The Epstein File
-
I can’t point you to an exact quote but people with professional DoJ experience from across the political spectrum (eg right-to-left Andrew McCarthy, Sarah Isgur, and Ken White) generally describe an atmosphere in which a high degree of professionalism prevailed and AGs and AAGs had independent reputations that they strived to maintain often to the frustration of their political bosses. This was true of Garland, and true of Jeff Sessions in Trump’s first term.
Generally I don’t think these people would expect the burden of proof to fall on those who assumed good faith on behalf of DoJ, rather the opposite.
-
There would obviously be no net reputational damage for a Biden DOJ that investigated a lead to Trump which led to a legit indictment. The opposite is true. They would be heroes. They would be doing exactly what their voters wanted them to do. It is both democratic and legal, and the argument against it, that it would be an ethical violation, seems weak to me, motivated by an attempt to highlight the ethical differences between the two administrations. Those differences exist, but we don't have to make stuff up to substantiate them.
It is not surprising you don't have any cites for anybody else making that claim. That Biden's DOJ would not have tried very hard to follow leads to Trump in the Epstein files. I don't think anybody else actually is making that claim.
Imagine how furious the Biden voters would be if they thought the administration they voted for would treat leads to Trump in the Epstein files with kid gloves, because of "ethics". The outrage would be immense. But they don't think they did. Nobody thinks they did, as far as I know, other than you. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong with a cite to something serious that makes the same claim.
-
Again if there were leads that pointed to criminal behavior I’m sure they’d have been followed.
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
Again if there were leads that pointed to criminal behavior I’m sure they’d have been followed.
I don't think that's an earned "again". You've gone to some lengths to claim that, due to ethics, investigating leads to Trump in the Epstein files would be uncouth for the Biden administration. But I'm happy to hear you say that clearly, and that you agree with the rest of the world that if there was evidence of criminal behavior on Trump's part in the Epstein files, we'd have heard about it while Biden was in office.
-
In prior engagements you have gone to some lengths to make the claims I've told you about. In your first screen cap'ed message there, I was assuming you were using a loophole where the evidence was damning right off the bat from the files, barely any investigation required. "Leads" which would require investigations were where you have handwaved a circumstantial case that the Biden admin would find it uncouth to try very hard.
-
I could go through the threads where we've engaged in this and find your claims that the DOJ does not expand investigations as an unwritten ethical rule, and that the Biden DOJ would not have gone out of their way to comb through the files for legally incriminating leads to Trump. Yes we also talked about leaks, and you have a stronger case there, though it's still arguable, since we hardly have proof that there is any embarrassing stuff about Trump in those files that would move the needle. We have proof that Trump wanted his name redacted, but no proof that without the redactions, any needle would have been moved.
-
I don’t think you’d ever find me making such a case. My position has been that all the evidence suggests the garland DoJ operated by the book as far as we know. The ‘book’ is fine with expanding investigations if thats where evidence leads. Famous cases are the result of such expansions, from Anthony Weiner’s laptop to Rob Blagojovich to Arthur Andersen’s conviction in Enron.
-
