no. it’s either being written up carefully or suppressed. I’m at page 134, and oooo boy it’s juicy.
edit 326-343 are completely redacted.
edit 2: I’ll have to dig through later. a lot of pages are corrections to testimony. Notably though, is a few sections on Prince Andrew. He was clearly involved and at least present at the time.
so i figure nothing earth shattering in here if we didn’t get 20 headlines about it?
no. it’s either being written up carefully or suppressed. I’m at page 134, and oooo boy it’s juicy.
edit 326-343 are completely redacted.
edit 2: I’ll have to dig through later. a lot of pages are corrections to testimony. Notably though, is a few sections on Prince Andrew. He was clearly involved and at least present at the time.
What are the most interesting names on there? Feel free to just paste names in your comment so we can read along 1000 pages is a bit too much for me.
Apparently, the absence of something salacious is proof of something salacious.
It’s a 900 page document, give it time. WSJ already released an article