I reviewed Epstein file redactions today. One redacted document is an email from Epstein’s attorneys recounting a conversation with Trump in 2009. The email includes no mention of victims and should not have been redacted. There were many other inexplicable redactions.

A legal conversation between attorneys and Trump? From 17 years ago? You got access to the unredacted documents, and that is what you came back with?

@AaronParnas Remember “My friends will get hurt”

These motherfuckers at DOJ redacted the pedophile's names yet "mistakenly" UNREDACTED all the victim's names, per Todd Blanche. Does anyone really fucking believe that was a mistake?

You got him this time! 🤣 wtf

Trump exposed Epstein asshole !

Just throw anything at the wall and see if it'll stick

Inappropriate redactions? Inappropriate withholding of documents? Lying? Denying? Misleading? Pam Bondi and Kash Patel are pulling out all the stops to protect Trump.

Bullshit. Trump never said Epstein was a paid “member” anyway. You certainly can be “banned” from a place without being a member. Desperate Dirty Democrats.

@MeidasTouch This DOJ is the most corrupt and unconstitutional group in history. So blatant. It’s ridiculous.

@AaronParnas So it has nothing to do with the case or any victims and you’re just admitting this is all a witch hunt against Trump?

This only adds fuel to the fire and assures us they are deliberately covering up for Trump. Anyone complicit needs to be jailed when Trump is gone.

Trump was one of the first people to call on Epstein. But go ahead and spin your story for the people too lazy to go through the files.

They were redacted to make Trump look guilty of something that never happened.

the mealy mouth spin artist here is you. he never went to the island and they did have a falling out before the allegations surfaced. Even the BS about not kicking him out because he wasn’t a member doesn’t even refute the underlying premise which is he wasn’t let back as a guest or otherwise. Wow you’re a vile serpent, standing on victims for partisan smear.

Trump is the Jim jones of the Republican Party!

It’s over you pedo! We know those who scream the loudest are the guilty ones

Imagine seeing Trumps name in an email chain with zero nefarious connotations and turning that into “he must be guilty” propaganda. FOH, come back when you got something, at least some juicy hearsay 🤷🏻🤦‍♂️😂🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

How about this one.

People on X are pretty well aware that they blanket redacted Trump from everything. They even matched on things like “Don ‘t” or other similar, so you’ll find documents with non-name words containing “don” redacted, prob due to sloppy regular expressions or software limitations.

They’re talking about raping and eating children and you want to focus on Trump. If Epstein had anything on Trump, he would’ve turned it over when his lawyer said to do so he could get out of jail. Also, Obama wouldn’t have had to spy on him, we wouldn’t have had to go through two fake impeachments or be arrested for fake crimes, you wouldn’t have needed the Russia collusion hoax, or the January 6 hoax or the two assassination attempts, you could’ve just revealed what you had on Trump in the Epstein files since you’ve had them since 2019.

James, it was 2006

So you were only concerned with Trumps name?? But Massie in 2 hrs found 6 names of co conspirators but you found 1 email with trumps name 🤦🏻‍♂️🥱

@MeidasTouch So nothing incriminating…..again…got it.

It's just a giant HOAX. Stop wasting our time!

So, did the president send, or reply to these emails?

When some politician mentions someone from there own party I will listen but it is apparently just the other party is evil when in reality, both parties are evil complicit, cowardly, and just frigging greedy

@AntiToxicPeople Software was probably used. No way they were going to let humans see the things trump did.

So you were given access to the unredacted files and the only thing you did was insert "Trump" in the search engine? I thought this was supposed to be about the victims?

Review this one

This is the problem in plain sight. Redactions are meant to protect victims, investigations, or safetyn, not reputations. When a document contains no victim information, no sensitive identities, and no operational risk, redacting it doesn’t serve justice. It serves distance. Transparency matters most when power and abuse intersect. Excessive or unexplained redactions don’t prevent harm, they prolong mistrust and reinforce the perception that accountability stops where influence begins. If the goal is public confidence, the standard has to be simple: protect victims, disclose context, and explain every redaction clearly. Anything else isn’t caution. It’s shielding.

Say the names or you are complicit! Cowards!

@brenna1009 Inexplicable!? It's very explicable. They're covering Trump's ass.

Perhaps they were talking about this:

@MeidasTouch Why are they inexplicable redactions?? The instructions were to redact Trump’s name EVERYWHERE it appears! There’s no time to determine whether this one’s ok or that one’s ok; they just redacted his name, period!