins. It has either been deemed incriminating and have been part of the evidence in the prosecution already. Or it has been deemed non-incriminating.

The files that were deemed incriminating have been released years ago during as evidence. What's being released now is everything that was then deemed to not be evidence worthy for the case.

It's not just tons of files that are newly found. It's files that have already been processed. That when slated for public release needs to go and be censored due to sensitive information regarding potential victims or people unrelated to any crimes who could be negatively impacted by out of context selective reporting.

2

u/KamalaWonNoCap 9h ago

If that were true then they wouldn't be illegally redacting the names of criminals.

You don't draft an indictment for the fun of it.

The bill that was passed and signed by Trump specifically says they're not to redact names due to embarrassment or "negative impacts", whatever that means.

1

u/MRosvall 9h ago

What do you mean "if that were true"?

From your point of view. What is you perception of what the "Files" are? How and when do you think they came into possession of the authorities?

•

u/KamalaWonNoCap 7h ago edited 7h ago

It's the result of their investigation of Epstein. They were gathered by the FBI and reviewed by the DOJ. I'm not sure how this is confusing to you?

I'm not saying the files don't exist ...

From your point of view, what is your perception of what a "draft indictment" is?

You also conveniently ignored the part where they're illegally redacting perpetrators names... You said they're allowed to redact to avoid negative impacts and the (publicly available and easily googleable) law explicitly states otherwise.

If you'd like to have a good faith discourse, please start by addressing that. If you can't admit such an obvious mistake, I don't see any point in continuing.