Epstein, Kiddies, And Trump. Oh, My

[Derec]

Here you go.

I already rolled my eyes at Jarhyn. No need to quote two walls of text over it.

 

[Jarhyn]

A signed image just says "The persons or organizations who are vouching for the veracity of this image are the actual persons or organizations who we are claiming are vouching for the veracity of the image".

But why should I trust those persons or organizations?

There need not be a person or organization, merely a trusted factory.

Let's say Nikon Japan makes a tamper-resistant signing chip. Two keys, one for the unit, one for the series. The chips get both private keys and their public keys. And the public keys of every other chip in the series. The chips are embedded in cameras with an anti-tamper design. Every frame, the chip signs the image with both keys and includes the public keys. All cameras in the series are manufactured together. Once a series is complete all records of the private keys are destroyed.

NSA has no way of making an image with the proper signatures. Nor can they make up a fake camera because they have no way to make a private key that matches the public ones that are already published. You only need to trust that Nikon was not compromised at the time of the production run as the fakes will not show up in the list of proper keys that a bunch of people around the world will have.

There is some issue here, in the identifiabilty of the camera itself.

I would say that camera should instead contain a user-supplied private key, and this camera should produce a packet that is encrypted with the user's public key and that signs the user's public key and the hardware ID and the image.

This puts the FIRST burden on the public identity of the claimant, and doesn't expose the actual hardware unless the user chooses to expose it.

To validate a hardware ID is contained as suggested in the first packet, the query could be formed by a replay attack to produce the cipher text as if it were a salt value. To fully prove this, the user could decrypt the full hardware signature packet and produce it publicly, and then this could be validated.

This allows a user to fall back on their a publicly posted certificate while remaining able to post anonymous, hardware signed images with a fallback to prove their authenticity on a hardware level.

Some schema like this is necessary to protect anonymous and independent press, especially in times like these.

Ultimately, we do have to decide who to trust and can have the luxury of even deciding what timeframe we trust them for (like if the Smithsonian published many signatures on stuff, but then The Pedophile decided to make them rubber-stamp bullshit, we could "distrust" that timeframe).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump indicates that Prince Andrew's accuser worked for Trump and was poached by Epstein. The admission opens up an unbelievable array of potential possibilities, that Trump just threw out there. At best Trump and Epstein had a spat because Epstein was poaching the hot teens Trump's resort was hiring. Also, how much massaging experience does the average 16 year old have?

Questions about Trump's relationship with Epstein followed him on to Air Force One on Tuesday, where he was asked to expand on comments he made the previous day in Scotland where he said: "He [Epstein] stole people that worked for me."

Asked if the employees were young women, Trump responded: "the answer is yes", and added that they were hired "out of the spa" he ran.

Trump said that one of them was Virginia Giuffre, who had said she began working at Mar-a-Lago in the summer of 2000, when she was 16.

I mean, we think we know Trump is pretty stupid, but every reporter in Florida must have got an orgasm when they heard this stated, as they rushed to start tracking down employment information.

You hear the reporters kind of start digging, uncertain where this is going and Trump is just laying out huge chunks of fresh red meat.

 

[Tigers!]

I am so glad that Trump does not have the werewithal to realise he is his own worst enemy.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump indicates that Prince Andrew's accuser worked for Trump and was poached by Epstein. The admission opens up an unbelievable array of potential possibilities, that Trump just threw out there. At best Trump and Epstein had a spat because Epstein was poaching the hot teens Trump's resort was hiring. Also, how much massaging experience does the average 16 year old have?

Questions about Trump's relationship with Epstein followed him on to Air Force One on Tuesday, where he was asked to expand on comments he made the previous day in Scotland where he said: "He [Epstein] stole people that worked for me."

Asked if the employees were young women, Trump responded: "the answer is yes", and added that they were hired "out of the spa" he ran.

Trump said that one of them was Virginia Giuffre, who had said she began working at Mar-a-Lago in the summer of 2000, when she was 16.

