Why didn't the prior administration examine/review, redact, and release any of the Epstein documents?

It's well-known that the previous administration wanted to try and prevent Trump from returning to office, so why didn't they do anything with these documents that currently demand Trump release?

Does it seem more likely that they ignored the documents or they examined the documents and found nothing actionable?

It's not unreasonable to hold the latter position. The former may be accurate, but the latter is at least equally likely.

Trump took office on Jan. 20, 2025, this fellows phone was taken and searched on Jan. 24, 2025.

Do you really imagine that in those first few hours of his brand-new administration the Trump administration was focused on this particular Cop City Protester?

The subject was most likely placed on the terror watch list by the previous administration, not the 4 day old Trump administration.

Agree or disagree with his inclusion on the terror watch list, agree or disagree with the reason his phone was searched, the bottom line is that he caused the destruction of his phones contents to prevent the federal agents from seeing what he did or didn't have on the phone, and that is a crime.

He's not charged with violent protesting, arson, doxing officials, etc, he's charged with destroying evidence:

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us...

The U.S. is not so much concerned about what Iran does to its own people, although the outright slaughter of tens of thousands of Protesters should upset most people, no, the pretense of the war with Iran involves things like their development of cruise missiles that can hit the capitols of England, France, and Germany, as well as their obvious attempts to develop a nuclear bomb program.

Agree or disagree with the stated goal, but at least be accurate in your description of the motivation.

Yes, it will.

A24 is a smart operation and they identified a fascinating documentary subject and put it together with minimal out-of-pocket expense.

Honestly, the entire crew fits in an SUV along with all their equipment - this was a very, very inexpensive movie to make (only Seyfried drew a paycheck as an actor, the couple got nothing for their part).

This is a money-maker, it will take off on a streaming platform(s)...

Curated for what? People that appreciate insight into Scams?

It was a wild film to watch - she literally sits there and says with a straight face she has no idea why she's going to jail, "I didn't do anything wrong", and "I've never told a lie."

A classic example - she said "(the device) can do any test", but when pressed she admits it can only do about a dozen tests, but when pressed by Fiedler she clarifies "it can do any test, but we only programmed/scripted a dozen - if we programmed/scripted more tests, it could do them."

In the third act of the film we see Elizabeth & husband working to get their device back on the market - a tough sell, but it's all they've got.

They both, Mr & Mrs, come across as crazy - pass me the Kool-aid Rev. Jones crazy.

Are there any books a school or public library (both of which are funded by taxpayer funds) could choose not to buy despite the inability of some interested locals to actually buy the book on their own and not be accused of "banning books"?

Can a library choose to not shelve The Anarcists Cookbook or a coffee table book of Maplethorpe's photography, or is that also "banning" those books?

Humorously, many libraries I know are actually reducing the number of actual books they shelve, preferring to dedicate more floor space to their new role as a taxpayer-funded Internet cafe.

What? Jimmy Kimmel is still on the air, his bosses took him off the air briefly for what they figured were good reasons (like, you know, major affiliates refusing to air his show over some 'jokes' that were in bad taste).

Let me guess, you also think a school district deciding to not put "This Book is Gay" in a middle school library is "banning the book" despite your ability to buy it online or in any bookstore, as well as check it out at your local library. I bet you're also one of those folks that constantly surprised to learn "Temporary" programs someday end!

Really? By 'soaking' Discovery + subscribers for an additional $12/year ($1/month x 12 months) it will take how long to pay off $30BN in debt?

It's been almost 2 years since their last price hike, that seems pretty consistent with their historical pattern of price hikes.

This really seems more to be a coincidence that a nefarious, underhanded way to somehow beat for the merger on the backs of Discovery+ subscribers.

"Musk" was shown on exactly 4 screens world-wide, "The History of Concrete" was on considerably more screens...

I saw "Concrete", it was a very east coast intellectual almost art film. It was enjoying, but it is aimed at a very particular audience, a very New York audience (it's a very New York movie, and if you don't know what that means, it means the city plays an integral part in the movie, relying on inside jokes New Yorkers would be familiar with, for examples see any of Woody Allen's early movies).

"Tropic Thunder" is a great movie, dare I call it the "Airplane!" or "Police Squad" of a new generation, right up there with "Zoolander" and "Dodgeball"

The college still had an in-effect contact with Flock, they can't just declare it 'abandoned' and do as they like with it.

Tampering with the cameras would make the college responsible for the damage.

As for the student "arrested in the parking lot" - so what? It obviously wasn't ICE (that would have been mentioned) and we have no idea why the student was arrested - cops could have followed him into the parking lot for a moving violation, they could have had a warrant and pinged his cellphone, he could have been breaking into cars in the parking lot, selling drugs in the parking, etc... I didn't realize that community college parking lots were 'sanctuaries' for criminals.

What a silly take - this wasn't an 'indie film' that was self-financed and the suppressed/held back by "the Epstein Class" (whatever the fuck that is), a major studio spent $30M to make this movie - that $30M CAME FROM "The Epstein Class"... why would they fund a movie, film it, then put it in theaters only to suppress it?

This monomaniacal focus on the rich being responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world is a bit childish...

They thought they were making a whistleblower movie, not an indictment of Zuck/Facebook/Meta. They thought she was the the next "Deep Throat" from Watergate, found out no one cared, really.