Most likely, all the interesting papers won't see the light of the public, because this would be against "national security", AKA the interests of the rich and influential.
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
169 points (98.3% liked)
News
33309 readers
2342 users here now
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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Exhibit J: Image of ::Redacted:: blowing an associate known as "Bubba"
I guess the NYT just got a new subtitute for Wordle.
Here’s the thing - the protections are good. If the Justice Department weren’t compromised and the President wasn’t one of the people in the files, they would be exactly the protections which make sense. You don’t want child porn released. You don’t want the names of the victims released. You don’t want information released if it will harm the chances of prosecuting a paedophile. You don’t want information released if it will make citizens significantly less safe.
If we could trust the President and the Justice Department, these rules would be exactly what we want.
Right. The difference here being the victims themselves calling for the release of the files.
The reasonable solution would have been to include a mechanism for quickly and efficiently overruling these decisions when needed. They have to report to congress about anything that is withheld, but as far as I know they didn't include a provision that would allow them to reject the given justification and order the release.
Yeah, but once again we're relying on the incorrect presumption that people in charge aren't corrupt pedophiles and pedophile protectors.
Yeah this law was just crafted with everyone involved knowing full well who the president and attorney general are, yet they still carved out these exceptions for them. Trying to whitewash this as if it was an honorable act if not for those evil people in the white house is absolute bullshit and just preemptively making excuses for even more collusion between the Dems and Republicans.
What?
If we could trust the President and the Justice Department, these rules would be exactly what we want.
I'm saying these rules were just recently written and passed, and the people who wrote and passed this did so knowing that Trump and Noem were the people they were giving this authority to.
To frame this discussion as if the way the bill was written is good and "if it weren't for that darn president and his AG it'd be exactly what we want" is disingenuous. They crafted the bill, meant to expose a bunch of child molesters by releasing documents pertaining to their crimes, in a way that gives authority on which documents to release to one of the child molesters contained within the documents themselves.
This bill was crafted and sponsored by Democrats, and this is what they gave us when it was time to put up or shut up.
When the president rapes kids and sucks Bubba's dick it's a national security risk (National security risk get-out-of-jail-free card not available for Democrats, terms and conditions apply, please see Putin for details)
So basically we'lleget nothing of substance and all the stuff that makes republicans look bad will be redacted.
I haven't understood the fight for the "release of the Epstein files" since the start.
What's to prevent them releasing fake documents?
As if this administration would ever release information detrimental to Trump or any other republican in favor.
The coming release will include nothing of substance about republicans.
Most likely there are a few other "originals" out there that keep all involved parties in check.
Epstein had files stashed on the island but also his Manhattan office (which got stolen after the fbi opened the safe but did not remove them), ghislaine is said to have files, and probably one copy is in the hands of putin, epstein was in Moscow....
So if the trump admin releases an overtly fake version that exonerates everyone "on his side" another party can release opposing documents.
This already somewhat happened last month, where the administration released redacted files and highly selected documents, where suddenly various publicly unknown epstein emails surfaced that pointed back to trump.
Yes, but will any of Trump's supporters really care what may be in the original documents if a doctored set released by the administration provides cover?
trump's supporters dont matter in the grand scheme of things, not really. it's not the cult members you need to convince, it's the non-cult. the grifters and opportunists will flip on whoever the instant it looks like they might finally face personal accountability for their actions, a handful of true-believers like MTG will draw the line at (openly) helping/enabling pedophiles (if not for their own limited moral compass then for their own personal safety)...plenty of people in this country who'd have no issue executing pedos and their enablers if it looks like they might get off scot-free
Fair point.
They wouldn't care regardless.
The communications released to FOIA Files provide a look behind the scenes as agents and other FBI personnel started to work on the Epstein files earlier this year.
Even when it is it won't be.
It was over before it started.
I think you misunderstood the headline?
Nope. I understood it and read the article. It’s over. It’s been over.
Hmm interesting take