I mean, we think we know Trump is pretty stupid, but every reporter in Florida must have got an orgasm when they heard this stated, as they rushed to start tracking down employment information.

You hear the reporters kind of start digging, uncertain where this is going and Trump is just laying out huge chunks of fresh red meat.

Not true. He palled around with Epstein after that. According to the Chris Hayes report on this, WaPo said the split came a couple years later when Epstein outbid trump on a property they both desired. The timelines don't add up for Trump's explanation to be true.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump indicates that Prince Andrew's accuser worked for Trump and was poached by Epstein. The admission opens up an unbelievable array of potential possibilities, that Trump just threw out there. At best Trump and Epstein had a spat because Epstein was poaching the hot teens Trump's resort was hiring. Also, how much massaging experience does the average 16 year old have?

Questions about Trump's relationship with Epstein followed him on to Air Force One on Tuesday, where he was asked to expand on comments he made the previous day in Scotland where he said: "He [Epstein] stole people that worked for me."

Asked if the employees were young women, Trump responded: "the answer is yes", and added that they were hired "out of the spa" he ran.

Trump said that one of them was Virginia Giuffre, who had said she began working at Mar-a-Lago in the summer of 2000, when she was 16.

I mean, we think we know Trump is pretty stupid, but every reporter in Florida must have got an orgasm when they heard this stated, as they rushed to start tracking down employment information.

You hear the reporters kind of start digging, uncertain where this is going and Trump is just laying out huge chunks of fresh red meat.

Not true. He palled around with Epstein after that. According to the Chris Hayes report on this, WaPo said the split came a couple years later when Epstein outbid trump on a property they both desired. The timelines don't add up for Trump's explanation to be true.

Are you claiming that Trump lied or doesn't have his facts straight? That just seems inunplausible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am so glad that Trump does not have the werewithal to realise he is his own worst enemy.

It hasn't stopped him yet.

Even as a complete businessman failure, he has managed quite well (thanks in part to a massive inheritance of course). Though if I had money in Bitcoin, his company's $2 billion purchase of the stuff would make me think it is definitely time to sell off.

 

[ZiprHead]

Who has their money on the pardon comes down this Friday night?

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He can claim whatever he wants. That doesn't amount to much, especially when coming from MeidasTouch who'll make mountains out of molehills.

At this point, it isn't what people say... it is what are in the documents Trump is refusing to release.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A signed image just says "The persons or organizations who are vouching for the veracity of this image are the actual persons or organizations who we are claiming are vouching for the veracity of the image".

But why should I trust those persons or organizations?

There need not be a person or organization, merely a trusted factory.

Let's say Nikon Japan makes a tamper-resistant signing chip. Two keys, one for the unit, one for the series. The chips get both private keys and their public keys. And the public keys of every other chip in the series. The chips are embedded in cameras with an anti-tamper design. Every frame, the chip signs the image with both keys and includes the public keys. All cameras in the series are manufactured together. Once a series is complete all records of the private keys are destroyed.

NSA has no way of making an image with the proper signatures. Nor can they make up a fake camera because they have no way to make a private key that matches the public ones that are already published. You only need to trust that Nikon was not compromised at the time of the production run as the fakes will not show up in the list of proper keys that a bunch of people around the world will have.

There is some issue here, in the identifiabilty of the camera itself.

I would say that camera should instead contain a user-supplied private key, and this camera should produce a packet that is encrypted with the user's public key and that signs the user's public key and the hardware ID and the image.

This puts the FIRST burden on the public identity of the claimant, and doesn't expose the actual hardware unless the user chooses to expose it.

To validate a hardware ID is contained as suggested in the first packet, the query could be formed by a replay attack to produce the cipher text as if it were a salt value. To fully prove this, the user could decrypt the full hardware signature packet and produce it publicly, and then this could be validated.

