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 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.
