90
Judiciary Democrats Report Details Mounting Evidence Linking Trump to Epstein Criminal Activities and DOJ’s Cover-Up; Specific Accounts Involving 11 Women Provide More Evidence of Potential Sex Crimes (democrats-judiciary.house.gov)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
1 comment fedilink hide all child comments
 

1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 2 weeks ago

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    3 comments in c/Epsteinfiles@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] [S] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    There is already a post in this comm with the media coverage; this post links directly to the Committee's own press release and their own summary of the findings. I find it well worth reading in its own right.

    King, if you find this to be duplicative feel free to take it down, but I'm posting it in the spirit of using this comm not just as a news forum but as a repository. I'll accept your judgement, whatever you decide.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    All good Chunk, it is good to have the direct link as well. Thanks for you contributions

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 weeks ago*

    Thanks, King. I'm still trying to work through the report -- I have a very low tolerance reservoir for this specific content so I have to read a little and walk away, rinse and repeat, if I don't want to put a fist through a perfectly good monitor -- but I have noticed that the House report draws on unredacted EFTA files, filling them in via what the House Judiciary members saw personally in those highly-restricted DoJ visits to see the (somewhat) unredacted files.

    So for you and anyone else reading the House report directly, if you see an EFTA file footnoted, look it up because the report is a glance behind the curtain of redactions.

    And as such, this House report is also proof positive that at least some of the EFTA redactions are specifically meant to cover the perpetrators. See, for example, EFTA00158676, footnoted on pages 3 and 4: the public file has more blackout curtains than a movie theater, but the House report fills in significant context.

    I have also been looking out for mainstream news coverage of the House report and there is next to none.

    To check my hypothesis that it is being quietly downplayed by the Epstein class via their control of the media, I went looking for it on the New York Times (near the apex of billionaire media) and yesterday they ran a single "nothing to see here, not worth reading" article (archive link) hidden well off direct sight, describing it in the mildest possible terms and claiming the report "largely cites allegations that have already been public."

    That's sort of true and sort of not, in a corporate weasel-word sort of way. My guess is that they are not reading it through and do not want anyone else to do so either. Especially Melania, because the report confirms that it was Epstein, and NOT Paolo Zampolli, that introduced her to Trump: ooops. All those heated denials and legal threats thwarted by Congressional reps they can't sue, lol.

    The Guardian has done slightly better, running an excellent essay by Katie Phang, the journalist who has sued for access to specific files, but the sole reference to the report itself is a solitary link at the bottom of her piece. And beyond her opinion piece, there is nothing on the Guardian Epstein page about it at all. I expected better.

    Thanks again for maintaining this comm as an open repository. Much appreciated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent