Just seems wrong. And if it is against the rules to question this, then oh well.
Just maybe if it had been brought out and hammered that the current Pedo in Chief's name was in there more than 38K times, we might not have had his first term.
I know, revisionist thinking, but a boy can dream.

at different points in time. When Obama became President, we know that in the previous year, the Bush Administration's DOJ had given Epstein the Acosta sweetheart deal and he was in prison (sort of). The state of FL had closed its own case.

At that point, this seemed like the all too typical case of politicians donating any past contributions from a disgraced donor. What was surprising were stories after he served his very short sentence that he was still welcome in elite circles. ( At the time, articles mentioned only the relatively minor -compared to what he was quilty of - charge he pled quilty to and he served his sentence.)

In 2009, Epstein stopped a suit by Virginia Giuffre by paying her a large settlement. It looks like that settlement which ended her suit remained secret until Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz used it as a defense. It was then unsealed in 2022.

Ignoring all we know now, how would this have looked to Holder's DOJ in 2009? Would there have been any reason to re litigate the Acosta deal that stinks to high heavens now? Two victims did file suit that their rights were ignored when they were not consulted on the deal on July 7, 2008. This appeared to go nowhere until the Miami Herald brought more attention to it in 2019. It was then determined the victims' rights were ignored, but the deal was not overturned. The practical consequence was just that Acosta resigned from the Trump administration. One question here is why was that suit ignored for a decade?

So, could either of these fragile threads have unravelled the Epstein story? As a non lawyer, would the Giuffre suit have had any strength after she settled? This never went to court. Could the DOJ or FL have used the accusations even after the victim settled? In addition, she did not accuse Trump. I know that various accusations against Epstein and Trump were reported here before the 2016 election.

As to the plea deal, I don't know the legal rules for overturning a deal. Could the result of a 2009 look at how the deal violated victims' rights have had a different impact on the deal than it did 10 years later? Would an investigation in 2009 have made Giuffre less likely to settle?

Going completely into pure supposition, let's say it led the case to continue and she was a strong enough witness to lead to his conviction. The plea bargain having been overturned, it would seem that Maxwell, mentioned in the suit, would be tried then as well. In her suit, other men are mentioned.

Under Trump, Epstein was indicted, but died in prison before trial. The Trump DOJ seemed to drop everything. Biden's DOJ did use the information to convict Maxwell. The question is whether there was enough proof against anyone else. I would imagine a DOJ whistleblower would have emerged if there was a good case against Trump. Given the timing, that Trump was already the likely Republican candidate as early as the end of 2021, it could have been a tricky decision.

And, if they did, why weren't people prosecuted? There is rape, sexual assault of minors and even murder recorded in those file, and yet, no one seemed to care except the loonies at Q-Anon before 2025.

So clear and to the point.