You must log in or # to comment.
10? SEE! She’s NOT A Child!
-LITERALLY the SAME People that call Drag Queens pedophiles!
From my comment in th cross-posted thread:
There are several others from what look like the same person:
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01743615.pdf.
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 10/EFTA01744660.pdf.
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 10/EFTA01743644.pdf.
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 10/EFTA01743632.pdf.Then there are others that looks like from the same person that still have the images (semi-redacted) and they look quite young (mid teens?)
<edit_01> They sign one:
Love A
There is no possible justification to blacking out those names. What a disgrace.
After the DonT redaction debacle, I simply assume these are all Trump
By now I’m convinced they just let some slop machine black out all names except for some whitelisted stuff. I mean, we’ve seen a link in the bash manual, the face of Mona Lisa, and occurrences of just the word “don’t” blacked out. Why would it be any different for people’s names.
They’ve left some names and photos of victims unredacted. But the names of the actual conspirators are all thoroughly redacted.
They left nude photos of underage victims unredacted. The DOJ literally spread CSAM.
For anyone curious, AP News did a piece on this in more detail.
The most chilling part of it for me was this one.
In some photos reviewed by The AP, those redactions did obscure women’s faces, but left plenty of their bare skin exposed in a way that would likely embarrass the women anyway. Photos showed identifiable women trying on outfits in clothing store dressing rooms or lounging in bathing suits.
One set of more than 100 images of a young woman were nearly all blacked out, save for the very last image, which revealed her entire face.
I wonder if these victims could push for charges relating to “revenge porn” against the DOJ or even the president himself if they can construct the narrative that the DOJ was acting on his orders.
I assume Mona Lisa‘s face being covered was Because a Victim’s face was pasted on that photo
I mean, I can think of one. If this was a child sending pics of themselves while saying their age.
Not likely in the slightest, but technically possible.
Why is it redacted? If this wasn’t so dark it would be comical
Jesus f’n christ. Anyone that didn’t reply back with, “10?!? You’re a monster” is complicit and needs to go down.
Nope.
They need to go up…a tree, attached to the end of a noose.
I bet it’s not a bottle of aged liquor in that attached pic.
Maybe Trump was sending pics of Ivana
Clearly they’re talking about Ash Ketchum.
Or a whiskey…
You’d say “10-year-old” for a whiskey, I think, not “age 10”.
You’d also say “10-year-old” if asking for a kid to rape.
Not necessarily. Might also be referring to “what age was she when x happened,” not “I’d like to place an order for a meeting with someone with this trait”
Would you? I’m not familiar with the linguistic conventions for child rape requests. I have more experience with whisky.
A few 'neats usually precedes asking the child connoisseur for a neat ten-year-old.
Holdup, where is attachment DSC0964.JPG in the files?
I’m guessing good chance it’s not legal to have on your computer
In the other 3m pages they didn’t release. I can’t imagine what’s in that pile of shit.
Does someone have the files to just post (presumably appropriately redacted) dsc06964.jpg?
