By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A billboard erected by Indivisible Jackson TN in Jackson, Tennessee, is demanding the release of the Epstein files, featuring images of Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell. The group solicited funds to put up the billboard, which poses the question, “What ya hiding, boys?”. The Justice Department announced in July it would not release more files related to the Epstein investigation. The Associated Press reported that President Trump responded to questions on the matter by suggesting people focus on the country’s performance.
Read the original article here
Billboard appears in Jackson calling for release of Epstein files, sparking a conversation that’s definitely got everyone talking. Seeing a physical billboard, planted right in the middle of a community, demanding the release of sensitive information is a powerful statement. It’s an undeniable tactic, and it makes you stop and consider what’s behind it. The fact that it’s specifically calling for the Epstein files adds a layer of intrigue and potential controversy. It’s a direct plea to the public, urging them to demand transparency. It throws down the gauntlet, suggesting that there’s something significant to uncover.
That poll, which seems to have been presented at the beginning, is very telling, isn’t it? The numbers speak volumes. A whopping 82% of the respondents, a clear majority, expressed concern over the potential release of these files. Only a mere 18% seemed unconcerned. That’s a pretty substantial imbalance. It suggests that a significant portion of the population feels there’s something worth investigating, something potentially hidden within those documents. The sheer volume of responses, represented by the 374 “Yes” votes, is an indicator of the widespread interest in this subject matter.
Okay, let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment. Suppose, hypothetically, that some files are actually released. And, for argument’s sake, let’s say they’re completely innocuous. Just a bunch of mundane bureaucratic paperwork, lacking any incriminating details. That raises a crucial question: how do we, the general public, verify that these are indeed the *actual* files, and not some sanitized version? It’s a legitimate concern. Without solid verification, the release could be dismissed as a tactic to quell public unrest, a carefully orchestrated deflection.
The phrasing of a question regarding the release is critical. Let’s face it, the question, “Is the potential release of the Epstein files something you are concerned about?” could be misconstrued. Someone might answer “yes” because of a potential flood of information they can’t process, or because they’re scared of potential criminal involvement in the files. Framing a question around concern opens it up to a multitude of interpretations, none of which are necessarily the truth. Why not be straightforward? A simpler and arguably better question would be: “Is it important to you that the Epstein files are released?” That cuts through the potential ambiguity. It directly addresses the core issue: the desire for transparency and access to information.
The reality is, these files aren’t just sitting in a single vault somewhere. The suggestion that there is only one copy is probably false. More than one copy of the Epstein files, it’s highly probable, exist. This raises an interesting point. If the released files lack incriminating information, it’s entirely plausible that they’re not the genuine articles. The actual files, we can reasonably assume, likely contain much more, which someone would not want the general population to see.
Consider this: we already have evidence that certain names and details were present in the files initially. We know, because the FBI themselves confirmed it, that Donald Trump’s name appeared in the documents. The fact that this information had to be redacted, or censored, says volumes. If a released batch of files lacks his name, it’s a clear indicator that they might be incomplete, doctored, or simply not the complete picture. It casts doubt on the integrity of the release and raises concerns about potential cover-ups. This highlights the need for meticulous scrutiny if these files ever do become public.