General Discussion

Tommy Carcetti

(44,230 posts)

12. It has been.

Tue Sep 9, 2025, 11:51 AM

Sep 9

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

4 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

niyad Wednesdays sagetea Clouds Passing

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 9 OP

And that would have happened a long time ago. Ocelot II Sep 9 #1

Agree Johnny2X2X Sep 9 #8

It's A Trap! OC375 Sep 9 #2

If bribery was the object, LakeVermilion Sep 9 #3

Exactly. Epstein was looking for money. He hit up Bill Gates, for example, Ocelot II Sep 9 #5

With the fact that Epstein and Maxwell were the only two charged, why didn't Biden's DOJ reopen the case? everyonematters Sep 9 #4

Statutes of limitations, possibly. Ocelot II Sep 9 #7

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

There is no statute of limitations for sex trafficking or rape on the federal level. On statutory rape, in depends on everyonematters Sep 9 #11

*Epstein* was charged with sex trafficking of minors, for which there is no federal statute of limitations. Ocelot II Sep 9 #13

DOJ Merrick Garland's call, not Biden's. Garland, not one of our favorites thereafter. nt Festivito Sep 9 #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 9 #19

Never thought it. Festivito Sep 9 #20

That's a question for Merrick Garland. Wiz Imp Sep 9 #21

It may have been completely his decision, maybe not. It may have been just an oversight because of all the attention everyonematters Sep 10 #22

No maybe about it. Garland was head of DOJ. He decided what cases to pursue and what not to pursue. Wiz Imp Sep 10 #23

How could you know that for sure? Do you think that the 40% of the registered voters who are not Democrats everyonematters Sep 10 #25

😲🤦🏻‍♂️🙄 Sheesh. There is absolutely zero evidence of Biden ever inserting himself into a DOJ case. Wiz Imp Sep 10 #26

I'm not accusing him of anything. I am just saying the question needs to be answered. everyonematters Sep 10 #28

And I told you that was a question for Merrick Garland to answer but you wouldn't accept that answer. Wiz Imp Sep 10 #29

Biden was ultimately responsible for the exectutive branch. He could have inquired why no action was being taken. everyonematters Sep 10 #30

Yes! And who else is in the sicko "birthday book?" SheltieLover Sep 9 #6

It has been. Tommy Carcetti Sep 9 #12

Ty! SheltieLover Sep 9 #14

You can find it here Wiz Imp Sep 10 #24

Absolutely! LoisB Sep 9 #10

I'd Heard Bill Richardson Deep State Witch Sep 9 #15

I've heard a lot of things. Don't care. Let's see it. Iggo Sep 10 #27

It would have been released at 12:01 p.m. on January 20. Vinca Sep 9 #17

Not necessarily. Releasing the name of a prominent Democrat would open the doors to more investigation and the release Martin68 Sep 9 #18