Epstein files contain explicit but unsubstantiated claim that Trump abused minor
www.theguardian.com
Department of Justice did not release FBI memos when it uploaded millions of pages of files beginning in December

Note: These were collected by someone else and are what’s missing from the Epstein files. They were previously released.

In the files, you can see that there was a witness willing to testify, so I took out “unsubstantiated” in the headline:

Three memos that describe four interviews conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2019 contain explicit but unsubstantiated claims that Donald Trump sexually abused a woman when she was a minor in the early 1980s with the assistance of Jeffrey Epstein, according to a Guardian review of those documents.

The Department of Justice did not release those records when it uploaded millions of pages of files related to Epstein beginning in December. The existence of the missing documents was first reported by independent journalist Roger Sollenberger and subsequently confirmed by NPR, causing outrage in Washington and sparking an investigation from congressional Democrats.

The Guardian obtained the missing FBI form 302 reports, which memorialize 25 pages of agents’ notes from the four interviews conducted in the summer and fall of 2019. The notes describe how the woman came forward to tell agents she recognized Epstein from a photo sent by a childhood friend. Only the first session, in which she did not name Trump, made it into the public release. The Guardian has chosen not to publish the woman’s name.

  • FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish
    41·
    2 hours ago

    I don’t disagree with the sentiment.

    However, these kinds of comments feel like pointless karma farming. Every post on the topic will have a bunch of ‘well actually they meant _______’, it’s tedious and doesn’t add anything other than a place for people to park their upvotes so that they feel better.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        41 minutes ago

        Human people often do things in order to receive attention. They don’t do this because attention is redeemable like tickets in an arcade, they do it because they want attention.

        Copying a popular meme and re-posting it in another place is a low-effort way to achieve this result.

        If you’re confused by the topic, pretend I said ‘clout chasing’ or ‘attention whoring’ instead karma farming. They’re ruder terms that I would have used initially, but seem more applicable given the sarcastic bad faith response.

          • FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            29 minutes ago

            In the spirit of copying and pasting our last response into an LLM to say the same thing without adding anything new:

            People often seek attention through simple actions, not because attention has tangible value like arcade tickets, but because being noticed fulfills a social desire.

            Sharing a popular meme in a new place is an easy way to gain that notice.

            If the concept is unclear, think of it as “clout chasing” or “attention whoring”—more blunt terms that convey the same idea, especially in a sarcastic or dismissive context.

            Or alternatively,

            Individuals frequently engage in attention-seeking behaviors, not for any tangible reward, but for the social recognition itself.

            Reposting a trending meme elsewhere is a minimal-effort strategy to gain visibility.

            If the term ‘karma farming’ is confusing, consider ‘clout chasing’ or ‘attention whoring’—harsher phrases that more directly capture the intent, especially in a mocking or bad-faith context.

            • resipsaloquitur@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              24 minutes ago

              So are you posting for the worthless karma? Is that why you think I am?

              Or do you genuinely believe that I couldn’t possibly be tired of the press whitewashing rape and abuse by our social “betters”?