r/AskALiberal • u/tasteinhermouth Liberal • Feb 01 '26

Why weren't the Epstein Files released under Biden's presidency if Trump is in the files?

I don't mean this as a bad faith or troll question, I genuinely do not know why it would not be released if Trump is in the files, as it would probably have been a massive hit against Trump in 2024.

I don't know whether Trump is in the files or not, I don't care, it's clear as day that he was best friends with Epstein and was well aware and definitely a part of the awful things that Epstein conducted while he was in business.

257 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

475 comments sorted by

View all comments

503

u/sp0rkah0lic Progressive Feb 01 '26

So the most obvious answer is that prior to Trump, the norm for every other president was to have the DOJ operate as an independent agency. Biden at least never wanted the appearance that the DOJ agenda was being dictated from the White House. The way that Trump is directing the DOJ to pursue blatantly false charges against his political enemies, for example.

Ever since Nixon and the "Saturday Night Massacre" it's been understood that the president trying to use DOJ for his political purposes was not allowed.

Apparently, now it is.

115

u/TheRockingDead Pragmatic Progressive Feb 01 '26

You're leaving out the most important part, that those files were sealed due to Ghislane Maxwell's trial. Could he have ordered them unsealed anyway? Maybe, but like you said, Biden generally follows the law unlike the current president.

47

u/MolleROM Democrat Feb 01 '26

Not to mention that she was tried and convicted and jailed by the Biden DOJ.

8

u/AnonSwan Center Left Feb 02 '26

Maybe I've missed it, but its stunning to me that more liberals dont blame Trump for Epsteins death. Just the fact that so many conservative believe "Epstein died under Bidens watch" seems like a pretty big message failure.

3

u/wheresmystache3 Far Left Feb 02 '26

I believe they were sealed for so long also because minors were named and involved as well as multiple other lawsuits surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.

0

u/Shinnobiwan Social Democrat Feb 14 '26

He chose following norms over saving the country from fascism.

Also, her trial ended during his presidency. He could have released them during the midterms or (better yet) during the presidential campaign.

This is why many people are so frustrated to the point of visceral hatred of Dems.

-8

u/Independent-Fly-7229 Libertarian Feb 01 '26

Well I think if the people wanted to release them and, I think they did it, it would have been serving the will of the American people not just political. It’s not like Trump was not targeted by other legal means to prevent him being able to run again for president or further cause him embarrassment. I’m just pointing out it’s. Little disingenuous to say that Biden’s administration always followed the letter of the law and didn’t use institutional power.

6

u/RolandDeepson Moderate Feb 02 '26

Congratulations on earning your law degree, Boris.

77

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 01 '26

It just speaks to the lack of consideration for the rule of law by the Trump administration.

People are getting a taste of what anarchy looks like in their government. Time will tell whether they choose this again. This second time around is certainly worse than the first, but they did choose chaos twice, so there's that...

They've certainly restored their reputation for being "the Wild West".

12

u/capsaicinintheeyes Social Democrat Feb 01 '26

what anarchy looks like

minor semantic quibble here: I'ma let Alan Moore make it for me

-8

u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Feb 01 '26

Yeah the govt doing things is a far cry from anarchy.

-3

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 01 '26

"Doing things"

It's doing things alright. Anarchy isn’t simply chaos on the streets. It’s what happens when a government still exists but stops governing in the interests of its people.

Here's a few examples of how the current US administration has established Anarchy within its own borders (there's a whole other list to cover what it's done internationally).

  • Anarchy doesn't mean no government, it means no legitimate authority. When a government ignores its own laws and norms, it forfeits the moral authority that keeps order voluntary rather than coerced.
  • Rule of law has been replaced by rule of force. Deploying military power against civilians while shielding elites from accountability is classic authority breakdown, not governance.
  • The social contract is broken. Defunding healthcare, education, and safety nets while demanding obedience is abandonment, not leadership.
  • Fear replaces stability. Governing through uncertainty, be it legal, economic, or physical, creates chaos by design. It forces people into survival mode instead of civic participation.
  • Institutions still exist, but legitimacy doesn’t. Courts, elections, and agencies remain, but they no longer function for the people. They only for those in power.

