this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
90 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2551 readers
21 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.


Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] protogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone 57 points 1 week ago

THATS WHY IT NEEDS TO BE RELEASED

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 47 points 1 week ago

"Your honor, I object!"

"Why is that?"

"It's devastating to my case!"

[–] ShellMonkey@piefed.socdojo.com 40 points 1 week ago

Gracious no, we wouldn't want one of his primary accomplices to be inconvenienced by people seeing the full details of your actions...

[–] Wytch@lemmy.zip 35 points 1 week ago

Cool. Release the files.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 week ago

Why would that be? What could possibly be in those files, that makes her look even more guilty than a convicted sex trafficker?

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 25 points 1 week ago

It never occurred to me that releasing these files might cause child traffickers and rapists to actually have CONSEQUENCES. The horror. Anyways...

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 20 points 1 week ago

"Prejudiced" by seeing the facts of the case? Right. That's kind of the point, yes.

If it can, then it should. This should all be public information, and every unredacted detail should be made clear to the public so that no one can overlook it.

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Good?

If your appeal requires everyone to have less information about what really went down, then I think were better off with you not having your appeal heard, no?

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 14 points 1 week ago

It's a risk we all are willing to take.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 week ago

Sounds good to me

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 11 points 1 week ago

Everything is so backwards. Releasing facts and proof someone knowingly trafficked children to be raped might have an affect on their appeal!? That's exactly why they need to be released. So the crimes that happened have a light shown on them, and victims have a chance for some semblance of justice.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 11 points 1 week ago

There's no way "more information I don't have could be incriminating" can be spun positively, so we have this from her lawyers.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 10 points 1 week ago

Oh no. Anyways

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 7 points 1 week ago

"Out of respect for ~~this fucking criminal~~ Maxwell we've decided not to release the files in their entirety. We wish her the best!"

[–] lorski@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago
[–] 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think her lawyer is probably thinking that, if the files are released, he has an argument he can use to legally maneuver around her appeal and get her a better outcome (from her point of view).

If her complaint results in the files not being released, then she presses Trump even harder for a presidential pardon.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The Presidential Pardon would invalidate the basis for the Epstein Files not being released. (Not that I think Trump would understand that.)

[–] 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago

We live in a post-truth society. Facts don't matter anymore. Sadly.

[–] cheeseburger@piefed.ca 5 points 1 week ago

Please become an hero, Ghislaine.

[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

Too fucking bad, cunt.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago