News
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.
view the rest of the comments
Rather than assuming every single news source is in league with maga or scared of them, the simplest explanation is that the claim doesn't hold any substantial weight.
There's thousands of documents, not all of them are going to be accurate and spreading something that later turns out to be false will cheapen the public perception of credibility of the other issues bought against them.
It's not an assumption that every single (major) news source is owned by a MAGA crony or is run by someone afraid of a Trump SLAPP suit or regulatory retaliation. And some, such as the New York Times, seem to be going through contortions to minimize Epstein's intelligence links
Having said that, it's inevitable that there will be crackpot claims in any high-profile case. So check it, and if it's bullshit, discard it. But also, don't assume that something's bullshit just because the person who wrote it can't write, or has other issues. Those issues might be the reason they're not intimidated when a more rational person would be. Someone like that can be a good source but a poor witness.
One of the DOJ's tactics is to flood the zone with shit. They're deliberately releasing a huge quantity of documents with all context stripped out, to make it harder for journalists and the public to make sense of them. That's not the way they're organized in the DOJ, it's malicious compliance. And the document sets are also almost certainly being deliberately filtered to make the signal/noise ratio even worse-- for example, by redacting all mentions of Trump and by adding in items mentioning Clinton, probably redacted to support false conclusions about his level of involvement.
Sure thing, but thus far these two tips haven't been meaningfully checked and corroborated.
The two most bombshell events were both tipline fodder during the height of the 2020 election, after Epstein's death and pictures of him and Trump became huge things.
So yes, by all means scour current and future documents for anything corroborating these tips, but the context makes me extremely skeptical that these two tips are real. Both accounts were held back for decades, both only coming forward during his second election run, both only coming forward implicating a nefarious Trump/Epstein event after that was already a known thing...
All I know is that I believe that person over trump any day. They could be lying, but why would they?
I believe neither of them. Life's more than 2 options.
People lie all the time, who knows why.
You wouldn't believe a person that claims to be a victim, ever? ERRRRR, wrong answer.
You can believe a persons telling their truth, treat them with respect, and investigate it.
You do not blindly believe an event happened because someone said so. That’s what leads to people believing Haitian immigrants are eating dogs.