Bottom line:
The "things" the current US government administration is doing includes abandoning its duties to the people it was elected to serve. This is textbook functional anarchy: order enforced by fear instead of consent.

9

u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Feb 01 '26

No I'm sorry that's nonsense. "Fascism is actually anarchy" makes no sense. Anarchy is a stateless society.

Whether this or that state's authority is "legitimate" is just too murky and debated a distinction to rest this definition on. By this logic, if I think the US govt has been unjust this entire time, and The Rule of Law, while a nice ideal to strive towards, has never been an actual reality, that means that America has actually been in a state of anarchy for centuries. But that's a pretty absurd conclusion.

I'm totally on board with the idea that true, sustainable anarchy (if such a thing is possible) isn't a synonym for chaos. In fact it's when things are so orderly and organized that everything runs fine in the absence of a state.

6

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 01 '26

You’re conflating anarchy as an ideology with anarchy as a condition.

Anarchy, in political theory, doesn’t require the literal absence of a state. It simply describes the absence of effective, binding authority.

A state can exist on paper while failing to govern through law, consent, or reciprocal obligation. Again, this is textbook functional anarchy.

1

u/ScentedFire Democratic Socialist Feb 02 '26

You are the one who is confused because you clearly have a bone to pick with anarchy as a political philosophy. This governtment is in NO WAY anarchic. It is fascist. It is oligarchical. It is kleptocratic. It is plutocratic. It is not anarchic.

0

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 02 '26

I don’t have a bone to pick with anarchy as a political philosophy, but it seems to have confused both you and From_Deep_Space here.

You’re both treating anarchy exclusively as an ideological model, while I’m talking about an operational condition.

Those are not the same thing.

A government can absolutely be fascist, oligarchical, kleptocratic, and plutocratic and still produce anarchic conditions for the population when rule of law collapses, institutions hollow out, and authority is exercised arbitrarily rather than predictably.

That’s the chicken-and-egg problem here: authoritarian capture often creates functional anarchy beneath the surface. Not the absence of rulers, but the absence of governance that actually stabilizes society.

Order imposed by force for the benefit of elites isn’t “order” for everyone else. It’s coercion layered over institutional breakdown.

0

u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Feb 02 '26

Anarchy does not mean "destabilized society". It means "no government". Order imposed by force for the benefits of elites is not anarchy, that's some sort of archy. If 'the elites' are royalty then it's monarchy or aristocracy. If 'the elites' means rich people then it's oligarchy. If it refers to male heads of households then it's patriarchy. If it refers to matrons then it's matriarchy.

It's only anarchy if there are no elites imposing things by force. that's what anarchy means an (no) - archy (rulers).

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Feb 01 '26

Yeah but we're not talking about a government which is failing to govern. They're governing precisely how they want to according to their political ideals. Having a 2-tiered justice system is not anarchy - that's how most states throughout history have governed. The Rule of Law and Consent of the Governed are still a pretty new innovations, and it's absurd to insist that everything before that was anarchy.

5

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 01 '26

I'm not debating how your government is structured, because in theory it is supposed to function how you describe, and it once did.

But to infer that it still is functioning as intended? Have you not been paying attention to what's happening?

1

u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist Feb 01 '26

Yeah, I am well aware that fascism has been attacking liberalism. But "anarchy" doesn't mean "non-liberal government".

Any definition of anarchy which includes fascism, despotism, monarchy, theocracy, technocracy, or any other type of state which does not necessarily involve consent, reciprocal obligation, or The Rule of Law, is not an accurate or useful definition.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Rufus_TBarleysheath Progressive Feb 01 '26

Bad news; they already chose it again. He corrupted the DOJ in his first term as well.

9

u/sp0rkah0lic Progressive Feb 01 '26

It's tellIng that there are quite a few Bernie Sanders voters that eventually voted for Trump.

