Did the FBI destroy Epstein files?

yes they were wtf

That's bs

Yo, it's clearly altered, even coffeezilla made a video about it, why is this thing resolved to no ?

how do you even prove this

P1 Argument for "YES" Resolution: "Did the FBI Destroy Epstein Files?" To the Polymarket dispute resolution panel, I argue that the bet "Did the FBI destroy Epstein files?" must resolve to "YES." The Polymarket terms are straightforward: if any current or former FBI employee destroyed classified, sealed, or unreleased files related to Jeffrey Epsteins illegal activities by June 30, 2025, 11:59 PM ET, the resolution is "YES." The evidence-drawn from whistleblower testimony, official statements by FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi, and credible media reports-confirms this occurred. Heres the case.

I just set you a 50000 share order for only $150 get that bag 😼

1. Whistleblower Testimony: Direct Evidence of Destruction On February 24, 2025, a government whistleblower on The Benny Show accused FBI employees of systematically deleting Epstein files to obstruct investigations by Kash Patel and Dan Bongino. This isnt hearsay-its a firsthand claim from an insider, reported by: - Times Now - The Express Tribune Strength: This testimony alone satisfies Polymarkets condition-one FBI employee destroying files triggers "YES." The whistleblowers government role lends credibility, and multiple reputable sources corroborate the claim.

2. Official Corroboration: Patels Admission On June 6, 2025, FBI Director Kash Patel told The Joe Rogan Experience, "Some Epstein tapes may have been destroyed, and some may have never existed" (Times Now). This is damning: - Authority: As FBI Director, Patels statement is an official U.S. Government acknowledgment. - Context: Made after reviewing files delivered post-Bondis demand, it implies missing files were destroyed, not just absent. - Reach: Amplified by Newsweek and X posts like @LeadingReport. Strength: Patels admission aligns with the whistleblowers claims, suggesting destruction by FBI personnel. Its a high-probability confirmation meeting Polymarkets threshold.

3. Bondis Allegations: A Pattern of Obstruction Attorney General Pam Bondis February 27, 2025, letter accused the FBI of withholding "thousands of pages" of Epstein files, including audio and video (BBC). Her May 7, 2025, update cited "tens of thousands of videos" under review (White House), yet Patel later noted missing tapes. This suggests: - Withholding: Initial concealment, as the whistleblower claimed. - Destruction: Discrepancy between Bondis counts and Patels admission implies permanent loss. Strength: Bondis timeline-three days after the whistleblower-links her actions to the insiders revelations, reinforcing the case for destruction.

4. Historical Negligence: Opportunity for Destruction The 2019 FBI raid on Epsteins townhouse left evidence unsecured (ABC News): - Agents photographed a safe with CDs and hard drives but didnt seize it. - When they returned, it was empty, and an unaudited return by Epsteins lawyer left gaps (Wikipedia). Strength: This chain-of-custody failure supports the whistleblowers narrative, showing how files could be destroyed under FBI watch.

Addressing Counterarguments - "Files Were Recovered": The FBI delivered a "truckload" of documents after Bondis demand (ABC News). But Patels later admission of destroyed tapes suggests not all files were recovered-some were lost forever. - "Patels Statement Is Ambiguous": "May have been destroyed" could imply uncertainty. Yet, as Director post-review, Patels words carry weight, and the whistleblowers specificity tips the scale to "YES."

Conclusion: "YES" Is Inescapable The whistleblowers accusation, Patels admission, Bondis allegations, and historical negligence form a cohesive case: FBI employees destroyed Epstein files. Polymarket requires only one instance of destruction, and the evidence-backed by Times Now, BBC, ABC News, and more-delivers. Resolve this bet "YES"-the facts demand it.

Respectfully, for the purposes of this bet, it is irrelevant if there was no "official statement" reported by the Trump administration. While an "official statement" released by the Trump Administration would have also clearly resolved to a P2 Yes, this is not the sole stated criteria for the bet. The terms of the bet do not require an "official statement". The terms state that a P2 Yes must be resolved if "any current or former FBI employee destroyed classified, sealed or unreleased files pertaining to the illegal activities of Jeffrey Epstein" ...and, while "The primary resolution source will be official statements from the Trump administration and the U.S. Government... a consensus of credible reporting may also be used." Any argument that a P1 must be rendered simply because no "official statement" was made by the Trump administration is a red herring, because the bet does not require it, the bet only requires a statement from a credible official. As the head of the FBI, and the lead investigator on the Epstein destruction investigation case, Kash Patel is clearly credible and he definitely qualifies as an official, so the bet must resolve to P2 Yes.

Huh, who is disputing this?

So what's the argument that this should resolve to YES?

this will never be public

FBI Director Kash Patel says some Epstein tapes may have been destroyed, and some may have never even existed.

Yes. But they will never publish it

GG

i believe...

Buckle up everybody:[link removed]

this will not hit