General Discussion

To be clear WE NEED TO SEE THESE INTERVIEWS and it's bullshit they've been withheld

That said, my questions are:

1) How does the NYT positively know that the person whose interviews are missing is a "Trump Accuser", if the only interview details we do have are from one with accusations against Epstein alone? Do they explain how they can positively categorize her as a "Trump Accuser" beyond handwaving them into one at the top of the article? I'm *hoping* there's more elaboration and proof WRT how they know that, later in the article. Because if it is GOOD evidence, holy shit, we might really have this fucker and his DoJ lackeys dead to rights!

2) Does the article make reference to the work of Roger Sollenberger from the Daily Beast, and if so, in what context? Was his research relied upon?

My suspicion here is that it may be more accurate to say "interviews are withheld with someone there's reasons to believe may be a Trump Accuser and we need to see them to confirm/deny this premise", as opposed to stating it outright, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Which is obviously MORE THAN ENOUGH to demand their release!!!