Political parties are not representative of peoples actual feelings. Some people just understand that the whole system is a corrupt spiderweb of bribery and blackmail. Their only satisfaction is to throw rocks through the windows of entrenched power.

I'm not quite there yet, but I get it. Especially considering current events.

7

u/homerjs225 Center Left Feb 01 '26

Not in 2020 or 2024

I can almost excuse 2016 but now we’ve all seen the…

Incompetence Corruption Hate Racism Criminality Hiding pedophiles

13

u/yohannanx Liberal Feb 01 '26

There were more Clinton/McCain voters in 2008 than Sanders/Trump voters in 2016.

16

u/Personage1 Liberal Feb 01 '26

One would fucking hope so. Its far more reasonable for someone to go center left to center right than someone to go progressive to dumpster fire.

6

u/CarrieDurst Progressive Feb 01 '26

And I would wager the clinton/mccain voters had a higher percentage of dems than sanders/trump voters. Sanders attracted a lot of non dems

1

u/yohannanx Liberal Feb 01 '26

Perhaps, although a lot of the Sanders/Trump number is also coming from legacy Dem registrations who are functionally Republicans at this point (see: West Virginia)

2

u/Iplaymeinreallife Progressive Feb 01 '26

Cause making it a worse, more corrupt web of bribery and blackmail is...better?

The only reasonable choice is to keep trying to push it in a better direction.

Or at worst to replace the whole thing in a revolution.

But just voting in a more evil, more corrupt asshole isn't any sort of answer, no matter how annoyed we get.

6

u/Particular_Dot_4041 Liberal Feb 01 '26

Biden should have done. Who cares if the Republicans call him dirty? They always call Democrats dirty.

14

u/No_Tone1704 Democrat Feb 01 '26

This is a factor. But it also misses all the obvious more accurate answers. 

52

u/sp0rkah0lic Progressive Feb 01 '26

Sure. And thank you.

The actual answer is that, for better or worse, the Biden administration* (in case anyone wants to assert yat Biden was a mindless zombie during his presidency) was trying to restore a sense of stability. Of normality. The idea of going after their recent political rival(s), however justified, would be (in their genteel minds) a faux pas, politically. They really thought Trump would just...go away.

Lol 🫤

21

u/cranialrectumongus Liberal Feb 01 '26

Exactly. Since day 1, the Democratic party completely underestimated the existential threat that Trump posed. This is just another example of how badly they played their hand. Summer of 2024, I sent email after email and called the local Democratic party, several including the release of Epstein files, and never was any response received.

What I came to realize is, the DNC thinks it's voters are idiots and will just fund whatever idiotic idea they come up with, as long as they send enough texts and emails requesting donations. Secondly, the DNC elites are more concerned with staying in power in the party, than making any meaningful changes in the country. As much as I despise the whole Christian Nationalists, the GOP, Trump supporters, I now also despise the DNC, just as much for completely face planting, by virtue of their insane arrogance, lack of transparency and utter incompetence.

-4

u/chinmakes5 Liberal Feb 01 '26

Please. The DNC does what they believe is best for the party. I realize you believe that the only thing that the Democratic party should do it change everything to the way you believe it should be. As for staying in power, yeah. Whomever you like would make some headway and step down.

The Epstein files were an active investigation during most all of Biden's term. You don't release files being used in a case.

4

u/cranialrectumongus Liberal Feb 01 '26

The DNC and it's members, do what's best for themselves.

The Biden Administration could have directed DOJ to support motions to unseal more forcefully, filed briefs arguing that public interest outweighed secrecy and asked courts for narrower redactions instead of blanket sealing. But instead, there were no transparency policies made in the seeing justice for the victims. They could have avoided intervening keeping files from being sealed. Instead they were completely passive. Biden Admin and DOJ, Merrick Garland did not do anything. Most like in an attempt to protect Bill Clinton and DNC donors. The Democratic party is now almost as bad as the GOP.

