I want to see that list. I hope no names are redacted.
Instead of redacting them, they should turn them into anagrams. :)
Clint Lil Nob
Abba Amok Car
Portland Mud
Clinton and Trump were reported to have some connections, then also was one from British royalty (don't care enough to know which one), also Gates, but was Obama his friend too?
No, zero evidence on Obama. Proven in a court of law Trump is on there and it's widely known Bill Clinton is on there, this person is just adding a president.
Didn't we already see the list in the form of the black book that was released years ago? I felt like it came out, and people were like "yep, that makes sense" and then nothing changed.
I’m sure that somehow some of the names will be left off the list “by accident”.
There's a very wealthy foundation that will stop that from happening. And there's a reason Melinda left Bill.
What reason?
Do you have a better source than a nesweek article that is completely based on unproven tweets?
I just did a quick google search to try and find anything in the other persons claims but there is
NYTimes which I can’t access because of paywall
A BBC article of bill gates admitting he had meetings with Epstein
And that’s what I can find after looking for a couple minutes.
Bill gates has publicly spoken about his meetings with Epstein, that's well known and public knowledge at this point.
I believe what's being asked for is more concrete information on why Melinda left Bill Gates and if Epstein had anything to do with it.
Something something Panama Papers... 🤬🖕🏼
They led to over 150 cases of severe consequences in Germany. Beginning with very high tax "recalculations", company closures, heads rolling (firings in some of the affected companies or the end of some political careers, like Bert Meestadt or Nawaz Sharif's dismissal from office) to actual imprisonments. 71 Million Euros of "additional" Taxes have already been payed, Mossack is wanted by Europol, and many many more.
Many cases are still open - justice takes time.
To say nothing happend due to the Panama Papers is just blatantly misleading and utterly untrue.
That's cool, but it has zero impact on everyone that isn't in Germany.
the names will come out, people will make a big deal for a couple days, the authorities in charge will go "now now, you've got to understand", then people will move on to the next thing and the people in charge will go back to very publicly fucking children.
I think you're right. We're going to see some expected names, some unexpected names, and some randoms.
The unexpected names are already working on how they'll publicly say they weren't involved like that and without any further evidence it'll all just fade.
We'll say yeah, we kinda expected that guy to be an Epstein island tourist. But hey, there are still-sitting politicians who we know this kind of thing about and their positions are unaffected.
That took a while… enough to have double/triple/quadruple checked and "removed" most high profile names with any modicum of power and/or financial backing 🤔
Well I reserve my judgment until the names are published. We already know some of the entourage from previous journalists and reports.
If most names published are of unknown, foreign or already passed away individuals it would be quite suspicious indeed.
Amazingly, they all changed their names to [REDACTED].
There might be breadcrumbs in the redactions. Like
I'm really concerned as to what names have been redacted from that list.
Oh I hope those 200 people are very uncomfortable
Seeing as some of them are the victims, probably.
Out of curiosity, what exactly does being on this list mean?
It will look bad on people who try to look ethical, but it will have no effect on those who don't. So the Clinton's would take a hit if Bill was on there, but Trump wouldn't be affected.
The right wing easily draws in one-issue voters since their primary issues are usually about taking away something from someone else, and so they don't require many resources and generally are accomplished more easily using unethical means than ethical ones. "It's just business," and all that.
Leftists tend to be more about building something rather than tearing it down. That's both more work and requires a lot of shared resources. So ethical practices are required to keep those resources from getting misused.
In reality? Nothing, if there’s no further evidence of the individual’s participation in Epstein’s activities. Because of the shitload of people who encountered Epstein in various social settings without participating in his illegal activities (not saying they didn’t have knowledge of his activities which I assume was an open secret among the wealthy) it will be likely be impossible to pin individuals to crimes sufficient to result in a conviction in court. Plus, being rich and powerful is a disincentive for prosecutors to pursue crimes because of all the usual reasons.
So yeah. Nothing will happen to these people.
they didn’t have knowledge of his activities which I assume was an open secret among the wealthy
I imagine most people thought "Epstein sure likes those barely-legal, young-looking girls!" Some surely knew he was raping minors, but I bet it was a tiny minority. Even if they personally had no problem with pedophiles (unlikely), they must have known how dangerous it would be to be associated with them.
For Epstein, it was probably a big risk every time he revealed that the girls were actually underage. The person he revealed it to might try to blackmail him. So, I bet he was very selective about who he let know that the girls were minors. Sure, he was seen with young-looking girls, but they were probably plausibly old enough that people could assume they were just barely 18. He probably used them to see who was especially interested, and those people were the ones who he revealed the truth to.
Or they let themselves get close to Epstein thinking they everything was barely legal, then Epstein got blackmail material on them from an awkward foot massage. I would pay more attention to the repeats on his flight logs then his address book.
We don't actually know.
I can't rule out "nothing" completely, with the knowledge I have. It's absolutely something we should see, though. It will sketch out the whole picture in a way that allows people to exonerate themselves or be further implicated. If it's specific enough for people to have alibis, then that's interesting, and if it's full of plausible allegations, then they could become more damning. Consider that the details of what people are "accused" is likely to vary - are they accused of being on a plane with other witnesses? Who is accused of having extensive opportunities to have committed abuses during their stay on the island? What was the pretense for their involvement with Epstein and Maxwell? It puts people in a position to explain what they did or did not know about Jeffrey Epstein at the time, and for those claims to be cross-checked, where possible. Close contacts of the accused may be prompted to add additional information from their recollections or records, if they learn that they had been lied to. Another possibility is that the allegations are frustratingly vague and don't actually create a clear picture of any criminal behavior.
The fact that any names are redacted at all is proof that the only real solution is the guillotine.
Why now?
They are from 2015 and...
U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled earlier this month there was no legal justification for continuing to conceal the ex-president's name and more than 150 names other "John and Jane Does" mentioned in the records.
Quote taken from here
This is going to be interesting for the news cycle! Trump obviously, but who else? So Bill Clinon, Bill Gates, who else!
More importantly, where did they touch and how long did they touch for?
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.
