Some Epstein files can be unredacted

[SamuelTheThird]

lol

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1ptlms6/some_epstein_files_can_be_unredacted/

[Javaman]

1. he's so fucked LOL Good!

what a colossal bunch of fucking morons.

the saving grace to all of this is: the entire administration are fucking morons. if they were smart we'd be truly fucked, but they aren't. LOL

[travelingthrulife]

6. This is almost a blessing. We have been shown the great weaknesses in our government.

We MUST correct the weak spots, and there are a lot of them.

Laws must have teeth. USSC must be expanded and be subject to discipline and term limits. Rotate them through 9 judges to prevent political blocks.
Congress needs teeth in their rules. What is the point of subpoena power if you are powerless to do anything about those abusing it?
No stock trading whatsoever while in public office. No nepotism.

So many more problems have been exposed. The white, male 'wink and a handshake' bogus rules need to be made laws with teeth.

[Scrivener7]

2. In which case the redactions actually just makes it easier to find the parts where Cankles molested children.

[usonian]

3. Examples here

https://krassencast.com/p/breaking-we-just-unredacted-the-epstein

I'll summarize the tech bits from reddit and github. Mighty interesting.

Here is a fun part.

Wait... they literally redacted the pages by selecting the text and changing the background color to black?
This is huge.


(Reply below)

jojojawn
•
5h ago
•
Edited 5h ago


No, even dumber, they highlighted the text black. The poor man's redaction.
It can work but you're supposed to print to pdf afterwards which flattens the image and makes the underlying text unreadable. But from tech savvy people I know it still could, might, maybe be readable from any underlying data remaining in the file. Adobe's redact tool is preferred, but highlight black and print to pdf can work in a jiffy

Probably too long for DU rules, so, some notes at pastebin. Includes github (source code) link.

https://pastebin.com/raw/ZWb1ikWh

[Ol Janx Spirit]

4. If true, these exposed redactions all protect corporations that were involved. They do not read like victims but...

...willing participants involved in criminal activity, so why are they being protected by the DOJ?

Maybe there were a few corporate entities in there that it would look really odd if only those were redacted out?

Also, I remember them doing something similarly stupid in 1.0 with PDF redactions that were easily exposed. Smart people over there huh?

[BComplex]

12. Probably corporations that Pam Bondi and trump are party to.

Bondi's got to be in this up to her eyeballs.

[MarcoZandrini]

5. Do them....

….ALL! tRUMP’s idjits can’t even redact documents properly.

Tge incompetent being led by the incontinent.

[Red Mountain]

7. Incompetent or subversive

Lots of honest career people not happy about being swept up into a criminal enterprise.

[Javaman]

8. just think about this...

if we are able to access these unredacted files, so is every single government in the world.

let that marinate for a while

LOL!!!

[IcyPeas]

9. That reddit link in your OP also contains this info:

Within the description under this video are actual links to the documents. Voidzilla/coffeezilla gives instructions how to look at them. NOTE: this video has over 1.5M views already. So, assuming this is all true shits about to hit the fan. Fingers crossed.

[yellow dahlia]

16. Bookmarking to read later.

[Norbert]

10. I read where they changed the background color to black.

If that is the case, just change the background color back to white. How stupid can you get?

[Arthur_Frain]

11. Respectfully I think this info is slightly less than true.

I commented yesterday on a post regarding this very same claim.

That’s 12 hours at least and I haven’t seen a peep on any news feed anywhere.

Which is why my post on that feed started “This sounds too good to be true”. I’m still waiting and wanting to be proven wrong here, but this infos been out too long not to get any traction at all given the subject matter.

This should be like ketchup on the ballroom walls for the red wedding if it was verifiable at all, and I’ve seen nothing.

[BComplex]

13. You said: That's 12 hours at least and I haven't seen a peep on any news feed anywhere.

The only news feeds that aren't corrupted by republican ownership/management are on social media platforms that don't outlaw free speech. Since almost all social media is also billionaire owned, (including YouTube posts) that doesn't leave many places to run into the truth.

[Arthur_Frain]

14. I haven't seen it anyplace except here.

Considering everything’s Epstein these days, if this wasn’t spurious, I think it would get traction someplace else. France24. BBC. Al Jazeera. But it’s crickets.

Sorry, I think this is bot and troll driven.

[SamuelTheThird]

15. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/23/epstein-unredacted-files-social-media

[yellow dahlia]

17. Thanks for sharing.

[usonian]

19. JFC. It's all over Hacker News, overwhelmingly techie.

[TxGuitar]

18. Didn't this also happen under W? NT

[doc03]

20. I hear lots of talk here about them being able to unredact text but

not one example of it. I hope it is true but so far I call it bullshit.