Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Some Epstein files can be unredacted (Original Post) SamuelTheThird Dec 23 OP
he's so fucked LOL Good! Javaman Dec 23 #1
This is almost a blessing. We have been shown the great weaknesses in our government. travelingthrulife Dec 23 #6
In which case the redactions actually just makes it easier to find the parts where Cankles molested children. Scrivener7 Dec 23 #2
Examples here usonian Dec 23 #3
If true, these exposed redactions all protect corporations that were involved. They do not read like victims but... Ol Janx Spirit Dec 23 #4
Probably corporations that Pam Bondi and trump are party to. BComplex Dec 23 #12
Do them.... MarcoZandrini Dec 23 #5
Incompetent or subversive Red Mountain Dec 23 #7
just think about this... Javaman Dec 23 #8
That reddit link in your OP also contains this info: IcyPeas Dec 23 #9
Bookmarking to read later. yellow dahlia Dec 23 #16
I read where they changed the background color to black. Norbert Dec 23 #10
Respectfully I think this info is slightly less than true. Arthur_Frain Dec 23 #11
You said: That's 12 hours at least and I haven't seen a peep on any news feed anywhere. BComplex Dec 23 #13
I haven't seen it anyplace except here. Arthur_Frain Dec 23 #14
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/23/epstein-unredacted-files-social-media SamuelTheThird Dec 23 #15
Thanks for sharing. yellow dahlia Dec 23 #17
JFC. It's all over Hacker News, overwhelmingly techie. usonian Dec 23 #19
Didn't this also happen under W? NT TxGuitar Dec 23 #18
I hear lots of talk here about them being able to unredact text but doc03 Dec 23 #20

Javaman

(65,113 posts)
1. he's so fucked LOL Good!
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 07:47 AM
Dec 23

what a colossal bunch of fucking morons.

the saving grace to all of this is: the entire administration are fucking morons. if they were smart we'd be truly fucked, but they aren't. LOL

travelingthrulife

(4,463 posts)
6. This is almost a blessing. We have been shown the great weaknesses in our government.
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 08:59 AM
Dec 23

We MUST correct the weak spots, and there are a lot of them.

Laws must have teeth. USSC must be expanded and be subject to discipline and term limits. Rotate them through 9 judges to prevent political blocks.
Congress needs teeth in their rules. What is the point of subpoena power if you are powerless to do anything about those abusing it?
No stock trading whatsoever while in public office. No nepotism.

So many more problems have been exposed. The white, male 'wink and a handshake' bogus rules need to be made laws with teeth.

Scrivener7

(58,315 posts)
2. In which case the redactions actually just makes it easier to find the parts where Cankles molested children.
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 07:51 AM
Dec 23

usonian

(23,549 posts)
3. Examples here
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 08:23 AM
Dec 23
https://krassencast.com/p/breaking-we-just-unredacted-the-epstein

I'll summarize the tech bits from reddit and github. Mighty interesting.

Here is a fun part.

Wait... they literally redacted the pages by selecting the text and changing the background color to black?
This is huge.


(Reply below)

jojojawn

5h ago

Edited 5h ago


No, even dumber, they highlighted the text black. The poor man's redaction.
It can work but you're supposed to print to pdf afterwards which flattens the image and makes the underlying text unreadable. But from tech savvy people I know it still could, might, maybe be readable from any underlying data remaining in the file. Adobe's redact tool is preferred, but highlight black and print to pdf can work in a jiffy



Probably too long for DU rules, so, some notes at pastebin. Includes github (source code) link.

https://pastebin.com/raw/ZWb1ikWh

Ol Janx Spirit

(717 posts)
4. If true, these exposed redactions all protect corporations that were involved. They do not read like victims but...
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 08:45 AM
Dec 23

...willing participants involved in criminal activity, so why are they being protected by the DOJ?

Maybe there were a few corporate entities in there that it would look really odd if only those were redacted out?

Also, I remember them doing something similarly stupid in 1.0 with PDF redactions that were easily exposed. Smart people over there huh?

BComplex

(9,748 posts)
12. Probably corporations that Pam Bondi and trump are party to.
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 11:51 AM
Dec 23

Bondi's got to be in this up to her eyeballs.

MarcoZandrini

(152 posts)
5. Do them....
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 08:53 AM
Dec 23

….ALL! tRUMP’s idjits can’t even redact documents properly.

Tge incompetent being led by the incontinent.

Red Mountain

(2,265 posts)
7. Incompetent or subversive
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 09:04 AM
Dec 23

Lots of honest career people not happy about being swept up into a criminal enterprise.

Javaman

(65,113 posts)
8. just think about this...
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 09:30 AM
Dec 23

if we are able to access these unredacted files, so is every single government in the world.

let that marinate for a while

LOL!!!

IcyPeas

(24,856 posts)
9. That reddit link in your OP also contains this info:
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 09:40 AM
Dec 23

Within the description under this video are actual links to the documents. Voidzilla/coffeezilla gives instructions how to look at them. NOTE: this video has over 1.5M views already. So, assuming this is all true shits about to hit the fan. Fingers crossed.

Norbert

(7,563 posts)
10. I read where they changed the background color to black.
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 09:57 AM
Dec 23

If that is the case, just change the background color back to white. How stupid can you get?

Arthur_Frain

(2,266 posts)
11. Respectfully I think this info is slightly less than true.
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 10:34 AM
Dec 23

I commented yesterday on a post regarding this very same claim.

That’s 12 hours at least and I haven’t seen a peep on any news feed anywhere.

Which is why my post on that feed started “This sounds too good to be true”. I’m still waiting and wanting to be proven wrong here, but this infos been out too long not to get any traction at all given the subject matter.

This should be like ketchup on the ballroom walls for the red wedding if it was verifiable at all, and I’ve seen nothing.

BComplex

(9,748 posts)
13. You said: That's 12 hours at least and I haven't seen a peep on any news feed anywhere.
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 11:55 AM
Dec 23

The only news feeds that aren't corrupted by republican ownership/management are on social media platforms that don't outlaw free speech. Since almost all social media is also billionaire owned, (including YouTube posts) that doesn't leave many places to run into the truth.

Arthur_Frain

(2,266 posts)
14. I haven't seen it anyplace except here.
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 01:50 PM
Dec 23

Considering everything’s Epstein these days, if this wasn’t spurious, I think it would get traction someplace else. France24. BBC. Al Jazeera. But it’s crickets.

Sorry, I think this is bot and troll driven.

doc03

(38,831 posts)
20. I hear lots of talk here about them being able to unredact text but
Tue Dec 23, 2025, 09:46 PM
Dec 23

not one example of it. I hope it is true but so far I call it bullshit.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Some Epstein files can be...