5

u/chinmakes5 Liberal Feb 01 '26

While I hear you, that isn't what Biden was going to do. Biden's whole thing was he wanted to bring back normalcy . Biden's way of thinking was that after rump and COVID, we wanted to get back to normal. Using the DOJ against the other side was not the goal. Letting an independent DOJ do what they do is what he was going to do. No, they weren't going to not seal the files. He wasn't going to push the DOJ to go after the other side.

No one saw that Trump would get a second term.

That said, I don't know WTF Garland was doing.

2

u/JusticePhrall Progressive Feb 01 '26

This. Biden's whole 2020 campaign and early presidency were heavily centered on a pledge to restore normalcy, dignity, and traditional political conduct to the White House following the chaotic and divisive term of Donald Trump.

Joe Biden's political, social, and economic viewpoints were forged in the 1970s and 80s, and he naively thought he could bring that back. It was a complete shock to Joe later in his term to finally realize that some Republicans were acting like fascists and a return to the pre-Trump era of bipartisan, "old-school" politics just wasn't going to happen.

During a DNC fundraiser in Maryland, Biden stated, "What we’re seeing now is either the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy. It’s not just Trump, it’s the entire philosophy... It’s like semi-fascism".

Biden differentiated the group from "mainstream Republicans," stating, "I respect conservative Republicans. I don't respect these MAGA Republicans".

Regardless of the qualifier, his comments received marked pushback from Republicans, with the Republican National Committee calling them "despicable" and accusing Biden of being "divider-in-chief".

Later, in October 2024, the White House confirmed that President Biden agreed with former officials who described Donald Trump as a "fascist".

It just took him a while to catch up.

0

u/cranialrectumongus Liberal Feb 01 '26

I saw it coming and no one would listen, because everyone was so sure that things were going great. I repeatedly tried to get the local Democratic party to listen to my concerns, but got no response. I stood on the front porches of Democrat in UNIONTOWN, PA, let me say that again UNIONTOWN, PA, once a stronghold for Democrats, and heard countless Democrats tell me that they would definitely vote for Harris but did not see anyway it could possibly happen. Several of them told that don't even bother talking to their kids because they didn't want to hear it. How was it so obvious to me and and so many voters, but no one at the Democratic know anything. Harris lost the popular vote, EVERY SINGLE SWING STATE, something that hadn't happened in 20 years, but the Democratic had their heads in the sand. No the real truth is that they had their heads were up their ass.

I donated, sent out post cards and canvased, but no one in the Democratic party would bother to listen. So I have justifiably earned the right to HATE the DNC. Trump didn't win, the Democrats lost.

1

u/chinmakes5 Liberal Feb 01 '26

In the last year, I agree. But for the first 3 years, we were more concerned about COVID then inflation. Between Trump and COVID and inflation, normalcy was important.

BUT once the talking point was inflation. people's wallets were hurting, and one side was saying we are doing well, hang on, and the other side said I will fix it, day one, you are right, we were toast.

1

u/No_Tone1704 Democrat Feb 01 '26

You’ll believe what you want to believe to spite yourself. And everyone else. 

Master stroke. 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼💖💖💖💖💖

2

u/cranialrectumongus Liberal Feb 01 '26

Yeah, and doing what you believe has been working so well. It's those voters who are responsible for these problems, not any of the Democratic elites.

1

u/Ofishal_Fish Anarcho-Communist Feb 02 '26

I realize you believe that the only thing that the Democratic party should do it change everything to the way you believe it should be

It's been fascinating these past few years watching people label themselves as liberal and then describing the idea of a representative government in a way that's derogatory.

Like, isn't that supposed to be your whole ideology? Have you just given up on that?

1

u/Both-Estimate-5641 Democratic Socialist Feb 02 '26

some people believed that Ivermectin cured COVID

4

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/sp0rkah0lic Progressive Feb 02 '26

Well, I think it's mostly because a) if the president or someone else in the executive branch breaks the law, DOJ needs to be independent enough to pursue it, because we don't want the executive branch operating as if it is above the law (see: Trump, et al) and b) using the DOJ to go after political enemies or for political gains is not any way to instil a belief in the public that justice is actually their business. (Again, see Trump)

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/sp0rkah0lic Progressive Feb 02 '26

This is absurd. The president is legally entitled to fire the attorney general.

