• fodor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    13 hours ago

    No, it sounds worse. What good is the testimony of a “witness/convict” that you threaten and bribe? It’s not, it’s nothing. Well, if you put it together with the Epstein Files, that might be something. Which is what we already knew.

    I think you knew it too, but maybe a few other readers didn’t.

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      well if you put it together with the epstein files, that might be something

      You do realize I was talking about the epstein files right? Seeing as I said “epstein file” in both sentences that I wrote.

      • fodor@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Oh I see what you’re saying. You’re saying that you posted your comment in the wrong place and that you didn’t actually care about the article mentioned above. Okay, in that case we agree.

        Except even then we don’t agree. If the idea is that they are going to release the files without one name, that means they’re actually going to doctor the files, which makes them totally worthless.

        • jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Even if the list had no apparent omissions, how could you verify it wasn’t doctored? Generally, we don’t tend to consider redactions as the same thing as doctoring.

            • jsomae@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              okay well, when one doctors something generally you’re trying to pass it off as though it’s unmodified. When you redact something, you’re being explicit that something is removed. Make sense?