Keith Edwards: New Epstein files accidentally leaked showing Trump in flight logs and 10 new co-conspirators
Keith Edwards discusses the latest Epstein files that were accidentally leaked by the Justice Department, which include flight logs from Epstein’s private planes showing Trump’s travel and list previously unreported names tied to Epstein’s network. He explains the files briefly exposed details of flights and about 10 new co-conspirators or contacts not widely reported before.
= new reply since forum marked as read
No evidence is presented that these are "new". Just offhand, 10 is roughly the number of people named by Guiffre in her 2015 defamation suit against Maxwell. Plus these are internal docs, not court docs, from 2019, while Epstein was alive. Because they're not being submitted to court, this means the agents could be calling them co-conspirators without bothering to say "alleged" or other court niceties. And the one name mentioned here, Wexner, was someone VG had already named publicly as at least "being involved" before 2019.
Without any other actual names, these could simply be the people that VG claimed she was "sent to" by Epstein, and the agents writing the docs are just calling them co-conspirators as simple nomenclature they can share between them.
The 10 COULD totally be what this guy is alleging, totally new, and the FBI totally already knew they were guilty, etc. So, I'm not saying he's wrong. But he's stating it with a lot more certainty than I would be comfortable doing if it were me 
What's actually interesting to me here is ... what happened with these supposed Grand Juries these people were apparently getting subpoenas for?
Also, the bit about 'participant-witnesses', that looks like something from an actual indictment (or draft of one). SO WHO ARE THEY? Specifically?!? See, because that right there, if there's proof he paid people off to be quiet, we can VERY MUCH point the finger at those particular people. That is potentially SOLID evidence. At minimum that they knew what he was up to (e.g. witnesses) and presumably that nomenclature means there's a non-zero number of "participants", although the degree thereof is not clearly defined here.
