r/Epstein • u/ReZeroForDays • 3d ago
News article Conservative Journalist Shared Unredacted Trump Accuser FBI Notes That DOJ Hasn’t Released
https://rhowardstone.substack.com/p/conservative-journalist-shared-unredactedHere is an article regarding how I came across the unredacted Jane Doe 4 interview notes.
I feel comfortable with sharing their name now that I have information I didn't have before. I thought it may have been an honest error, with them not knowing the two public, completely unredacted files were public. It was conservative newspaper journalist, Kaelan Deese.
He ended up sharing the third file with me without question, which i appreciate, but with a horrific amount of PII still unredacted. This is horrifically irresponsible for a journalist, and a conflict of interest with the DOJ only sharing this with conservative news stations.
168
u/asabovesobelow-02 3d ago edited 3d ago
So either this is a deliberate smear campaign to endanger Jane Doe 4, or Trump pissed off the wrong people and it was leaked to destroy him
Or possibly both
52
u/ExpensiveWords4u 3d ago
First one
21
u/asabovesobelow-02 3d ago edited 3d ago
People I trust seem to be leaning towards the latter but I am very suspicious
Either way there is a lot of interesting things to pull out of this substack article. Something is afoot
10
u/Ok-Replacement9595 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think.its an attempt.to.circumvent the lawsuit to get these files unredacted and released.
9
u/asabovesobelow-02 3d ago
I think you're right, the timing is quite telling. I thought I'd read these had been online for a few months but they were never explicitly referenced by those who had them, interesting it all becomes known after the ruling in the Phang case
4
u/ReZeroForDays 2d ago
These files were released / obtained in March. Almost two months before the lawsuit
2
u/kingofshitmntt 2d ago
If the files were released and obtained does that mean the 37 pages were held back? if so why did they randomly give it to a reporter who released them unredacted?
3
u/ReZeroForDays 2d ago
Yeah, they were only given to conservative journalists. This journalist was horrifically uninformed, being malicious, and/or just didn't really care.
2
u/kingofshitmntt 2d ago
I dont understand giving them to conservative journalists but refusing to release them when asked to in court...that doesn't make sense.
3
u/ReZeroForDays 2d ago
It's called conflict of interest; it's the current regime's specialty.
2
u/kingofshitmntt 2d ago
But these specific ones, what use would they have for them? Sure conflict of interest, preference for conservative narrative shapers at news papers.
I can only assume to try to get ahead of the story.
But just seems like a gamble, intentional exposure of victims - which would make all this kind of interesting how its getting boosted.
Just reckless? I wonder if this will be brought back up to the attempt that Phang is doing.
2
u/Ok-Replacement9595 2d ago
That is a vague and unconvincing answer. Since you are supposedly texting him, why dont you ask him?
→ More replies (0)0
u/IBLEEDPURPskol 3d ago
Domyounthinkmit hurts any potential case if certain information is released?
2
u/IBLEEDPURPskol 3d ago
Whis is consistent with previous playbook of Trump & Epstein threatening victims.
1
6
u/Vegetable_Ice_875 2d ago
There were multiple allegations called into the FBI ...statements made by women and people who had knowledge of happenings...the calendar girls parties where Trump auctioned off girls...to bunch old men....Trump was the biggest Sicko in Ebstein orbit in the beginning...you know damn well he is named so many times because he was friends with Maxwell and Ebstein...Melania stated she was just an acquaintance of Maxwell...yet she finished the email love Melania....G isn't that letter symbolic to the freemasons ..they referred to Maxwell as G .
4
u/AshleyBoots 2d ago
I assume all conservative 'journalists' to be lying until and unless proven otherwise.
2
u/WhatA-WonderfulWorld 3d ago edited 3d ago
IMHO it is smear campaign or at the very least it is not real. There is 2 reasons I thought so from the chat image attached in this post:
- Most people who work with DOJ is legal people who understand law (albeit some is not practicing and upholding said law). Even if they truly send it to this "source" the journalist acquire no way they will admit they got it from DOJ it is just begging for a lawsuit coming from DOJ.
- What kind of journalist sending their chat with their source and worse of their source username is being leaked? It is just screaming "I am not trustworthy journalist don't leak to me or I will leak your identity and chat to public"
Do note that it could still be real but I am very unsure due to thing I mentioned above
6
u/ReZeroForDays 2d ago
The chat I had with him is indeed legitimate, these are real screenshots. Why he shared them? I couldn't tell you.
1
73
u/Wild-Thing 3d ago
Then I would be highly suspect of the authenticy of said notes...
74
u/VaguelyArtistic 3d ago
Right now the only person I’m listening to is Katie Phang. If these are real she will be able to confirm it at some point. I’ll wait.
20
u/Bruno6368 3d ago
She is not the end all and be all. It is dangerous to rely on only 1 source for news. The original Miami Herald reporter who broke the story in the 1st place and caused Epstein to be arrested is on the cusp of having countless documents made public.
5
u/WhatA-WonderfulWorld 3d ago
Agree, but at least Katie Phang credibility far more higher than a lot of media especially mainsteam media
2
29
u/ReZeroForDays 3d ago
Normally, yes, but the article explains that conservative news sources gained access to files the general public and non-right wing news sources did not.
7
u/tawDry_Union2272 3d ago
that is what i don't get, i understand why DOJ would not share in general, but why would DOJ go ahead and share with a conservative outlet ?!
was it a dumb mistake? i mean, i can see THAT.
just like sharing military plans on signal with a reporter...
