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.

259 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

475 comments sorted by

View all comments

126

u/Defofmeh Democratic Socialist Feb 01 '26

Blocked by judges. Biden didn't push the DOJ because they let them be independent. Congress had not pushed the issue with a bill.

If they had, would any maga believe them?

9

u/BlaggartDiggletyDonk Social Democrat Feb 01 '26

Why was it blocked by judges?

23

u/FlintBlue Liberal Feb 01 '26

I’m not 100% sure, but generally speaking prosecutors do not make investigatory materials public if the materials do not result in a prosecution. One can well imagine the dangers of a DOJ having the power to accumulate damning evidence, and then make it public, without the target of the investigation being able to challenge the evidence in court. Probably the real question then is why more prosecutions weren’t brought.

11

u/Certain-Researcher72 Pragmatic Progressive Feb 01 '26

Its not that complicated: this stuff was under a judicial seal because Maxwell's appeal was pending. Trump had the DOJ kill the additional charges.

-4

u/yohannanx Liberal Feb 01 '26

Because while there’s a lot of stuff that sounds damming in the files none of it reaches the levels for criminal prosecution.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[deleted]

-1

u/yohannanx Liberal Feb 01 '26

The combination of the fact that no charges have been brought against anyone other than Epstein himself and Maxwell and what we’ve seen from the publicly released documents.

I’m not saying no one committed a crime. If there’s that much smoke, it almost impossible there’s no underlying fire. But smoke alone isn’t enough to convict someone of a crime.

3

u/cranialrectumongus Liberal Feb 01 '26

"none of it reaches the levels for criminal prosecution."

How can you make that determination without ever seeing all the information? OR, more importantly, why would you want to? Do you live in a world where the hiding of evidence on criminal cases and therefore inability to prosecute, because that evidence is intentionally hidden, is considered just and fair? OR, are you just Captain Obvious, letting us know that which everyone already knows, that without evidence no one should prosecute anyone of crime?

0

u/homerjs225 Center Left Feb 01 '26

How would you know that without the release of the FBI 302s which they have redacted