366
Jeffrey Epstein files: names released so far (Feb 2025)
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2025
366 points (94.4% liked)
News
38327 readers
1986 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
While I want them to release as much information as possible, this list seems misleading. The article says this is a list of people who flew on the plane, and many of them are not accused of any wrongdoing.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d be quite surprised if Cate Blanchett was looking for erotic massages from underage girls. The list of people who ever flew on the plane is going to be massive, and not all of them will be the type of people who he allowed into his criminal conspiracy. It’s just like how many more people attended a Diddy Party than attended a Diddy Party After Dark.
Much like with a diddy party, part of the question then becomes “how many of them didnt attend a diddy party after dark because they knew what happened after dark?”. How many of these people might not have been molesters, but still knew about the shit that was going on? How many of them saw the underage girls around without actually being involved with them being there at all?
I work in a very affluent environment environment, and its a relatively open secret that 10-20 years ago it wasnt uncommon for adult house parties to knowingly invite local underage highschool girls (for what Im sure were not good reasons)
There are a lot of sides to this. Some of them may have seen things and been oblivious, others may have seen things that registered later, while still others may have known about the crimes. That is why we need more than a flight log list.
I grew up in a very affluent family, and attended all sorts of political and corporate events in my youth along with my cousins. None of us were exploited or invited there to be exploited—our families thought it was good for us to meet influential and powerful people because they (foolishly) believed those people represented the best of American society. In some cases they were, in other cases they were later found out to be criminals. The thing that makes these people so dangerous is that they have many different modes, and are masters of switching masks depending on the audience.
If this played out like a procedural crime drama, the DoJ would be interviewing everyone on these flight logs to figure out who is connected to crimes and how much everyone knew at the time. That will never happen, since all of these people have lawyers on retainer and won't answer anything.
I mean, even if they are innocent and were totally unaware of any wrongdoing, they still wouldn't willfully open themselves up to this questioning.
The way I read it this list means pretty much jack all. It's just names mentioned in a court case - not a client nor fly list.
I won't be surprised if there would be significant overlap, but without the actual list there's little to say.
Totally agree. Epstein had thousands of contacts in his lifetime. The “willing to fly on a plane” list is likely going to be larger than the “willing to fuck a kid” list, even though some people will be on both.
Newsweek? Misleading? Never.