Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Stargleamer

(2,672 posts)
Sat Feb 7, 2026, 07:46 PM Saturday

an interesting hypothesis on why the word "don't" was redacted in the Epstein files. . .

They looked for “Don T” in the Epstein files and redacted all instances, which means they also redacted a lot of “don’t”

God (@thegodpodcast.com) 2026-02-07T19:56:55.630Z
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
an interesting hypothesis on why the word "don't" was redacted in the Epstein files. . . (Original Post) Stargleamer Saturday OP
That's some Sherlock Holmes-level detective work. Impressive. TheRickles Saturday #1
Yep. bamagal62 Saturday #2
Sure makes sense to me. lamp_shade Saturday #3
You'd think those idiots canetoad Saturday #4
There should be a law that whoever... Mark.b2 Saturday #5
"Dwigt" has entered the chat Orrex Saturday #6
Duh JoseBalow Saturday #7
Darwin Award nominees, all of them. ms liberty Saturday #8
Seriously, is AI doing the redactions? Talitha Saturday #9

Mark.b2

(785 posts)
5. There should be a law that whoever...
Sat Feb 7, 2026, 08:21 PM
Saturday

approves a redaction shall be disclosed in the document in which the redaction occurs for each redaction. EACH instance of redaction shall be given a unique identifier along with a justification. Further, the approver of such redactions shall be potentially subject to inquiry about each redaction identified in the event a court or Congress demands explanation.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»an interesting hypothesis...