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

[niyad]

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

[Ocelot II]

1. And that would have happened a long time ago.

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]

8. Agree

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]

2. It's A Trap!

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]

3. If bribery was the object,

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]

5. Exactly. Epstein was looking for money. He hit up Bill Gates, for example,

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]

4. With the fact that Epstein and Maxwell were the only two charged, why didn't Biden's DOJ reopen the case?

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

[Ocelot II]

7. Statutes of limitations, possibly.

[everyonematters]

9. There still should have been an investigation of who else was involved. They didn't do sex trafficking just for

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

[everyonematters]

11. There is no statute of limitations for sex trafficking or rape on the federal level. On statutory rape, in depends on

the state.

[Ocelot II]

13. *Epstein* was charged with sex trafficking of minors, for which there is no federal statute of limitations.

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.

[Festivito]

16. DOJ Merrick Garland's call, not Biden's. Garland, not one of our favorites thereafter. nt

[everyonematters]

19. We need to get over this notion that all of our Politians are perfect human beings. They are fallible like the rest of

us.

[Festivito]

20. Never thought it.

And I never will.

[Wiz Imp]

21. That's a question for Merrick Garland.

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

[everyonematters]

22. It may have been completely his decision, maybe not. It may have been just an oversight because of all the attention

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

[Wiz Imp]

23. No maybe about it. Garland was head of DOJ. He decided what cases to pursue and what not to pursue.

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

[everyonematters]

25. How could you know that for sure? Do you think that the 40% of the registered voters who are not Democrats

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

[Wiz Imp]

26. 😲🤦🏻‍♂️🙄 Sheesh. There is absolutely zero evidence of Biden ever inserting himself into a DOJ case.

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?

[everyonematters]

28. I'm not accusing him of anything. I am just saying the question needs to be answered.

[Wiz Imp]

29. And I told you that was a question for Merrick Garland to answer but you wouldn't accept that answer.

[everyonematters]

30. Biden was ultimately responsible for the exectutive branch. He could have inquired why no action was being taken.

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]

6. Yes! And who else is in the sicko "birthday book?"

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]

12. It has been.

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.

[SheltieLover]

14. Ty!

[Wiz Imp]

24. You can find it here

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26086390-jeffey-epstein-50th-birthday-book/

[LoisB]

10. Absolutely!

[Deep State Witch]

15. I'd Heard Bill Richardson

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

[Iggo]

27. I've heard a lot of things. Don't care. Let's see it.

[Vinca]

17. It would have been released at 12:01 p.m. on January 20.

[Martin68]

18. Not necessarily. Releasing the name of a prominent Democrat would open the doors to more investigation and the release

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