It's powerful to see efforts like that of the volunteer citizens digging in to the released files early on, and making copies, are paying off. The epstein-data.com site that Sollenberger cites as his source for the scrubbed documents is on the list in the pinned post with Epstein Files resources in this community: https://lemmy.world/post/43115555

The misconduct this is based on, is him passing confidential information directly to Epstein, while he was a trade envoy for the UK. That's what they can get him on for now. This is an option to get him in the seat, and ask him about his relationship with Epstein.

It's a small start, but it is a start.

Jesus Christ what a bunch of pedo apologists.

Of course he does. Every accusation is a projection.

His philanthropy is also problematic for more reasons than tax dodging:

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/bill-gates-philanthropy-misanthropy/

Archived article: https://archive.ph/djOu5

https://github.com/rhowardstone/Epstein-research

The work this guy has put into it is pretty impressive. I know he's been assisted by LLMs, but it still gets around a lot of avenues of exploration. I especially like the document that summarizes the institutional failures that are the thickest red lines throughout the Epstein case:

https://github.com/rhowardstone/Epstein-research/blob/main/overview/INSTITUTIONAL_FAILURE_NARRATIVE.md

Research consultant? It would sure be nice to know what Epstein was sending him in those packages for 4 years.

This is the file in question: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00095751.pdf

The justice department has released a total of about 3.5m files related to Epstein, and Raskin said there were around 3m more awaiting release. The Maryland congressman said he was only able to review about 30 to 40 of the unredacted files that had been released at one of four computers set up at the justice department facility, which lawmakers must enter without bringing any electronic devices, or staff members who have been researching the issue alongside them.

What exactly is the point of this exercise from the DOJ? Is it to appear transparent about what they have on file, with no real consequences to them? You can only go alone, and you can't make a physical copies or even write down any details of what you have read in those unredacted files. So you come out of there, by yourself, with just what you have retained in memory, of what you've read, some 10 days after the files have been released, and just a few needles have been established to exist in that massive haystack.

Say you go there, you find documents where the name of a high ranking government official has not been redacted, and the context this official appears in, is highly suspicious, and contradicts what has been publicly shared by the government until now.

What can you do about it then? What are your options, if any? Would you then tell a fellow government official to go and verify it, by finding the same file? And then what happens? Anything?

I don't get it.

I don't know Holman and Iozzo, but I remember hearing about Ito in the 00s and 10s in the tech industry.

Added a bullet list of "what we know" from the article on The Guardian. The BBC also has extensive reporting on the matter:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c70kjr9wjw0t

You left out the other juicy bits from that document:

Hackers, Hezbollah, theatre companies, swiss bank accounts, Iranians, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Vatican state citizens. That latter detail is interesting, because there's not that many of them around (less than 1000 currently).

Sounds indeed rather insane, from 2017. Can't rule out some nutjob reciting their book of conspiracies, there's a little too much of the greatest hits in there for me to put much confidence in this report.

Addendum: also worth noting that JEs mansion is on the upper east side of Manhattan, not west side.

I'm not sure why the article only lists 5, when he mentions 6 in the video, and also mentions there are 6 in the article, but doesn't list him.

Plenty of grounds for another conspiracy.

So what does this mean? Bella Klein was sending packages from the account she was an admin for, and paying for it with funds from the Epstein estate?

It's quite well documented who's behind jmail and the associated sites:

https://jmail.world/about

Stephen Findeisen (Coffeezilla) is among the contributors, which in my opinion gives it very high credibility and trustworthyness.

Exactly. It's also refreshingly free from sensationalist claims of this, that or the other. It straightforwardly states what's documented, how these documents are connected, and how these documents connect people and actions.

It poses critical questions and criticism of how investigations were done, and not done, how leads were not followed, and how redactions have been made that there seemingly are no legal grounds for.

He seems to have done this a number of times. There's also one for Bannon, from June 30th, 2019, a week before he was arrested:

https://jmail.world/thread/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029622?view=sent

Also covered in CNN, and shared here earlier today:

https://lemmy.world/post/43230228 (that takes me to another (wrong) post.

This link should work: https://mander.xyz/post/47568270

Glad to see another line of investigation opened by the British police forces.

"bradk" could be Bard Karp, a lawyer. He resigned because of his exposure in the files:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/04/business/brad-karp-paul-weiss-resigns-epstein.html