nothing that has been released so far was previously unreleased

@TiredCliche The press release states: "The first phase of declassified files largely contains documents that have been previously leaked but never released in a formal capacity by the U.S. Government." Assuming that is accurate (and I haven't seen anyone dispute it), it meets the resolution criteria stated in the market description.

@LeifKBrooks My brother in Christ, I do not care about such technicalities.

@LeifKBrooks Also, I will dispute: none of those files were ever classified, given that they were, you know, news reports that have already been released public ally.

@TiredCliche My brother in Christ, I do not care about what you care about. I care about the market resolving according to its explicitly and clearly stated criteria. Also:

@LeifKBrooks I never said anything about the market resolution should be. I'm just stating true facts.

What is this thing you're citing? If it's a chatbot, that explains why it's wrong.

None of the documents were ever marked as classified. Therefore, the documents weren't classified. "Sealed" is not the same thing as "classified".

@strutheo Resolves yes: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-pamela-bondi-releases-first-phase-declassified-epstein-files

@LeifKBrooks uhh yeah im gonna wait on this one lol, nobody trusts this first batch and its all old news

@strutheo Market description states: "resolves yes if he resolves at least partial amounts of the sealed epstein files". Files that had been sealed were officially released; it's irrelevant if they were already publicly available by virtue of unofficial leaks. The distrust you mentioned is about whether a good faith effort is being made to release all possible files, but that's also irrelevant to whether or not a partial release was made, which it was.