530
In case congress has a change of heart and wants to hold Bondi, Patel, Blanche in contempt of congress for violating the EFTA.
Example: EFTA02440040
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 06 Feb 2026
530 points (99.6% liked)
The Trump-Epstein Files
935 readers
500 users here now
We keep track of the release of the files, but also to explore what’s already available, and why – with enough exposure – this could bring the man down, and who knows even his regime or the empire.
Want to start digging yourself? Check out our sticky post
Our Rules
(Subject to Change)
- #1 Be kind: keep it civil and amicable. The enemy is not in this community but in Palaces, The White House and penthouses.
- #2 Trigger Warnings: required. Mark posts which may be triggering to read or see for victims of sexual abuse with "[TW]" in front of your post title. If you're posting an image or video with explicit thumbnail, you will have to set the entire post as NSFW AND include the TW.
- #3 Cite sources: preferably direct link to the article/pdf and or an archive link in case there is a paywalled. In the article find a relevant few paragraphs and quote them in your post.
Our Justice System
- First offence: warning + 2 day ban
- Second offence: 7 day ban
- Third offence: permanent ban from community
- Creating multiple accounts to interact with this community: permanent ban for all accounts in community + report to your instance admin.
This community is run by volunteers so please don't test the justice system, as with all justice systems it is critically underfunded.
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
I'm not familiar with everything at the federal level, but I fullfill a lot of Open Records in my state (Texas), and it's illegal to release certain private information about living people in an open records request. Things like social security numbers, DL#s etc, and email addresses are specifically prohibited from release.
Lots of my responses look similar to this if the person's identity in the header is just the email address.
For instance, if the header says John Doe johndoe@domain.com the redaction would black out the email address and leave the name. But if Outlook doesn't have the name saved in the header it would black out everything.
Interesting point. I hadn't thought about that. We can all say he's implicated in sex trafficking, who cares? But due process for all, or due process for none, can't go doxxing people.
However, that being said. There's a small black or above, and a long one below. They can't both be the same email address. Could be a different similar situation as you described, but I bet there's a plain name in there somewhere.
Sometimes Outlook will list an email address in the proper name field in the header too.
For instance their email address may be "suspectedpedophile26@maga.com" and the header will sometimes say:
suspectedpedohile26@maga.comsuspectedpedophile26@maga.com