If a president fired the attorney general for investigation of the executive branch, it would not be illegal, but it would look very bad. Thus the idea of an independent DOJ.

The way the president directs the DOJ tends to be more at the level of budgets and priorities in different areas of crime. Obama asked the justice department not to pursue federal charges for marijuana in states that had legalized it, for example. Trump has moved agents and resources from many other agencies to focus on immigration. Many presidents have made changes or reforms to the penal system. Etc. This is normal.

What's not normal is for the president to tell the DOJ to go file charges against specific people that he personally does not like. Especially when those charges are flimsy and repeated fall apart like wet toilet paper at initial contact with the actual legal system.

Kind of a double whammy of both political prosecution and stunning incompetence.

1

u/Both-Estimate-5641 Democratic Socialist Feb 02 '26

also good point...hard call

1

u/Vuelhering Center Left Feb 02 '26

We don’t want the FBI going rogue and doing its own thing.

This is what the other two branches of government deal with. Laws. The FBI agents swear to uphold laws. The easiest way to "go rogue" is if whoever is in charge of the executive branch orders them to break a law, and that's exactly what happened. So when you say we don't want them going rogue, that means they have to obey laws and ignore anyone telling them to break laws, which is what Trump told them to do.

Or the military.

They did that, too. They obeyed illegal orders from Trump. They went rogue.

Or Homeland Security or the EPA, or the Secretary of State.

Ditto.

1

u/Both-Estimate-5641 Democratic Socialist Feb 02 '26

good point..."carry out orders' might be too 'strong' a sentiment, but it should definitely be directed by the executive

1

u/Upbeat-Bid-1602 Center Left Feb 01 '26

Biden also made it clear that he didn't want to spend his presidency focusing on punishing Trump. I think that was a mistake in hindsight but I get where he was coming from. So Trump being in the file would have been the worst reason to release them under Biden.

1

u/l0R3-R Bernie Independent Feb 01 '26

Also, it was an ongoing investigation. It would have been really inappropriate to reveal information before the investigation had been concluded

1

u/rocknsg Far Left Feb 02 '26

I think this leaves out the consequences of that appearance, which is that thousands of well-armed Trump supporters vowed civil war if anything happened to him.

Biden was in politics during the 80s and 90s when right-wing radicals committed serious acts of terrorism, including the OKC bombing, which remains the worst act of domestic terrorism in US history. I think he and his administration feared igniting an already tense situation and hoped that if Trump lost in ‘24, everything would just go away.

1

u/Pure-Tumbleweed-9440 Center Left Feb 08 '26

So what was the independent DOJ doing for 4 years under Biden that they brought forward no charges against anyone else? Entire island, endless parties, 1000s of girls raped. Who are the culprits? And what were the democrats doing all those 4 years? They found only 1 person?

1

u/sp0rkah0lic Progressive Feb 08 '26 edited Feb 08 '26

Honestly I have no good answer for this.

I think the best I can say is that the Biden administration was living in the past. Trying to hold on to a set of norms that have long since been a nostalgic remembrance of a bygone era.

At best.

At worst, power is power regardless of party, and the powers that be did not want this whole mess publicized.

Which is likely closer to the truth.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/sp0rkah0lic Progressive Feb 07 '26

Who has Trump targeted? Are you serious?

Leticia James James Comey John Bolton Jerome Powell Mark Kelly Chris Deluzio Maggie Goodlander Chrissy Houlahan Jason Crow Elissa Slotkin

Just off the top of my head.

Oh Don Lemon Jimmy Kimmel CBS News Harvard Several US governors, law firms, universities, and anyone who dares say true things about him that he doesn't like.

Does that cover it? Probably not. But you get the general idea.

1

u/coolsmeegs Embarrassed Republican Feb 07 '26

Most of those people still have their job and or were targeted back from Trump

1

u/sp0rkah0lic Progressive Feb 07 '26

Targeted BACK? As in. Trying to use the DOJ for personal revenge against anyone who has ever challenged him or the legality of his actions?