This allows a user to fall back on their a publicly posted certificate while remaining able to post anonymous, hardware signed images with a fallback to prove their authenticity on a hardware level.

Some schema like this is necessary to protect anonymous and independent press, especially in times like these.

Ultimately, we do have to decide who to trust and can have the luxury of even deciding what timeframe we trust them for (like if the Smithsonian published many signatures on stuff, but then The Pedophile decided to make them rubber-stamp bullshit, we could "distrust" that timeframe).

Yeah, I think your approach is better, or perhaps combine them. The thing is there is no trusted repository to base it off of, I'm proposing a partial replacement.

Being able to remain anonymous isn't a factor, you could simply strip the signature.

 

[Jarhyn]

A signed image just says "The persons or organizations who are vouching for the veracity of this image are the actual persons or organizations who we are claiming are vouching for the veracity of the image".

But why should I trust those persons or organizations?

There need not be a person or organization, merely a trusted factory.

Let's say Nikon Japan makes a tamper-resistant signing chip. Two keys, one for the unit, one for the series. The chips get both private keys and their public keys. And the public keys of every other chip in the series. The chips are embedded in cameras with an anti-tamper design. Every frame, the chip signs the image with both keys and includes the public keys. All cameras in the series are manufactured together. Once a series is complete all records of the private keys are destroyed.

NSA has no way of making an image with the proper signatures. Nor can they make up a fake camera because they have no way to make a private key that matches the public ones that are already published. You only need to trust that Nikon was not compromised at the time of the production run as the fakes will not show up in the list of proper keys that a bunch of people around the world will have.

There is some issue here, in the identifiabilty of the camera itself.

I would say that camera should instead contain a user-supplied private key, and this camera should produce a packet that is encrypted with the user's public key and that signs the user's public key and the hardware ID and the image.

This puts the FIRST burden on the public identity of the claimant, and doesn't expose the actual hardware unless the user chooses to expose it.

To validate a hardware ID is contained as suggested in the first packet, the query could be formed by a replay attack to produce the cipher text as if it were a salt value. To fully prove this, the user could decrypt the full hardware signature packet and produce it publicly, and then this could be validated.

This allows a user to fall back on their a publicly posted certificate while remaining able to post anonymous, hardware signed images with a fallback to prove their authenticity on a hardware level.

Some schema like this is necessary to protect anonymous and independent press, especially in times like these.

Ultimately, we do have to decide who to trust and can have the luxury of even deciding what timeframe we trust them for (like if the Smithsonian published many signatures on stuff, but then The Pedophile decided to make them rubber-stamp bullshit, we could "distrust" that timeframe).

Yeah, I think your approach is better, or perhaps combine them. The thing is there is no trusted repository to base it off of, I'm proposing a partial replacement.

Being able to remain anonymous isn't a factor, you could simply strip the signature.

You could, but then it wouldn't be there in the record proving it happened when you say it did.

Ideally, there would be a scheme that would allow a user to put their own selected public certificate in the camera, and that acts as the hardware ID as it gets signed by the camera's internal certificate, or maybe it has to be signed by the manufacturer with their user registration validation certificate, and the camera only allows uploads that check against the shipped public certificate?

But then the camera manufacturer has access to the linkage of camera account to certificate, and that is also an issue.

Honestly, this is a problem to be resolved by more people in a better environment than an internet forum!

But either way, we should have signed an image of literally EVERYTHING that matters historically, and we should have done that 5 years ago or more.

 

[ZiprHead]

Dropkick Murphys Make Trump Their Honorary 'First Class Loser' During Warped Tour Set

Dropkick Murphys dedicated 'First Class Loser' to Donald Trump during a recent Warped Tour appearance, continuing a long history of criticism.

www.rollingstone.com

How long before they are arrested and deported?

 

[laughing dog]

So, how long before "15 years old isn't a child" arguments start coming in?

Well, a 15 year old is objectively not a child.

In your fantasies, not in the USA.

 

[Derec]

In your fantasies, not in the USA.

