The Epstein File
-
Hats off to Bondi and staff. In just a few months they were able to track down all these leads and prove them to be false, as hard as that is for any claim that person X did thing Y. Damn they’re good. Can’t imagine the amount of manpower they must have dedicated to the task.
-
Hats off to Bondi and staff. In just a few months they were able to track down all these leads and prove them to be false, as hard as that is for any claim that person X did thing Y. Damn they’re good. Can’t imagine the amount of manpower they must have dedicated to the task.
@jon-nyc just curious, have you ever seen anybody other than yourself make the claim that the Biden DOJ would not have gone after Trump if there were actionable evidence against him in those files? I’ve never seen that claim anywhere else, but you’re generally not one to go out on limbs. So I guess you may have seen it somewhere.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
Actionable evidence of crimes? Of course they would have.
I wouldn't presume to paraphrase you in a way you'd accept as not a strawman, but somewhere between "actionable evidence of crimes" and "sufficient evidence that a non-trivial investigation could plausibly lead to actionable evidence of crimes", is a line over which you've claimed the Biden admin would not have crossed. And those who think otherwise have become accustomed to government corruption due to Trump.
But I know that's a straw man.
-
Surely it’s now a settled question that the Garland DoJ wouldn’t leak just to embarrass Trump as it is now clear from what has been leaked by Congress or released by Bondi that there were plenty of embarrassing artifacts that the Garland DoJ didn’t in fact leak. Exhibit A would be the gross birthday letter.
As for whether they would have been extra aggressive in investigating or charging Trump again we have actual investigations to point to, which were handled very conservatively to the point of there having been complaints that they were being slow walked. It seems to me that, regardless of what the White House political team might have wanted, Garland wanted to see himself as among the long line of AGs that put themselves above partisan politics. He in fact conducted more investigations against Biden family members that Trump family members which surely you’ll concede that anything analogous to that would be inconceivable under the current regime.
The whole reason we call them illegal aliens is because they’re subject to our laws.
-
Surely it’s now a settled question that the Garland DoJ wouldn’t leak just to embarrass Trump as it is now clear from what has been leaked by Congress or released by Bondi that there were plenty of embarrassing artifacts that the Garland DoJ didn’t in fact leak. Exhibit A would be the gross birthday letter.
As for whether they would have been extra aggressive in investigating or charging Trump again we have actual investigations to point to, which were handled very conservatively to the point of there having been complaints that they were being slow walked. It seems to me that, regardless of what the White House political team might have wanted, Garland wanted to see himself as among the long line of AGs that put themselves above partisan politics. He in fact conducted more investigations against Biden family members that Trump family members which surely you’ll concede that anything analogous to that would be inconceivable under the current regime.
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
Surely it’s now a settled question that the Garland DoJ wouldn’t leak just to embarrass Trump as it is now clear from what has been leaked by Congress or released by Bondi that there were plenty of embarrassing artifacts that the Garland DoJ didn’t in fact leak. Exhibit A would be the gross birthday letter.
As for whether they would have been extra aggressive in investigating or charging Trump again we have actual investigations to point to, which were handled very conservatively to the point of there having been complaints that they were being slow walked. It seems to me that, regardless of what the White House political team might have wanted, Garland wanted to see himself as among the long line of AGs that put themselves above partisan politics. He in fact conducted more investigations against Biden family members that Trump family members which surely you’ll concede that anything analogous to that would be inconceivable under the current regime.
Yes I grant that the current administration would not focus inwards as much as the previous one, and yes I agree that points to ethical differences.
I accept that you believe that the Biden DOJ would not have tried very hard to track down leads to Trump in the Epstein files, of criminal behavior, due to those same ethics. My question to you is, have you seen that claim made anywhere else. Not "implied" as in the circumstantial case you lay out, but claimed flat out, that due to ethics, the Biden administration would have avoided the totally legal, and clearly desired, by the people who voted for them, investigations of leads in the files that might have led to Trump being indicted for something related to Epstein.
I have seen that claim made nowhere else. But the opposite claim, that of course they would have, is ubiquitous, not only on the right, but on the left.
-
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 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.
