Seriosly, why?
Because it could hurt rich people and both parties are on the side of rich people.
Why democrats under Biden administration didn't release Epstein files?
Submitted 1 month ago by itisileclerk@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
Binturong@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
This is the actual answer, cutting right through the smoke and mirrors and bullshit. Anyone who had the displeasure of reading through the flight logs that were available in their entirety online almost a year ago and probably still are: saw just what names pop up, often multiple times. This is the most bipartisan issue there ever was, so NOBODY in power wants to touch it.
Snailpope@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Because a bunch of them are also child rapists
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yup.
Clintons were very good friends with Biden but also trump.
Neoliberals poisoned the party so much that during Epstein’s hey day the letter by a name didn’t matter, trump himself was a big donor to the Dem party back then.
Neither Biden or trump could release just the names of people they don’t like, because they’d snitch on the people they liked and then you’re on the hook for protecting the ones you liked.
Someone like AOC is the only shot at a president that would actually release it. We need more politicians who have a loyalty to voters over a party.
Party leadership changes, and we got a rare window right now the party won’t block someone like AOC. We can’t count on that being true in 2032 if she doesn’t feel ready in 2028.
Ready or not, it’s time.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Someone like AOC is the only shot at a president that would actually release it.
You act like Bernie doesn’t exist. I’m 100% confident that he’s not assosiated with that hot mess in any way.
itisileclerk@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s my thinking, US citizens are prisoners of the immorality of the richest regardless of their political contributions. Trump has masterfully exploited this with the “devide and empire” maxime.
tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Note how normal people have no issue saying that Democrats may be (or likely are) in the Epstein files, but MAGAs are like “The files are a hoax but if they exist he is not in them but if he’s in them it’s just a juvenile mistake, who cares”
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
A lot of their donors as well.
specialseaweed@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
I think it’s important to remember that Biden was, perhaps more than any president in my lifetime (and I’m an old man), an institutionalist. He was a senator for just about forever, then the VP for 8 years. He was 78 years old when he became president. He is an old school liberal Catholic, a very nearly extinct person in the Catholic and Christian spheres.
I think he saw his presidency as a repudiation of right wing reactionary politics. His election, in his mind, was in large part a call to what he saw as the original intent and purpose of the executive branch. To put it plainly, he saw himself as elected because America rejected the politicization of government under Trump. Included under that umbrella of beliefs about the purpose of the executive was the unalienable requirement that the executive not direct the FBI to investigate the opposing political party. Remember, Joe Biden was a senator when Nixon resigned. He was there when Nixon was using the executive branch to attack Democrats.
Biden appointed Garland to the DOJ. Garland’s record was perfectly fine and appeared well suited to the role, but his biggest strengths (in Biden’s mind) was his nonpartisanship and his conservative view of government. By conservative I mean staying within the lines of what the DOJ should be doing, a cautious view of the use of DOJ power. Again, this was done in reaction to Trump and his… let’s call it “expansive” view of government power. In Biden’s mind, he was righting the ship.
And Garland was exactly as advertised, to a maddening degree. He was cautious to the point of being timid. He refused to throw the weight of the DOJ into investigations with political implications without reaching an imaginary bar of fairness that just isn’t realistic. You saw it in the Jan 6th investigations. You saw it in the Kushner deals (and all of the Trump family deals which are obviously dirty). You saw it in Garland’s unwillingness to take on wildly politicized federal prosecutor offices because doing so would be political interference (in his mind). You saw it when Robert Hur took unprofessionalism and partisanship to the absolute extreme when attacking Biden under the guise of a special counsel appointment and Garland did nothing because instiutionalism in his mind meant not interfering with the process.
And you saw it in the Epstein case.
Garland did everything by the book to an absurd degree that ended up paralyzing justice. Biden didn’t touch Garland or any of it because he believes doing so was itself an injustice, even if Garland was wrong to handle it the way he did.
electric_nan@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
TL;DR- Biden was the wrong guy for the job.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
depends on what you think the job was
keep the status quo? sure, right guy
blow the terroristic american right wing apart so it’ll be another half century before it reforms? wrong guy
svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks ago
I think a more accurate TL;DR is that Garland was the wrong guy for the job, but the Biden thing is more broadly true, too.
specialseaweed@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
If one had a fetish for masochistic torture of nuance, then yea, you hit the nail on the head.
Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
The give reason must be procedual, but the real reason is that the Epstein files undoubtedly also contain the names of democrats or democratic backers. They were more than happy doing nothing with those files.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 month ago
So, no hiring hackers to actually change votes to Trump votes, but anything up to that. I dunno, I think they woulda released the Epstein stuff. My real guess is that some Democratic politicians are also on the list. Even if it’s only a couple, they might have figured running against a convicted felon gave them such good odds there was no need to throw any of their own under the bus. And apparently none of them said, “Well but what if he hires hackers to change votes to Trump votes?”
4am@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Musk and Eaton had the means to change votes, not sure what your first statement is about.
takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Because you don’t publish details of investigation. You publish indictments once investigation is done. That’s essentially weaponization of DOJ.
Republicans were promising to release (and suggesting Democrats are on it). Now as they have the power, they refuse. Claim the files don’t exist then that they are fake, then they are boring.
At this point it is very clear that trump is in them.
pjwestin@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
First, Bill Clinton is almost certainly all over them, and older Democrats still think of the Clintons as the epitome of Democratic success. Some of the old guard is still trying to push focus away from the Epstien files. Just two days ago, Nancy Pelosi was calling the Epstien files a distraction, which is a bat-shit crazy thing to say about evidence that could prove that your opponent was involved in a pedophile ring.
Second, Epstien probably has some sort of ties to the intelligence community. I don’t know that I believe all these stories about him being a secret Mossad asset, but I think its very possible that the someone in the CIA was using him. Alex Acosta, who prosecuted Epstien in 2008, claimed that he was told to back off because he, “belonged to intelligence,” and they’re clearly withholding a lot of information, there’s definitely something they don’t want people to know. Anyway, since 9/11, the Democrats and Republicans have had basically the same position on the intelligence community (essentially, abject deference), so if the CIA says that it would be a national security risk to release the files, the Democrats aren’t going to release the files.
AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Well specifically, it is still an ongoing investigation. What happened was Pam Bondi had the first half of files in her office, made a big public announcement about having requested all remaining files and waiting on them to be delivered, wrote a letter to Kash Patel about it and publicly released it.
Then when she read whatever was in that second half of files that got delivered to her, she suddenly wasn’t so eager to release it. Image
wildcardology@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
She released that first phase to influencers and made a big show out of it. She was asked about releasing the Epstein list and she said it’s on her desk along with mlk and jfk files and would release it
BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I think one reason is that democrats wanted to do things by the book, and they didn’t want to be accused of tampering with the 2024 election, more than trump already did.
krashmo@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s a decidedly generous interpretation of events
CannedYeet@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Reminder, when you don’t do things by the book, the perp wins in court on technicalities or wins on appeal. For example, see Harvey Weinstein.
auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
They were sealed until Jan 2024 as part of Maxwells appeal process.
Hawke@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
That gives a year, not a valid reason.
auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
The investigation was still ongoing, which Trump ended. And the DOJ is supposed to operate independently from the president.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 5 weeks ago
They did.
- Epstein black book & story on it.
- From USA v. Maxwell, Epstein flight logs & story on it.
- From Giuffre v. Dershowitz, case documents & story on unsealing those.
- The DOJ website lists some of those & others.
Not long ago, everyone was calling claims of secret, unreleased documents a right-wing conspiracy theory. Why popular opinion on that has turned from fringe to accepted is a mystery.
LikeableLime@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
They apparently had video (obviously doctored and they couldn’t even hide that) after saying for years that all of the cameras malfunctioned. That video was released very recently so that leads me to believe there’s more stuff that never got released.
aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 1 month ago
Here is Christine Pelosi, daughter of Nancy Pelosi, saying “It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated.” Democrats and their billionaire owners are just as implicated by this as Republicans.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If you have ‘faves’ you are a weirdo .
aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 1 month ago
100%
memfree@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Why didn’t Republicans under Trump’s first term release them? See reply by @Nollij@sopuli.xyz
Sample coverage from back then: cnbc.com/…/trump-not-a-fan-of-jeffrey-epstein-acc…
selokichtli@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Sorry to answer with other questions, but as a foreigner I have to. Do investigations like this can just be published by the POTUS? I’m my country, it works be the sole decision of the AG, and they would probably won’t publish anything because it could end up damaging the investigation. Or so they’d say.
