🧵 THREAD: DOJ ADMITTED WHAT HAPPENED IN THE EPSTEIN CASE — IN ITS OWN FILES
Today DOJ released new Epstein materials under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Two documents matter immediately — because they are DOJ auditing itself.
📄 EFTA01726257.pdf
📄 EFTA01726367.pdf
Both are Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) reports.
2/ 📄 EFTA01726257.pdf
DOJ OPR Executive Summary (Nov 2020)
This is DOJ’s official admission of how the Epstein case was handled — and mishandled — by federal prosecutors.
3/ DOJ confirms a federal indictment already existed.
“In May 2007, the AUSA submitted… a draft 60-count indictment against Epstein.” 📄 EFTA01726257, pp. 2–3
This permanently destroys the claim that there wasn’t enough evidence.
A decade ago I was tweeting a response to something mundane and I got some weird responses. Then it happened again a few weeks later. Our entire careers have been in digital advertising. We know retargeting marketing when we see it.
This is The Machine controlling you.
Every account that looked and acted similar, we logged with the phrase "This is a bot."
We went down a rabbit hole and this is what a member of Project Oaktree discovered.
1/ There’s a myth about the Epstein case that won’t die:
That the truth is hidden because no one ever really looked.
That’s not what the record shows.
What the record shows is something else entirely.
🧵👇
2/ Again and again, courts were told key evidence existed. Again and again, that evidence was submitted. And again and again, the public was blocked from seeing it.
Not because it didn’t exist. Because it was sealed.
3/ This isn’t about rumor or theory. It’s about procedure.
🚨 PREVIOUSLY UNPOSTED ALLEGATIONS & INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS
RELATED TO SASCHA RILEY: PART III
(All allegations below are statements made directly by Sascha Riley unless explicitly labeled Investigative Analysis.)
(A 🧵)
1. Sascha Riley alleges that pornographic films involving him and other children were produced and still exist, and that individuals later recognized him from those recordings.
2. Sascha alleges that people he served with in the U.S. Army told him they had seen the material, and mocked or referenced it, reinforcing his belief that the footage circulated beyond the original abuse sites.