Resolves YES if the Trump administration and/or any federal court releases to the public any (previously unavailable) files satisfying the criteria below in his first 100 days in office (between January 20th & April 29th, 2025). Otherwise resolves NO.
The files must both: (1) directly describe/relate to the illegal activities of either Jeffrey Epstein or Sean "Diddy" Combs AND (2) contain the names of multiple of their associates (whose association was not trivially obvious, e.g. family).
The announce of the release does not count—the public needs to be able to access the documents (even if some friction is involved).
Update 2025-02-28 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): File Resolution Criteria Update
Previously unreleased: Files must be entirely new and not have been publicly available before their official release.
Direct Relation to Illegal Activities: Files must directly describe or relate to the illegal activities of Jeffrey Epstein.
Includes Multiple Associates' Names: Files must include the names of several associates whose connections are not trivially obvious (e.g., they are not simply family members).
1,000
@traders I'm not super familiar with the details here, so I'll post the key points & others can argue/correct if they think this seems wrong.
I adapted the criteria in my market from Polymarket, but the markets aren't quite the same. Here's their clarification:
Per the rules, “this market will resolve to "Yes" if the Trump Administration publicly releases any previously classified, sealed, or unreleased files”. Despite having previously been leaked by Gawker, the “Contact Book” was a sealed document, and therefore qualifies for this market. Thus this market should resolve “Yes”.
This makes sense to me. However, my criteria don't use quite the same wording. Polymarket uses a very broad "previously classified, sealed, or unreleased files". My market says "releases to the public any (previously unavailable) files satisfying the criteria below".
If Polymarket's clarification is correct, I don't think that would be sufficient to resolve my market YES. If the files had all been previously leaked, then (1) they could still be "previously classified/sealed/unreleased" (resolving Polymarket YES) but (2) they would not be "previously unavailable" (which was the terminology I used).
So my current plan would be to reopen this market, with the latest batch of files not counting for a YES resolution. However, I'll wait a bit in case I'm missing something (e.g. are there some files that WEREN'T previously leaked that also satisfy the criteria? I haven't been tracking the story super closely)
@Ziddletwix it only takes one small piece of info to be not formerly available by gawker to count then, no? There must be a random sentence or something that makes this resolve yes.
@HillaryClinton Depends on what was added? If there was a random, extraneous sentence that for some reason wasn't in the Gawker files (or e.g. a change in formatting or something similarly trivial), I do not believe that means the files themselves were "previously unreleased".
Ideally, the new info would satisfy the criteria in give in the description. I think reading the description closely, that may not be strictly necessary (i.e. if the files are new and they contain info that satisfies the criteria but the info they contain isn't new), although I'd need to think about that for a sec. But the files themselves need to be "previously unavailable". If the difference is sufficiently trivial, the underlying files are the same (e.g. if Trump released the exact same documents again, but changed the stamped date of release, or the formatting was different, or etc, I would not count those as being wholly new files). If there's a meaningful difference, then that could count (even if there's lots of overlap).
@Ziddletwix I would think any new piece of information, not matter how small would count. For example:
The Justice Department also released a blacked-out list of masseuses and an evidence list showing entries for more than 150 items, including nude images, massage tables, sex toys and other items.
To condense the description, a file has to satisfy 3 criteria:
(1). "Previously unreleased".
(2). "Directly describe/relate to the illegal activities of either Jeffrey Epstein".
(3). "Contain the names of multiple of their associates (whose association was not trivially obvious, e.g. family)".
Are there files I should look at that satisfy this? IIUC, the masseuse list is fully redacted, and the address book was previously available, so it didn't seem clear to me what should resolve this YES I can take a closer look later today, so people who feel that something qualifies should argue that case & explain why (as I'm not super familiar with the background here).
@Ziddletwix One document never before seen is what the Justice Department is calling "Evidence List," a three-page catalog of material apparently obtained through searches of Epstein's properties in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
@skibidist I think that's a tricky case. First, the file itself needs to be previously unavailable. If a file is "Epstein's address book", and that was previously leaked (so that's why we already have the names), releasing that same underlying address book in a slightly different form is the same already-released file. If the address book was new, but we had those names from some other, entirely separate source, that's the harder case. E.g. it seems like that might make their association "trivially obvious" (given that we already knew it...) but the description isn't super clear on that point ("trivially obvious" could refer to "before you know anything about the case", or "trivially obvious to us at this point). I'd have to think more about that, and it'd likely depend on the specifics
@HillaryClinton the file that is actually new, the evidence list, has no names. The file that has names is not new. Nothing released satisfies all the criteria.
@Benbones99 As far as I can tell, everything that satisfies criteria 2 has already been released. Am I missing something?
so far, everything that has been released was already public. Bondi herself claims she was "duped" and it's the fault of the FBI.
The hypocrisy of the "Why isn't Trump releasing the Epstein files?" crowd has been nauseating and I hope they do end up being released just to watch those people squirm.
@Shai So you want the files released because you want to own people you don't like, NOT because you're interested in prosecuting pedo rings? That seems like a weird moral compass, but I guess it is fairly common these days.
Regardless, I won't trust the list put out by an administration that is headed by
1) a former friend of Epstein
2) a man who gave the prosecutor who let Epstein off the Secretary of Labor job last administration
3) a guy who was a defendent in a lawsuit alongside Epstein for rape of an underage girl, years before Epstein was a household name
4) a guy who made William Barr AG, whose father gave Epstein his first job
The sweepstakes market for this question has been resolved to partial as we are shutting down sweepstakes. Please read the full announcement here. The mana market will continue as usual.
Only markets closing before March 3rd will be left open for trading and will be resolved as usual.
Users will be able to cashout or donate their entire sweepcash balance, regardless of whether it has been won in a sweepstakes or not, by March 28th (for amounts above our minimum threshold of $25).