It’s really baffling the power of the current POTUS, having all the power of the state in his hands. To me, him just telling Pamela Bondi what to do in such a delicate matter feels just wrong, as in lacking the due seriousness on the matter, utterly sloppy and populist in a bad manner.
wjrii@lemmy.world 1 month ago
One of the recurring themes I keep coming back to in all this is that the US has a uniquely bad situation with regard to its Constitution. We worship it as an infallible and complete guide to running a democratic republic, but really it’s extremely old, extremely vague, and depends on goodwill and sensible interpretation to function. We have neither the explicit understanding that everything is old AF and cobbled together and dependent upon custom and moderating tyrannical sensibilities like the British, nor the unwieldy but straightforward comprehensiveness of EU treaties and certain other lengthy modern written constitutions.
To me, him just telling Pamela Bondi what to do in such a delicate matter feels just wrong, as in lacking the due seriousness on the matter, utterly sloppy and populist in a bad manner.
This feeling you have is exactly how presidents of either party would have felt for the last 80-100 years. The idea of a largely independent Department of Justice was considered eminently sensible and moral and even to the realpolitik set it provided outer bounds of what was politically possible and so they would nudge and tug at the edges, but never blow right past it, lest they suffer Nixon’s fate. I think we make a mistake to say that Trump is stupid in a binary yes/no sense, but he is deeply uncurious about things that donm’t interest him, so when people tell him “The Constitution doesn’t actually say that,” his eyes gleam and he just does whatever he might get away with. And because we have a Supreme Court dominated by the idea that the US Constitution is more akin to a piece of computer code than a framework for sensible governance, they simply throw up their hands and say, “whelp, it didn’t SAY that the administration of justice should be handled with integrity, so guess we makin’ a fascism now.” Better vote them out, except oh wait the Constitution also doesn’t say you can’t fuck with the elections either.
One of my anxious worries lately is that at the end of this term, Trump will look at our term limits amendment and parse the verbiage with a simple literalism and Clarence Thomas et al will back him up. It says you can’t be elected president more than twice, so why not simply run for VP and then have your patsy resign five minutes after swearing in? After all, we’re mindless textualists now. We didn’t want an FDR type getting overly entrenched in the machinery of power, but we clearly meant to allow loopholes that are significantly less democratic!
Battle_Masker@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
the president of the US doesn’t have as much power as our current one thinks he has. It’s just that no one involved in the checks and balances procedure has the balls to stand up to him and say “no,” or they don’t have the power to do so in a way that would impact anything. And the ones that do decided just before the 2024 election that a sitting president can’t be charged with any illegal shit he did as president, so even the ones that CAN say no to him just get brushed off or outright told “fuck you”
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
They don’t have the power to say “No” because they probably have a big shitty laundry list of their own they want to hide.
TheFogan@programming.dev 1 month ago
I’m my country, it works be the sole decision of the AG
It works like that… but the problem is effectively we give the president the power to fire and replace the AG. So… in short, the AG is hand picked by the president and then approved by congress.
With a crazy president like this that effectively has 100% of his party members in congress intimidated to back every one of his picks, the AG is basically his hand picked employee.
dave881@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yes and no.
In the US the Judicial branch is responsible for the the courts and interpretation of the law / constitution, but the Executive branch is responsible for the execution / enforcement of the law. I think that in other parts of the world it is common for the AG to be part of the Judicial branch, but here they are part of the Executive branch.
As I understand it, there are parts of these investigations/prosecutions that the AG can release under their own authority (or by direction of the President) but other parts that are under seal and require authorization from the courts.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
They are also on the list.
Transform2942@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
No you see Joe Biden just loves institutions so much! Almost as much as he loves weirdly sniffing women’s heads
specialseaweed@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
i think your edginess is really cool
iridebikes@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Obsessed with the hair sniffing bullshit but is fine with Trump being the wingman of one of the planets most prolific pedophiles.
tisktisk@piefed.social 1 month ago
When... When did they claim they were going to do that?
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 5 weeks ago
Because spineless Establishment Dems have some obsession with “playing nice,” even with vicious MAGA Nazi enemies. I have a million questions, starting with:
Why didn’t Biden have HitlerPig and his henchmen arrested within the first 60 seconds after his Inauguration?
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Because spineless Establishment Dems have some obsession with "playing
niceinsider tradingFtfy.
The Dem party is known as the party of insider trading after all!
ICastFist@programming.dev 5 weeks ago
I think the real question is: why isn’t anyone on the FBI or whatever agency is responsible for that, willing to just throw that shit onto the internet?
arin@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
They do on 4chan but no one believes them 🤷♂️
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 weeks ago
Just the people that own ten bridges in NYC.
rumba@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Because the files vaguely implicate a lot of influential oligarchs who donate to both sides.
