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

General Discussion

niyad

(134,087 posts) Tue Sep 9, 2025, 10:18 AM Sep 2025

53

We know that if prominent Dems were in those files, we would have seen [View all]

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:

We know that if prominent Dems were in those files, we would have seen [View all] niyad Sep 2025 OP

And that would have happened a long time ago. Ocelot II Sep 2025 #1

Agree Johnny2X2X Sep 2025 #8

It's A Trap! OC375 Sep 2025 #2

If bribery was the object, LakeVermilion Sep 2025 #3

Exactly. Epstein was looking for money. He hit up Bill Gates, for example, Ocelot II Sep 2025 #5

With the fact that Epstein and Maxwell were the only two charged, why didn't Biden's DOJ reopen the case? everyonematters Sep 2025 #4

Statutes of limitations, possibly. Ocelot II Sep 2025 #7

There still should have been an investigation of who else was involved. They didn't do sex trafficking just for everyonematters Sep 2025 #9

There is no statute of limitations for sex trafficking or rape on the federal level. On statutory rape, in depends on everyonematters Sep 2025 #11

*Epstein* was charged with sex trafficking of minors, for which there is no federal statute of limitations. Ocelot II Sep 2025 #13

DOJ Merrick Garland's call, not Biden's. Garland, not one of our favorites thereafter. nt Festivito Sep 2025 #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 2025 #19

Never thought it. Festivito Sep 2025 #20

That's a question for Merrick Garland. Wiz Imp Sep 2025 #21

It may have been completely his decision, maybe not. It may have been just an oversight because of all the attention everyonematters Sep 2025 #22

No maybe about it. Garland was head of DOJ. He decided what cases to pursue and what not to pursue. Wiz Imp Sep 2025 #23

How could you know that for sure? Do you think that the 40% of the registered voters who are not Democrats everyonematters Sep 2025 #25

😲🤦🏻‍♂️🙄 Sheesh. There is absolutely zero evidence of Biden ever inserting himself into a DOJ case. Wiz Imp Sep 2025 #26

I'm not accusing him of anything. I am just saying the question needs to be answered. everyonematters Sep 2025 #28

And I told you that was a question for Merrick Garland to answer but you wouldn't accept that answer. Wiz Imp Sep 2025 #29

Biden was ultimately responsible for the exectutive branch. He could have inquired why no action was being taken. everyonematters Sep 2025 #30

Yes! And who else is in the sicko "birthday book?" SheltieLover Sep 2025 #6

It has been. Tommy Carcetti Sep 2025 #12

Ty! SheltieLover Sep 2025 #14

You can find it here Wiz Imp Sep 2025 #24

Absolutely! LoisB Sep 2025 #10

I'd Heard Bill Richardson Deep State Witch Sep 2025 #15

I've heard a lot of things. Don't care. Let's see it. Iggo Sep 2025 #27

It would have been released at 12:01 p.m. on January 20. Vinca Sep 2025 #17

Not necessarily. Releasing the name of a prominent Democrat would open the doors to more investigation and the release Martin68 Sep 2025 #18

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