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

Martin68

(26,497 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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We know that if prominent...»Reply #18