Reality is far more complex and nuanced than your facile, simplistic dichotomy.

 

[Jarhyn]

In your fantasies, not in the USA.

Reality is far more complex and nuanced than your facile, simplistic dichotomy.

Only, among adults, for people who want to fuck 15 year olds. Herein lies the problem.

Please, if you dig up an exception, go ahead and also dig up how common that exception is in the total group of people who argue this.

 

[Derec]

Only, among adults, for people who want to fuck 15 year olds. Herein lies the problem.

Bullshit³.
One can say that is inappropriate for say, 30 year old to fuck a 15 year old without having to pretend that anybody under 18 is a child, or deny that human development is a continuum and not a discontinuous event on one's 18th birthday.
In post #137 I offered a detailed explanation of my position. That you have nothing to offer other than to cast aspersions says a lot about you.

Note that this infantilization of teenagers is not limited to sex. We have people (including the former Los Angeles DA) who think that 16 and 17 year olds who murder should not be tried in criminal court to face real penalties, but in juvenile court facing at most only a few years in juvie. Because, apparently, they are just innocent children who do not know any better.

Gascón gave teen killer second chance — now she’s charged again

 

[ZiprHead]

CBS News investigation of Jeffrey Epstein jail video reveals new discrepancies

A CBS News investigation found discrepancies between the government's description of the Jeffrey Epstein jail video and what the video shows.

www.cbsnews.com

Experts question investigators' interpretation of orange shape moving up the stairs.
Just before 10:40 p.m., an orange shape is seen moving up the stairs leading to Epstein's tier. The report says. "Through review and analysis of the SHU video footage, witness statements, and BOP records, the OIG determined that at approximately 10:40 p.m. a CO [corrections officer], believed to be Noel, carried linen or inmate clothing up to the L Tier, which was the last time any CO approached the only entrance to the SHU tier in which Epstein was housed."

Video forensic experts who reviewed that footage at the request of CBS News were skeptical about that interpretation and suggested that the shape could be a person dressed in an orange prison jumpsuit climbing the stairs.

This image from the video — zoomed in and highlighted by CBS News – shows a partial view of something orange on the stairs leading to Jeffrey Epstein's cell tier. U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS
Conor McCourt, a retired NYPD sergeant and forensic video expert, told CBS News, "Based on the limited video, it's more likely it's a person in an [orange] uniform."

More inconsistencies noted in the report.

 

[Jarhyn]

Arguing technical definitions for "child" that have nothing to do with the idea of "childhood" at play here is, sadly, another venn diagram circle that looks fairly well exactly the same as "adults who want to fuck children"... Again, I'm open to exceptions...

"Child" here is fairly well exactly "people too young for it to be appropriate for people over 18 let alone 21 to be fucking".

Trying to conflate definitions to argue around this is... Well, it's not a good look.

 

[ZiprHead]

CBS News investigation of Jeffrey Epstein jail video reveals new discrepancies

A CBS News investigation found discrepancies between the government's description of the Jeffrey Epstein jail video and what the video shows.

www.cbsnews.com

Experts question investigators' interpretation of orange shape moving up the stairs.
Just before 10:40 p.m., an orange shape is seen moving up the stairs leading to Epstein's tier. The report says. "Through review and analysis of the SHU video footage, witness statements, and BOP records, the OIG determined that at approximately 10:40 p.m. a CO [corrections officer], believed to be Noel, carried linen or inmate clothing up to the L Tier, which was the last time any CO approached the only entrance to the SHU tier in which Epstein was housed."

Video forensic experts who reviewed that footage at the request of CBS News were skeptical about that interpretation and suggested that the shape could be a person dressed in an orange prison jumpsuit climbing the stairs.

This image from the video — zoomed in and highlighted by CBS News – shows a partial view of something orange on the stairs leading to Jeffrey Epstein's cell tier. U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS
Conor McCourt, a retired NYPD sergeant and forensic video expert, told CBS News, "Based on the limited video, it's more likely it's a person in an [orange] uniform."