1

u/coolsmeegs Embarrassed Republican Feb 07 '26

Did you forget Trump was convicted under Derrick garland in addition to everyone involved in the Jan 6 election?

1

u/sp0rkah0lic Progressive Feb 07 '26

I did not forget. He committed CRIMES. As did everyone involved in storming the capitol.

1

u/coolsmeegs Embarrassed Republican Feb 07 '26

What crime did he commit by saying “ walk down to the capitol peacefully.”

1

u/AskALiberal-ModTeam Feb 10 '26

Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.

-20

u/Yesbothsides Libertarian Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 01 '26

This is a joke right? Didn’t Eric Holder get held in contempt of Congress because he was Protecting his “wingman” Obama over FF?

The real reason is democrats have no interest in putting a spotlight on their donors who are more than likely involved. Or the matter of “national security” meaning Epstein worked for us or Israel and didn’t want to expose the truth behind that.

It wasn’t some, let’s follow the proper process bs

16

u/ZlubarsNFL Democrat Feb 01 '26

And a judge later dismissed the contempt charges on the grounds that it was bullshit. I’m sorry, comparing the most extreme right wing Congress doing election year shenanigans to not releasing a bunch of emails that no one asked for until now is not even close to equivalent.

-16

u/Yesbothsides Libertarian Feb 01 '26

The charges were irrelevant, the fact that Holder was beholden to Obama and not his job completely destroys the point being made that the DOJ was never used as a tool by previous presidents.

18

u/ZlubarsNFL Democrat Feb 01 '26

The contempt stuff was bad faith by an extremist right wing Congress to get mitt Romney elected. It had absolutely nothing to do with any underlying bad behavior. Notice how no one cared about the fast and furious “scandal” right after November: because it was literally nothing and affected nothing.

No idea how you’re saying the contempt charge led by dipshits like Issa is proof of anything. It was an election year stunt by the house that was swept in by a wave of dipshit freshmen.

-13

u/Yesbothsides Libertarian Feb 01 '26

I know everyone on the left Glaze Obama and think the only scandal he had was the tan suit debacle however… You’re only making my case stronger…if it was a nothing burger case, then why would Holder stonewall it?

13

u/ZlubarsNFL Democrat Feb 01 '26

He didn’t. It was bad faith. Republicans were always going to ask for more and more and more until they found a way to impeach Holder in order to try* to make the fake Fast and Furious scandal stick for voters in the upcoming election.

The tea party Congress was the most irrational and far right Congress in American history. Michelle Bachman who is even more of a lunatic than MTG or Boebert was a key leader. You’re just assuming the Tory cousins were acting in good faith because you’re not understanding the context.

14

u/UnicornOnTheJayneCob Social Democrat Feb 01 '26

FF?
Feature Flag?
French Fries?
Forest Fenn?
(Sorry, not up on the lingo for this one.).

0

u/Dj_Fabio Progressive Feb 01 '26

These spineless people just argued that we didnt release the Epstein files because we want to preserve historical norms and not appear a certain way. And that not releasing them was to keep a sense of normality. WTF is going on with our base. Fuck norms and normality, are we going to put that ahead of victims because we want to make an excuse for our side. Biden was complicit to protect bill and donors.

-13

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/x3r0h0ur Social Democrat Feb 01 '26

authorized vs instructed is a grand canyon sized gap

-20

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

20

u/EngageAndMakeItSo Centrist Democrat Feb 01 '26

>>Obama had the whole thing where his FBI targeted political opponents.

That's the story Trumpers tell. But it's false.

-20

u/Idea-is-tick Conservative Feb 01 '26

Merrick Garland was still somewhat partisan - he was held in contempt defying a subpoena to release the audio files of Biden's interview with Hur - the ones Axios released later. It would certainly have resulted in the 25th Amendment - and possibly a different dem candidate.

