Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

niyad

(127,384 posts)
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 10:18 AM Sep 9

We know that if prominent Dems were in those files, we would have seen

them on every single outlet available, with copies in every single mailbox in the country.

30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We know that if prominent Dems were in those files, we would have seen (Original Post) niyad Sep 9 OP
And that would have happened a long time ago. Ocelot II Sep 9 #1
Agree Johnny2X2X Sep 9 #8
It's A Trap! OC375 Sep 9 #2
If bribery was the object, LakeVermilion Sep 9 #3
Exactly. Epstein was looking for money. He hit up Bill Gates, for example, Ocelot II Sep 9 #5
With the fact that Epstein and Maxwell were the only two charged, why didn't Biden's DOJ reopen the case? everyonematters Sep 9 #4
Statutes of limitations, possibly. Ocelot II Sep 9 #7
There still should have been an investigation of who else was involved. They didn't do sex trafficking just for everyonematters Sep 9 #9
There is no statute of limitations for sex trafficking or rape on the federal level. On statutory rape, in depends on everyonematters Sep 9 #11
*Epstein* was charged with sex trafficking of minors, for which there is no federal statute of limitations. Ocelot II Sep 9 #13
DOJ Merrick Garland's call, not Biden's. Garland, not one of our favorites thereafter. nt Festivito Sep 9 #16
We need to get over this notion that all of our Politians are perfect human beings. They are fallible like the rest of everyonematters Sep 9 #19
Never thought it. Festivito Sep 9 #20
That's a question for Merrick Garland. Wiz Imp Sep 9 #21
It may have been completely his decision, maybe not. It may have been just an oversight because of all the attention everyonematters Sep 10 #22
No maybe about it. Garland was head of DOJ. He decided what cases to pursue and what not to pursue. Wiz Imp Sep 10 #23
How could you know that for sure? Do you think that the 40% of the registered voters who are not Democrats everyonematters Sep 10 #25
😲🤦🏻‍♂️🙄 Sheesh. There is absolutely zero evidence of Biden ever inserting himself into a DOJ case. Wiz Imp Sep 10 #26
I'm not accusing him of anything. I am just saying the question needs to be answered. everyonematters Sep 10 #28
And I told you that was a question for Merrick Garland to answer but you wouldn't accept that answer. Wiz Imp Sep 10 #29
Biden was ultimately responsible for the exectutive branch. He could have inquired why no action was being taken. everyonematters Sep 10 #30
Yes! And who else is in the sicko "birthday book?" SheltieLover Sep 9 #6
It has been. Tommy Carcetti Sep 9 #12
Ty! SheltieLover Sep 9 #14
You can find it here Wiz Imp Sep 10 #24
Absolutely! LoisB Sep 9 #10
I'd Heard Bill Richardson Deep State Witch Sep 9 #15
I've heard a lot of things. Don't care. Let's see it. Iggo Sep 10 #27
It would have been released at 12:01 p.m. on January 20. Vinca Sep 9 #17
Not necessarily. Releasing the name of a prominent Democrat would open the doors to more investigation and the release Martin68 Sep 9 #18

Ocelot II

(127,312 posts)
1. And that would have happened a long time ago.
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 10:21 AM
Sep 9

Bill Clinton is there, but if there had been even the slightest evidence that he was at all involved in Epstein's dirty business we'd have already known about it. Epstein was a social climber who cultivated many wealthy and powerful people for financial reasons, and clearly most of them weren't part of his sex trafficking ring. That's the sort of business you try to keep on the down-low.

Johnny2X2X

(23,424 posts)
8. Agree
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 10:46 AM
Sep 9

Epstein knew Bill Clinton and loaned him his plane to fly around Europe for his charity. But that's about it. Epstein was invited to Chelsea's wedding..

Can you imagine if just one of these Epstein Trump items was about Clinton instead?
If there were video of Trump and Epstein groping young models?
If Bill Clinton had a verified quote about Epstein liking them on the younger side?
If Bill Clinton had been accused of raping multiple children at Epstein's?
If Bill Clinton had drawn that picture to wish Epstein a Happy Birthday?
If Epstein had posted a photo and wrote that he sold a girl to Trump about that photo?

If just a single of those things had been about Bill Clinton, I truly believe he'd be in jail right now. The Right wouldn't have stopped until he was behind bars and the media would have fueled it all.

But here we are, the President is a child rapist and the media doesn't really care.

OC375

(278 posts)
2. It's A Trap!
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 10:24 AM
Sep 9

They're crafty sometimes... I think the strategy is "Cop to a lesser charge" ie: get Trump out of the way with questionably sick stuff, softballs that are inconclusive, etc... and then start burying it with continual releases of others, possibly worse or more obvious misdeeds. Photos of Pol's with a kid sitting in their lap will bury dirty letters and inuendo.

Look for anyone on Team Blue, Blue donors & Hollywood to start being paraded out this fall and over the holidays, is my guess.

LakeVermilion

(1,411 posts)
3. If bribery was the object,
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 10:29 AM
Sep 9

look for corporate ceo's, military wonks and billionaire investment class. After the Clinton stuff, I don't think high profile Democrats would go near Epstein.