More inconsistencies noted in the report.

Here a rundown of the inconsistencies written far better than I could.

Inconsistencies Between Official Claims and Video Evidence​

The Department of Justice and the FBI said in a memo earlier this month that "anyone entering or attempting to enter the tier where Epstein's cell was located from the SHU (Special Housing Unit) common area would have been captured by this footage."

However, Epstein's cell was accessible via a staircase from the SHU's common area that is almost entirely out of view from the camera. The camera angle captured by the surveillance footage also does not show the entrance to Epstein's cell or the main SHU entrance.

CBS News reported that Epstein is seen walking toward the staircase, but not ascending it, meaning individuals could have entered the area or accessed the stairs without being recorded.
Click to expand...

Interpretation of the 'Orange Shape'​

The 2023 report on Epstein, released by the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General, identified an "orange shape" moving up the stairs leading to Epstein's tier as a corrections officer carrying linen or inmate clothing.

But Conor McCourt, a retired New York City Police Department sergeant and forensic video expert, told CBS News that the shape is more likely to be someone in an orange prison jumpsuit.

Video Format and Editing Discrepancies​

Federal officials described the video as "raw footage." However, experts pointed to the presence of a cursor and onscreen menu in the footage as a sign that it is a screen recording rather than an original export from a DVR system.

Analysis of metadata showed the footage was created on May 23, 2025, CBS News reported. Two experts told CBS News that the footage was unlikely to be an export of the raw footage, but appears to be two separate video segments that were stitched together.

'Missing Minute'​

Attorney General Pam Bondi said during a July 8 Cabinet meeting that the missing minute just before midnight in the video was due to a nightly reset of the outdated security system.

However, CBS News, citing a high-level government source, said the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons and the inspector general's office have unedited copies of the video that do not have a missing minute.

Presence of an Unidentified Individual​

The inspector general's report listed only two staff members entering the SHU after midnight: a corrections officer identified only as "CO 3" and the Morning Watch Operations Lieutenant. But according to CBS News, a third unidentified individual passes through the unit at around 12:05 a.m.

Mismatch Between Video and Staff Statements​

The inspector general's report said a corrections officer, Tova Noel, said she left Epstein alone in the shower area on August 9, 2019, where he made an unmonitored phone call. She went to use the bathroom, the report said, and upon her return, she found that Epstein had been escorted back to his cell.

But the video shows what appears to be Noel remaining in the SHU and escorting Epstein to the staircase leading to his cell. The report seems to conflate Noel's actions with those of another female staff member, who is seen on the footage exiting the unit just before Epstein is escorted back to his cell, according to CBS News.

Contradiction About Access Claims​

The inspector general's report said that in the SHU, access to each entrance of each tier was through a single locked door at the top or bottom of the staircase leading to the tier, and that keys to open the doors were available to a limited number of corrections officers while on duty.

Noel told investigators that only she and Material Handler Michael Thomas possessed the physical key to a door that required it. However, the video shows several people entering and exiting while neither is seen near the door, CBS News reported.

While none of this proves that Epstein was murdered, it certainly brings into question the thoroughness and accuracy of the FBI investigation.

Oh no, wait, the DOJ says it doesn't:

The DOJ and FBI, in the July 7 memo: "The conclusion that Epstein died by suicide is further supported by video footage from the common area of the Special Housing Unit (SHU) where Epstein was housed at the time of his death. As DOJ's Inspector General explained in 2023, anyone entering or attempting to enter the tier where Epstein's cell was located from the SHU common area would have been captured by this footage.

"The FBI's independent review of this footage confirmed that from the time Epstein was locked in his cell at around 10:40 pm on August 9, 2019, until around 6:30 am the next morning, nobody entered any of the tiers in the SHU."

The DOJ memo said that "no further disclosure" of Epstein records is "appropriate or warranted."