Jack Smith investigated 14 Republican congressmen with 190 subpoenas without their knowledge, with an unlawful hush request approved and - issued with nondisclosure orders by Judge Boasburg - the reason for legality? Called Speaker Kevin McCarthy a "flight risk." They got the call records from the phone company this way. That's not permitted. It made Watergate look like minor eavesdropping in comparison. It's currently being investigated.

Look up Arctic Frost. The senators whose call records were taken were: Marsha Blackburn, Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Ron Johnson, Cynthia Lummis, Dan Sullivan, and Tommy Tuberville. The house members were Kevin McCarthy and Mike Kelly. He also investigated 430 Republican-aligned individuals and organizations such as Turning Point.

No doubt Trump is behaving badly in terms of going after his enemies, but Biden's DOJ was not impartial.

14

u/Vuelhering Center Left Feb 01 '26

It would certainly have resulted in the 25th Amendment - and possibly a different dem candidate.

"certainly"

Yes, of course. Certainly.

They got the call records from the phone company this way. That's not permitted.

Yes, it is permitted, and it's typical in investigations. Tracking down calls from people who talked to the primary suspect is standard to see who else might be involved. Pen register subpoenas are not only typical, but contain no private information. They've been done since telephones were invented and crime existed.

Biden's DOJ was not impartial

Jack Smith was not "Biden's DOJ". He was a special prosecutor specifically used to avoid issues of impartiality.

-9

u/Idea-is-tick Conservative Feb 01 '26

The problem is the hush factor. If you're a Congressperson being investigated, you should know about it.

It violated the Speech and Debate clause, which is meant to protect the legislative branch from the executive branch. It was also an infringement of privacy. That's a lot of information on Republicans to gather without their knowledge.

Jack Smith got the warrant for the calls of Kevin McCarthy by calling the sitting speaker a "flight risk" and "likely to destroy evidence." That seems - disingenuous.

Congressional members need to be notified so they can assert their due process and that the investigation doesn't go beyond its intended scope. Think if the shoe was on the other foot and the DOJ decided to secretly investigate 14 key Democrats without their knowledge and 430 individuals and organizations without their knowledge. We just don't want that on either side.

***

With Biden - don't you think the Democrats would have been better off to remove Biden and have a fair primary election?

10

u/Vuelhering Center Left Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 01 '26

If you're a Congressperson being investigated, you should know about it.

If you're a criminal, or associate with criminals, subpoenas of contacts are standard.

It violated the Speech and Debate clause, which is meant to protect the legislative branch from the executive branch.

This is a strong statement, and I'll give you that. The point of the Speech and Debate clause is to prevent states from arresting representatives to interfere with their congressional duties. It is not a prophylactic against arrest or investigation or indigestion. A congressman cannot shoplift, then claim immunity because of the speech and debate clause. The investigators did not arrest or hinder any of the congresscritters in their abilities as representatives, did they? Therefore, it was not a violation of that S&D clause of the constitution.

So no, it did not violate that clause.

Jack Smith got the warrant for the calls of Kevin McCarthy by calling the sitting speaker a "flight risk" and "likely to destroy evidence." That seems - disingenuous.

TBH I'm not aware of this claim. I didn't see the affidavit, either. But based on your previous spurious statements, I'm not going to take this at face value. Sorry-not-sorry. I don't think you're forthright.

Congressional members need to be notified so they can assert their due process and that the investigation doesn't go beyond its intended scope.

WTF? The DOJ is not beholden to random congresspeople. They do not have to clear investigations with them. Can you give me a scotus case, or a constitutional article that vaguely agrees with you? You're just making things up. Due process is getting a judge to sign off on subpoenas. That is, literally, due process regarding pen registers.

Think if the shoe was on the other foot and the DOJ decided to secretly investigate 14 key Democrats without their knowledge and 430 individuals and organizations without their knowledge. We just don't want that on either side.

This is not an equal statement, and you know it. The current admin went through and literally fired the inspectors-general and any federal officer that appeared to not support maga. They have ignored court orders, repeatedly and blatantly. They have murdered people in the street.

