[Arn_Thor]

As you say, it's not the same photo. If the one in the dump was in Epstein's possession, the reason for the redactions are either that some drone in the DOJ just redacted all children out of habit, or that it was deliberately done in such a way as to frame Clinton. I can't decide which I find more credible.

[bryanrasmussen]

I think if it hadn't been those adults with the kids an alert staffer might have thought "whose kids are these, these aren't young teenage girls, I better double check" But Michael Jackson, kids, Clinton arms around him, Diana Ross with young male, they're thinking they walked into an armory filled with nothing but smoking guns!

[gruez]

>the reason for the redactions are either that some drone in the DOJ just redacted all children out of habit, or that it was deliberately done in such a way as to frame Clinton

They were supposed to redact all minors, not just "victims".

[wahnfrieden]

Everyone is distracted by the redaction policy discussion. The concern is that it is from a charity event that is seemingly unrelated to Epstein.

[dontlaugh]

There’s no need to frame Clinton, there is plenty of evidence he was friends with and spent a lot of time with Epstein.

Similarly situation with Trump, for that matter.

[brookst]

It is perfectly possible, even common, to frame the guilty. It’s easier than finding real evidence.

[dontlaugh]

Sure, but in this case there already is plenty of real evidence.

[mlrtime]

There is actually no evidence that isn't circumstantial. Or correct me if I'm wrong?

All the evidence I've seen is person A knew or spoke to Epstein. Where is the evidence linking any person to a specific sexual encounter?