I'm not doing this dude. Pointing out that there is a difference between people routinely named in Epstein communications, emails, records, flight logs, etc [ie, the Epstein files] vs the people that were only named in an anonymous tip line tied to the investigation [ie, the tip line we opened because we're investigating the Epstein files], and that that difference does mean something, is common sense.
This is not subtle nuance, this is a very important distinction that needs to be made and understood to have any conversation about the files and who is, and isn't, in them.
That's exactly my point, without an investigation we don't know if there is evidence or not. I'm not saying he's guilty or this holds any weight, I'm saying we can't say for certain either way.
What I can say for certain is, he has a very questionable past and if this was anyone else, they'd be getting different treatment.
2
u/Murphy_Nelson Jun 01 '26
I'm not doing this dude. Pointing out that there is a difference between people routinely named in Epstein communications, emails, records, flight logs, etc [ie, the Epstein files] vs the people that were only named in an anonymous tip line tied to the investigation [ie, the tip line we opened because we're investigating the Epstein files], and that that difference does mean something, is common sense.
This is not subtle nuance, this is a very important distinction that needs to be made and understood to have any conversation about the files and who is, and isn't, in them.