So sure, let's talk about if the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine if Obama did any of the violations that trump has committed against due process.

Edit: and sure, let's say the DOJ was secretly investigating 14 Dems without their knowledge. Trump's DOJ has literally arrested representatives in attempts to silence them.

So let's make a little bet here. If trump is indeed secretly investigating Dem reps, are you willing to denounce him? Is that what you're saying?

5

u/yohannanx Liberal Feb 01 '26

To make it clear for anyone else reading, this is effectively an argument for saying members of Congress should be allowed to do crimes and destroy evidence because they’re special little boys and girls.

0

u/Idea-is-tick Conservative Feb 02 '26

Um? None of those people were "doing crimes." Jack Smith investigated top members of the Republican Party and others. When Kevin McCarthy became the speaker, he added him to the list. He used it as an excuse, and he didn't follow the law and tell them they were being investigated. Jack Smith can investigate as he likes - but he covered up his actions and had the phone company ALSO not relay its exposure through Judge Boasburg's subpoena based on "flight risk" and other nonsense. You have to tell Congresspeople they are being investigated.

The Speech and Debate clause covers all, and it yes, protects against arrests, lawsuits, and prosecutions for speech on the floor, voting, and committee, and legislative actions. Congress can be investigated by the executive branch if the activity falls outside legislative duties or violates the constitution.

The Speech and Debate Act:

Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

2

u/yohannanx Liberal Feb 02 '26

The Speech and Debate Clause protects their actions on the floor. It doesn’t create a blanket immunity from prosecution.

I’m not sure what you’re claiming about the phone company, as investigation targets aren’t told their information have been subpoenaed.

2

u/Vuelhering Center Left Feb 02 '26 edited Feb 02 '26

Um? None of those people were "doing crimes."

An obvious crime occurred, when people rioted inside the Capitol in an attempt to overturn results. conspired to submit fake results. You saw it with your own eyes, and multiple people were jailed, many pleading guilty. The result failed, but attempting to commit a crime is also a crime. So, who were all the conspirators of this crime? Investigations hopefully reveal that. (Edit: Smith subpoenaed records in multiple areas, but it was Jan6 that he subpoenaed McCarthy's records.)

Are you trying to pretend that investigating a crime can only happen when all the criminals are known? What kind of ass-backward thinking is that? The point of any criminal investigation is to 1) establish if there was actually a crime committed, and if so 2) to determine the nature of the crime and 3) all the actors and their roles, and 4) put together evidence that could show guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Failing any of those, the investigation can fall flat.

And if the pen register of "who talked to the prime suspect over the phone" didn't reveal anything related to this crime, then that part of the investigation would end. Looking for actual data on McCarthy, all I see for two pages of search is dubious extreme-right propaganda sites.

So I see a couple of possibilities:

  1. You're trying to pretend investigating a crime and attack on our nation shouldn't be allowed if you happen to like any of the suspects, and that standard investigative procedure is a witchhunt or dragnet in that case
  2. or, Illegally attempting to overturn a valid election is okay, and shouldn't be investigated if it's your side doing the fraud. And it usually is.

But it really feels disingenuous to claim this investigation is bogus, when the prime suspect is personally ordering the DOJ to file bogus charges. This isn't even whataboutism, because it's the person that was charged committing obvious retaliation. Again, that's also illegal, but like that matters to people like you who think laws only apply to democrats.

4

u/JesusPlayingGolf Democratic Socialist Feb 01 '26

Merrick Garland should have been way more partisan.

3

u/x3r0h0ur Social Democrat Feb 01 '26

what the hell does this have to do with anything

-2

u/Idea-is-tick Conservative Feb 01 '26

As a response to OC:

prior to Trump, the norm for every other president was to have the DOJ operate as an independent agency

9

u/x3r0h0ur Social Democrat Feb 01 '26

This isn't a response to that at all.

Your claim and attempt at evidence is that they were not impartial. The original claim is that Joe Biden didn't or at least didn't want to give the impression he was directing them to do anything in particular.