dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Feb. 12, 2026) – Today, Congresswoman Nancy Mace sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi demanding a full explanation for why documents from the Epstein Files were removed from the Department of Justice's public website after their initial release on January 30th.

The letter comes after numerous documents which were initially released to the public under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (Public Law 119-38) were subsequently removed from the DOJ's website. Public reporting indicates some documents were removed due to improper redactions which exposed victims' identities and sexually explicit photographs, while other documents appear to have been removed and never restored.

"The DOJ released these files, then quietly pulled some of them down without explanation. We want to know why," said Congresswoman Mace. "The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the release of ALL unclassified records related to Jeffrey Epstein's investigation and prosecution, with redactions to protect the identities of victims, not predators. Those who enabled and participated in trafficking and abusing women and children MUST be exposed and held accountable. We don't care how powerful, how rich, or how famous they are. Every single name gets released."

Anonymous ID: d5d979 Aug. 14, 2026, 9:57 a.m. No.24934652 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>4672

>>24934639

>>24934643

>hold, needs fixing re date, i fixed 1 but now i noticed another wrong date

"Important correction to the generated graphic: don't use this one as a factual research graphic. It invented several dates/events, including an August 14, 2026 “first major release.” The major DOJ release was actually January 30, 2026, when DOJ said it published 3+ million additional pages, bringing its production to nearly 3.5 million pages.

On your judge question, yes—but with an important qualification. In 2025, three federal judges rejected DOJ attempts to unseal particular grand-jury materials under the law as it existed then; for example, Judge Richard Berman rejected the New York Epstein request in August. Those rulings did not mean judges were preventing DOJ from releasing the enormous body of ordinary investigative files DOJ already possessed.

Then Congress changed the situation. The bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act passed the House 427–1, passed the Senate unanimously, and Trump signed it on November 19, 2025. After that, judges permitted previously protected grand-jury material to be unsealed; Judge Paul Engelmayer, for example, approved release of Maxwell grand-jury documents while establishing protections for victims' identities.

So the accurate formulation is “judges initially denied some grand-jury unsealing requests under existing secrecy law; Congress subsequently changed the law and courts then authorized releases.” That's substantially different from the picture's blanket claim that judges “protected the powerful.”

>>24934643

>>24934652

i think this 1 is moar correct

>>24934472

>OpenAI, ChatGPT (non-work mode)

"Important nuance for reading this one: the 2013 modernization did not simply “legalize government propaganda against Americans.” It removed restrictions that had prevented State Department/USAGM material intended for foreign audiences from being made available domestically, while the statutory prohibition on using those public-diplomacy funds to influence U.S. public opinion remained.

So to “does it hurt citizens?”, there are two legitimate arguments. Critics warned that relaxing the firewall could make government persuasion of Americans easier; supporters argued that the Internet had made the old geographic firewall obsolete and that allowing Americans to inspect publicly funded overseas programming actually increases transparency.

Interesting timing for your research: there is currently a 119th-Congress bill, H.R. 5704, proposing to reverse the modernization and explicitly restore restrictions on domestic distribution. That's a proposal, not current law.

So I'd put a warning under this graphic before posting it: “2013 allowed greater domestic availability of foreign-audience material; it did not repeal every federal restriction on domestic propaganda.” That distinction matters."

Anonymous ID: d5d979 Aug. 14, 2026, 10:37 a.m. No.24934822 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>4836

>>24934791

"1 Anon asks "Maybe I missed it….where in the process does the US employer verify in the application process that he has exhausted all attempts to hire AMERICAN prior to and as a reason for filing LCA?" i'm not sure how much sarcasm Anon is including, sometimes its hard to tell with such wry humor. how would you answer?"

>OpenAI, ChatGPT (non-work mode)

"😄 I think the Anon may indeed be asking a wry question whose implied answer is “nowhere.” And on the central point, they'd basically be correct.

I'd answer something like:

Good question. For an ordinary H-1B employer, that step generally does not exist. The employer normally does not have to prove that it tried and failed to hire an American before filing the Labor Condition Application (LCA). The LCA mainly requires attestations concerning wages, working conditions, strikes/lockouts, and notice to workers.

There is an important exception: H-1B-dependent employers and employers previously found to be willful H-1B violators can be subject to U.S.-worker recruitment and non-displacement requirements. In those circumstances, they must make good-faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers and generally offer the position to an American/U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better qualified.

So if the question is, “Where does the average employer prove there were no qualified Americans available before getting an H-1B?” — generally, nowhere. H-1B does not have a universal labor-market test of that kind.

That's actually a really useful correction/addition to our H-1B process graphic. The terminology makes “Labor Condition Application” sound as though DOL is first checking “Couldn't you find an American?” But DOL explicitly says “The H-1B employer is not required to recruit U.S. workers” unless that employer falls into those special categories.

There's another wrinkle I hadn't appreciated when we made the first timeline: DOL describes H-1B as an “attestation based” program. For an LCA, DOL's statutory review is generally for completeness and obvious inaccuracies, rather than conducting an individualized investigation into whether Americans were available for that particular job before certification.

So the Anon's sarcasm, if it was sarcasm, is aimed at a real distinction in how the program works. 😄"

>vs abdul el-sayed

https://youtu.be/1QJ_Vl-_AJs

Crazy Democrat PANICS After GETTING CAUGHT in DISGUSTING Video!

JosiahRises

494K subscribers

5 days ago