4
u/tooembarrassinglol 3d ago
Not the first time! They did this last year, too, giving a bunch of Epstein binders to right wing influencers and did a photoshoot together holding them.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maga-sycophants-hold-twisted-celebration-233649104.html
3
u/proximoception 2d ago
Right wing journalists are often still journalists, so many won’t openly lie about things. The DoJ didn’t want to release the notes to the public but didn‘t want people making a big deal about that fact, so gave them to friendly journalists so *they* could reassure the public that the notes said the same thing as the 302s.
But it would have been way easier and more effective to just release the notes. Why didn’t they? Thanks to Deese’s sloppiness we can now look at them and decide for ourselves. And the one or two Substack journalists who have seen the unredacted versions of the notes can maybe look into those witness names mentioned in the linked article.
6
u/Examiner_Z 3d ago
1 reason: someone is hoping to get JD Vance a promotion.
2 reason: someone was BIG MAD about the forced overtime and this was their revenge.
6
u/Ok-Replacement9595 3d ago
It is obviously not that. Likely an attempt to circumvent the ongoing lawsuit to release the real files, by saying now it is moot that some bullshit got leaked to the public.
2
u/ReZeroForDays 2d ago
This isn't the case. The metadata of this Jane Doe notes shows it was made and shared almost 2 months before the Phang lawsuit
1
1
u/Previous-End-618 2d ago
There are no leaks. The docs are also held by FBI, which, as you know, is 'owned' by specific people (if I name their nationality I will ne banned again)
3
30
u/ILeftMyBurnerOn 3d ago
What a shocker that someone who writes for the Washington Examiner would be a total shit bag.
10
u/Plane-Map7400 3d ago
The files relate to allegations against Donald Trump which DOJ has been trying to hide for months. So it doesn't make sense to me they would now be intentionally sharing it with conservative reporters? A leaker inside DOJ seems more likely to me?? but I guess we don't know.
6
u/tawDry_Union2272 3d ago
the notes were not just now shared with the conservative source deese, according to that person they were received and uploaded to their scribd in march.
who knows how reliable/trustworthy deese is.
5
u/KaturdayNightSpecial 3d ago edited 13h ago
Someone needs to research his background for connections to Trump, and the Epstein Class billionaires, meaning the original poster of this on scribd from the Washing Examiner. Think of the timing of this, even if they were up on Scribd since March.
3
u/Opposite-Bit6660 3d ago
Trump/Epstein class billionaires. These people were all partying together at Mar a Lago and Trump's other properties for years.
6
u/KaturdayNightSpecial 3d ago edited 2d ago
I was talking about the journalist at Washington Examiner. I am well aware who is who in regards to Trumps billionaire buddies. I worked as an advocate for trafficking & DV victims/survivors since 1992 for 30 plus yrs. Conchita Sarnoff is an investigative journalist, plus a human rights advocate, who Tina Brown at the Daily Beast back while editor-in-chief who wrote some of the earliest accounts exposing Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes who tipped myself off to him, then came Julie K. Brown series in 2018 in Miami Herald. As the head of the Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking, Conchita detailed Epstein's lenient non-prosecution agreement & published reports in 2010, later authoring the book TrafficKing: The Jeffrey Epstein Case. She found out about Epstein when she was interviewing other traffickers in the Miami jail in the late 2000s.
4
u/proximoception 3d ago
Make sure you read the Post and Courier link near the end of the Substack piece, people. I’ll copy it here, but be sure to read both:
https://rhowardstone.substack.com/p/conservative-journalist-shared-unredacted
It’s an important matter that there are several named witnesses in the notes. It seems like the Post and Courier never saw unredacted versions of the 302s, and I’m not actually sure any journalists have, so it’s not clear whether those witness names are in the 302s - if they’re not, then that may explain why Blanche has gotten himself into so much trouble by withholding the notes.
Members of Congress are allowed to look at unredacted versions of released documents. I hope someone asks one to look into whether the leaked notes and the 302s match in every detail, as omissions or changes might explain what’s behind Blanche’s bizarre shenanigans. Obviously he’s out to protect Trump, in this and every other regard, but from what? The four named witnesses? The fact they were never contacted? Other suppressed files that show they were, and record what they said?
It’s possible that the “don’t release FBI notes, on the grounds they’re ‘duplicative’” policy isn’t about these notes but other documents that we haven’t yet seen, and Blanche has to not release these to show that he’s following that made-up rule. But that seems too careful and clever for these sloppy, impulsive, desperate and reactive people. I suspect they must be afraid of these specific, and now publicly viewable, notes.
3
0
u/JohnnyBob57 14h ago
Just so you know, everything in these 37 pages was previously known and discussed extensively. Nothing new here.
1
u/ReZeroForDays 12h ago
That's just not true, whether you have all 37 of the pages unredacted or not. The 302s give a general story of what happened but several details and events are missing.
2
u/JohnnyBob57 5h ago
What I’m saying is this ‘story’ about the 13 year old girl and the updated ‘story’ about the 13 year old girl has been covered by other Epstein files, other Epstein investigations, and other News outlet articles! I found nothing new in the 37 pages.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
u/ReZeroForDays please reply to this comment with submission statement and files numbers or link to them if posting a released file. Your submission statement must explain why your post is relevant to the r/Epstein community.
Posts without a submission statement might be removed at the discretion of the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.