A reputable publication has confirmed metadata stamps documenting tampering with the “raw” video released by the DOJ and FBI. Will any public explanation or acknowledgment of this metadata be provided by officials currently in office?
The “raw” file shows clear signs of having been processed using an Adobe product, most likely Premiere, based on metadata that specifically references file extensions used by the video editing software.
…
“If a lawyer brought me this file and asked if it was suitable for court, I’d say no. Go back to the source. Do it right,” Farid says. “Do a direct export from the original system—no monkey business.”
Resolves based on mainstream media reporting or reliable video evidence of an official acknowledging the issue.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ34 | |
| 2 | Ṁ28 | |
| 3 | Ṁ22 | |
| 4 | Ṁ19 | |
| 5 | Ṁ16 |
@traders I haven’t been able to follow the specifics that closely but with it widely reported about the missing minutes and adobe editing stamps, are we sure there were no examples of them acknowledging the issue directly? I didn’t see it but want to confirm they never even tried to give an excuse or anything.
@traders Neither I nor a chatbot in research mode (https://chatgpt.com/share/6920cc85-9b14-8007-8657-b68896edc979 ) nor any commenters have found any examples. This is surprising to me as I would have hoped the media would have pressed the issue clearly at least once, but on this basis I am resolving NO.
Relevant news story but not enough to resolve):
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-fbi-has-secret-jeffrey-epstein-prison-tape-with-no-missing-minute/