Ocelot II

(127,312 posts)
5. Exactly. Epstein was looking for money. He hit up Bill Gates, for example,
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 10:39 AM
Sep 9

for investments but there's no evidence at all that Gates was ever involved in the sex stuff. Epstein would be careful to limit the participants in sex trafficking to people who were less famous but rich enough to be easily blackmailable.

everyonematters

(3,927 posts)
4. With the fact that Epstein and Maxwell were the only two charged, why didn't Biden's DOJ reopen the case?
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 10:34 AM
Sep 9

I'm not accusing anyone of anything here, but that is a serious question.

everyonematters

(3,927 posts)
9. There still should have been an investigation of who else was involved. They didn't do sex trafficking just for
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 10:52 AM
Sep 9

themselves. Maybe not a legal investigation but a fact finding one by congress.

everyonematters

(3,927 posts)
11. There is no statute of limitations for sex trafficking or rape on the federal level. On statutory rape, in depends on
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 11:43 AM
Sep 9

the state.

Ocelot II

(127,312 posts)
13. *Epstein* was charged with sex trafficking of minors, for which there is no federal statute of limitations.
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 11:55 AM
Sep 9

However, there were clearly a lot of dodgy financial dealings behind and supporting the trafficking, and it's possible that investigations were being conducted into money laundering and other financial crimes, and who might have been involved in those. Most federal financial crimes have a five-year statute of limitations. We don't know what happened to those investigations - were they dropped for lack of evidence, or political pressure? Always follow the money.

Since there is no federal statute of limitations for sex trafficking, it's also possible that charges could still be brought against Epstein's coconspirators wrt to the actual sex trafficking, but with this DoJ I don't think it will happen - especially if Trump is involved in any way.

everyonematters

(3,927 posts)
19. We need to get over this notion that all of our Politians are perfect human beings. They are fallible like the rest of
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 01:08 PM
Sep 9

us.

Wiz Imp

(7,351 posts)
21. That's a question for Merrick Garland.
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 05:04 PM
Sep 9

He was in charge of the DOJ from 2021 until January of this year.

everyonematters

(3,927 posts)
22. It may have been completely his decision, maybe not. It may have been just an oversight because of all the attention
Wed Sep 10, 2025, 08:52 AM
Sep 10

on Jan 6th, but it is a question that should to be answered.

Wiz Imp

(7,351 posts)
23. No maybe about it. Garland was head of DOJ. He decided what cases to pursue and what not to pursue.
Wed Sep 10, 2025, 08:57 AM
Sep 10

Joe Biden did not exert any pressure or influence on Garland's decisions.

everyonematters

(3,927 posts)
25. How could you know that for sure? Do you think that the 40% of the registered voters who are not Democrats
Wed Sep 10, 2025, 09:18 AM
Sep 10

or Republicans believe that? This is an example as to why the approval rating of the party is at 30%

Wiz Imp

(7,351 posts)
26. 😲🤦🏻‍♂️🙄 Sheesh. There is absolutely zero evidence of Biden ever inserting himself into a DOJ case.
Wed Sep 10, 2025, 10:46 AM
Sep 10

If he were inclined to do so, don't you think he would have done it in his son's case? Which he obviously did not. Why are you accusing Biden of being like Trump?

Wiz Imp

(7,351 posts)
29. And I told you that was a question for Merrick Garland to answer but you wouldn't accept that answer.
Wed Sep 10, 2025, 12:04 PM
Sep 10

everyonematters

(3,927 posts)
30. Biden was ultimately responsible for the exectutive branch. He could have inquired why no action was being taken.
Wed Sep 10, 2025, 12:16 PM
Sep 10

Did he? Why or why not? If he didn't like the answer, he could have fired him or put pressure on him to do it.

SheltieLover

(73,769 posts)
6. Yes! And who else is in the sicko "birthday book?"
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 10:40 AM
Sep 9

Anyone else find it beyond disturbing that the ENTIRE "book" has not been released?

Perhaps the thug half of congress & half dozen scrotuses are in that pedo book???

Tommy Carcetti

(44,208 posts)
12. It has been.
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 11:51 AM
Sep 9

There's almost 300 pages worth of notes and pictures.

Some of the stuff is absolutely disgusting, other stuff perfectly innocuous.

There is a two-sentence note from President Clinton. This was in 2003 when Epstein was doing some financing work for the Clinton Foundation and lending his plane for Foundation travel. So looks like just a little obligatory cursory favor from the most high-profile person Epstein knew at the time and he could brag about knowing. The note itself is nothing, other than the use of the term "childlike curiosity" Bill uses to describe Epstein, which in retrospect is a poor choice language.

Deep State Witch

(12,220 posts)
15. I'd Heard Bill Richardson
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 12:50 PM
Sep 9

Was on the client list. Which is disappointing, because I really liked him.

Martin68

(26,494 posts)
18. Not necessarily. Releasing the name of a prominent Democrat would open the doors to more investigation and the release
Tue Sep 9, 2025, 01:03 PM
Sep 9

of more names. At this point they just want to bury it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We know that if prominent...