We know Trump hung out with Epstein, there are pictures and testimony. It simply doesn’t move the needle away from the right. He’s just buying trouble.
gdamn thing should have been in the public from day one.
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
Because besides powerful Republicans, powerful Democrats are also implicated (e.g. the Clintons).
nthavoc@lemmy.today 5 weeks ago
Because “High Road” and “Moral Victories” were their focus and always pretend to act surprised when the goal posts are moved by the republicans. At least that’s one reason.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
Before Trump, the office had an image to uphold.
nthavoc@lemmy.today 5 weeks ago
I agree. But that whole honor system and gentleman’s agreements went right out the window in 2016. They had 4 years to see that coming and really didn’t do much to stop it; not even a slick behind the scenes move. Just sat there and let it happen. Had an ace in their sleeve and decided to keep it in a locked up safe for the Donvict to crack right open.
gleb@lemmy.world 1 month ago
because democrats are on it.
SunshineJogger@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Too many influential and very rich on there most likely. Among all the Republicans probably also a few democrats because we know there are quite a few assholes among those too.
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Because people on all sides are probably listed.
troglodytis@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Status quo protects the status quo.
The status is not… quo
Xaphanos@lemmy.world 1 month ago
But it is quid pro quo.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 5 weeks ago
too much powerful people on the list: Hollywood moguls/execs, World leaders(people like belerscuni, eventhough hes been caught already), DEM/GOP mega donors, plus the politicians themselves. RFK jr too, since theres a photo out there him interacting with epstein in 1994
citizensongbird@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
My guess is, because Republican leaders and propaganda outlets were constantly accusing Democrats of witch hunts and politically motivated criminal investigations, Dems releasing Epstein’s client list would have been seen as more of the same. Trump’s base would have absolutely called it fake news. So Dems waited until Republicans were in control and then said, “Okay, now you can release it.” With predictable results.
fittedsyllabi@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Why isn’t Trump and the Republican Party doing it now?
ReiRose@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Because they’re assholes.
Oh, you mean dems are assholes too…?
Are you one of those ‘both parties are the same’ folks?
swordgeek@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
I think you missed the point.
Trump won’t release them because his name (and others in the GOP) is all over it and he could be facing actual prison time.
The Democrats didn’t because…well, we know that Clinton at least was involved with Epstein. I’m sure many others were as well.
Besides which, other powerful people outside of politics are likely to have put strong pressure on the US to keep them locked up (e.g. Prince Andrew).
The problem isn’t one party or the other, and it’s not that “all parties are the same,” but in this particular case it IS almost guaranteed that too many people are named and shamed for any group in power to release them.
possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks ago
It’s not just because they’re assholes, it’s because a significant portion of them are also pedophiles. Pedos protecting pedos.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
- donors
- Bill Clinton
sundaymidnight@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Possibilities:
-
Donald Trump is a pedo, then he wont release it
-
Donald Trump is a pedo, but he will release a modified version
-
Donald Trump is a pedo and Biden covered him in trade-off to silence his son’s crimes (drugs)
Deestan@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Or 4. none of this is up to any of those people it is not their job or within their right.
-
Nollij@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
Legal Eagle just released a video about “the real Epstein files”. The main point they covered in the video is victim impact. The victims could be threatened and harassed because of the info.
Another point not covered is that criminal case info is typically not disclosed. Releasing a list of accused perpetrators (i.e. pedophiles/child rapists) encourages vigilante justice. It also interferes with any ongoing investigations, which should (at least in theory) still be ongoing.
I don’t want Trump to release the case info. I want his DOJ to announce charges against people like Les Wexner, based on that info. And I want it to not just be his political enemies and bullshit lies.
Nanook@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Virginia Giuffre would argue otherwise. BTW, she just died. By “suicide”. After being struck with a bus at 110km/h, which would’ve killed most. (Fun fact, police didn’t want to send help).
independent.co.uk/…/virginia-giuffre-father-death…
meco03211@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Fucking hell. I didn’t even know that.
grue@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Did they cover the part about how Biden’s DOJ had absolutely no fucking excuse to take that long to prosecute?
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 month ago
We can’t seem like we are making it political because he’s running for office or some bullshit was always the excuse.
socsa@piefed.social 1 month ago
There probably just isn't the kind of direct evidence people imagine. You can't prosecute people just for associating with a creep.
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I very much get the first point. Victims need to be protected at all costs. Even if it means the public doesn’t get to know things.
To the second point, the way Trump handled it felt very much like “case closed, nothing to see here”. This does not feel like justice is going to be served.