Why are the women’s faces obscured? I don’t object to it. I just want to know what the rationale was.🚨 BREAKING: Oversight Dems received 95,000 new photos from Jeffrey Epstein's estate. These disturbing images raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world.
— Oversight Dems (@OversightDems) December 12, 2025
Time to end this White House cover-up. Release the files! pic.twitter.com/nQNIywayb9
See the newly released photos here: https://t.co/nBf2Y0q1I0
— Oversight Dems (@OversightDems) December 12, 2025
🍿Q: If DOJ doesn't release the files it has by next Friday, is there anything Congress can do to compel that to happen?
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 12, 2025
MASSIE: It's a crime if they don't. This is a new law with criminal implications if they don't follow it. pic.twitter.com/CzsXCuyXxu
🍿 🍿Garcia: "Some of the other photos that we did not put out today are incredibly disturbing" pic.twitter.com/g9QejTOC3l
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 12, 2025
Does anyone else stop and think: “95,000 photographs? And that’s not all of them?” Did Epstein chronicle every minute of his life?Garcia: "Just last night we received about 95,000 photographs from the Epstein estate. We've gone through maybe about 25,000 of them so far ... we will continue to put out more photos in the days and weeks ahead." pic.twitter.com/KMVxWtodzf
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 12, 2025
My assumption is the blocked-out faces belong to people they know for sure or suspect were minors at the time the photo was taken- which I think is fair when released for public consumption. I do wonder how/if releasing the photos affects whether they could be used as evidence in a trial (not that I expect one, but on general principle)?
ReplyDeleteThe 95K photos number jumped out at me too. I suppose all these celebrity people- Gates, Clinton, even maybe Steve Bannon- get used to having their photo taken from all angles when they are out in public. But as a random guy, if I had any whiff something weird was going on *and* there were cameras going off all over the place, I'd get pretty nervous. I wonder how many of those photos were taken from hidden places- and now I stop, the pull of dipstick conspiracy theory is getting stronger and stronger...
Fitzgerald was right; the rich are different. And I’m assuming the women in the photos deserve/need protection. It just raises questions when you see the POTUS in a photo with…6 minor females? And he’s leering?
ReplyDeleteDon't know if it will finish Trump but I'd bet it might finish off Woody. I'm not expecting it to finish of Bannon, his audience are degenerates. It certainly explains the Gates divorce.
ReplyDelete"Did Epstein chronicle every minute of his life?"
ReplyDeleteWell, the Nazis did...
There is that, isn’t there?
DeleteI kinda see the photos as confirming questions- although I think a person should keep in mind that *all* these people, Epstein included, are masters of compartmentalizing their lives. Wealth makes that a lot easier for them. Some fairly significant number of them were probably caught completely off-guard when the scandal initially broke. Some probably had a pretty good idea what was going on and didn't care enough to rock the boat. Others were actively in on it all along. I've seen enough to put Trump in the last group but *so far* the photos we've seen of Allen or Chomsky or Gates or Clinton and even Bannon don't have near the obvious sleaze and leering of the Trump photos. My mind is open to change with additional evidence, of course....
ReplyDeleteYeah, I’m not big on “guilt by association.” Epstein was rich, and cultivated people, not unlike the way he cultivated young girls; but for radically different purposes. “A picture is worth 1000 words,” but sometimes 1000 words draws a more accurate picture.
Delete