General Discussion

RockRaven

(18,349 posts)

18. I believe my last post failed to communicate to you what I intended.

Wed Nov 12, 2025, 08:07 PM

11 hrs ago

I'm not saying the DOJ under Biden did right, I am saying I don't understand why you expected them to do different than they did. To me that is a totally fantastical expectation.

Your apparent expectations for Biden's DOJ are way too high, imo, way out of step with the DOJ's long institutional history (timidity and kid gloves with the rich and well-connected; the reverse with the poor and marginalized). The DOJ is a small "c" conservative institution, and has been as long as most of us have been alive. Electing Biden had no effect on their nature.

Biden was a "establishment" guy not a "LOL, let's break stuff" guy, he was always going to leave the DOJ to its own devices. And so the DOJ did as they usually do.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

Jack Valentino kcoates Bluesaph BeerBarrelPolka

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sorry to annoy everyone yet again, but much about that Epstein email hangs on the accuracy of one word [View all] AZJonnie 12 hrs ago OP

you seem very vested in all of this Skittles 12 hrs ago #1

to be honest every day I see dozens here incredibly vested in this. WarGamer 12 hrs ago #3

I have two answers for you AZJonnie 12 hrs ago #4

Is that email in question from the estate? OneGrassRoot 12 hrs ago #6

I cannot possibly imagine that the DoJ does/did not have everything the Estate has in this regard, long ago AZJonnie 12 hrs ago #8

Well, not just Biden's DOJ. Sorry to burst the bubble you'd prefer to exist in, but it is true. RockRaven 12 hrs ago #10

I see you as rather a brilliant person so this reply surprises me. AZJonnie 11 hrs ago #11

I believe my last post failed to communicate to you what I intended. RockRaven 11 hrs ago #18

Thanks for clarification. This is exactly the sort of cogent argument I always see from RockRaven AZJonnie 3 hrs ago #33

I don't think BeerBarrelPolka 3 hrs ago #34

yeah OK Skittles 11 hrs ago #12

Because Biden wanted to protect others. Sadly. Bluesaph 4 hrs ago #32

I am one KentuckyWoman 11 hrs ago #19

The White House released the name Abnredleg 12 hrs ago #2

Well, that's very convenient since Giuffre REPEATEDLY exonerated Trump of any wrongdoing including in her book AZJonnie 12 hrs ago #7

do you admit that Trump is one vile, disgusting POS??? Skittles 11 hrs ago #13

Do you not see what I post, all day and every day? I mean obviously not everything, but generally? AZJonnie 11 hrs ago #15

The premise of this post is wrong, from what I've read. The ID is known, from multiple RockRaven 12 hrs ago #5

See my post #7 above this one. AZJonnie 12 hrs ago #9

and how do you know she wasn't under duress? Skittles 11 hrs ago #14

Because it was in her 2025 memoir that she just wrote, and her estate released posthumously AZJonnie 11 hrs ago #17

speak for yourself Skittles 11 hrs ago #21

We are making the same point. Yes, she is gone, having exonerated him (to her knowledge) on her way out. AZJonnie 10 hrs ago #23

It doesn't matter Boo1 11 hrs ago #16

I want to address this part of your post Quiet Em 11 hrs ago #20

I get what you mean, but I was asked why *I* am so interested in the case near the top of the thread. AZJonnie 10 hrs ago #24

You are not annoying me and no apology is required. Disaffected 10 hrs ago #22

From what I've read, the "VICTIM" redaction was in the version of the files supplied by the estate, Emrys 10 hrs ago #25

Not suggesting anyone tried to warp the facts, but mistakes can be made on a task like that AZJonnie 9 hrs ago #26

It MIGHT be an inside joke, but to borrow the words of a past US president, "I want to hear him deny it." Emrys 8 hrs ago #28

I've said this like 20 times in various posts over months but not everyone see everything, so again lol AZJonnie 7 hrs ago #29

"the 'complete release of DoJ files' for any case is not a normal occurrence" Emrys 6 hrs ago #30

Setting aside the details of our particular definitions of "great lengths", the point is we agree AZJonnie 5 hrs ago #31

AZJohnny I agree with you that it wasn't Virginia Roberts Giuffre that Chump met at Epstein's house FakeNoose 8 hrs ago #27