By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A photograph, seemingly depicting Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick with Jeffrey Epstein on Little St. James island, has been discovered within a downloaded cache of the Epstein Files. This image, which appears to have been removed from the Department of Justice’s official database, was located by the website “jmail.” A DOJ official stated that the image was part of a batch flagged for nudity and is being re-uploaded with redactions, asserting that no files are being deleted. Lutnick has previously been shown to have misrepresented his contacts with Epstein, with released files indicating email exchanges occurring years after Epstein’s guilty plea, including arrangements for communication and meetings on Epstein’s island.
Read the original article here
The revelation that Richard Lutnick was photographed with Jeffrey Epstein, emerging from a deleted file, has sent ripples of shock and dismay through many observing the unfolding Epstein saga. This isn’t just another name dropped into the vast network of Epstein’s associates; it’s a figure who, according to leaked information, was seen with the convicted sex offender, seemingly on Epstein’s infamous Little St. James island. The image, reportedly showing Lutnick walking behind Epstein, paints a disturbing picture, and its emergence from a deleted file only adds to the sense of an orchestrated effort to conceal certain connections.
The implications of this photograph are significant, especially given the other revelations about Lutnick’s family ties to the Epstein orbit. His sister, Edie Lutnick, is mentioned as a “founding citizen” of Ghislaine Maxwell’s TerraMar project, suggesting a deeper, familial entanglement with individuals at the heart of these illicit activities. These connections appear to go far deeper than a casual acquaintance, hinting at a pattern of association that raises serious questions about Lutnick’s judgment and his understanding of the circles he chose to inhabit.
Furthermore, the comments surrounding this discovery suggest a widespread disbelief and cynicism regarding the explanations offered by those implicated. The notion of powerful individuals offering excuses or claiming ignorance about their dealings with Epstein is met with derision. There’s a palpable frustration that while ordinary citizens would face severe consequences for such associations, those in positions of power seem to operate with impunity, protected by layers of secrecy and plausible deniability. The very idea that some might have had to check if they appeared in the released files, as if it were a routine administrative task, underscores this perceived double standard.
The recurring theme in discussions about these leaked documents is the extent to which powerful figures, particularly those associated with certain political spheres, seem to be entangled with Epstein. The assertion that “everyone in Trump’s orbit has Epstein on them” speaks to a broader suspicion that these connections were not accidental but perhaps even cultivated. The idea that Epstein’s choice of associates might have been strategic, targeting individuals who could offer him protection or benefit from his network, is a chilling thought that many are grappling with. This alleged pattern of association across different administrations fuels the perception of a deeply ingrained problem.
The deleted file aspect of this discovery is particularly potent. The act of deleting information, especially when it pertains to such serious allegations, can be interpreted as an attempt to suppress the truth. The frustration arises from the feeling that these revelations are being actively managed or curated, with certain inconvenient truths being kept from public view. The excuses often given for delays in releasing information, such as needing time to process it, are seen by many as disingenuous attempts to shield powerful individuals from accountability.
There’s a sense that this is not an isolated incident but part of a larger, concerning narrative. The comments often draw parallels to other figures and administrations, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated bad actors. The question of who knew what, and when, becomes paramount. The ongoing leaks, even if some are dismissed as mere “bombshells” that don’t lead to immediate action, are seen by some as the slow, steady unraveling of a complex web of deceit. The hope remains that these incremental disclosures will eventually build a complete picture of the alleged cover-ups and the extent of these deeply troubling associations.