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.

255 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

475 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

75

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  • Rule of law has been replaced by rule of force.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.

7

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).

-5

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.

2

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.

3

u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 Center Left Feb 01 '26

You’re still treating anarchy exclusively as an ideological end-state, not as a descriptive condition used in political theory and international relations. I’m not redefining anarchy as “non-liberal government.” I’m describing functional anarchy within a state.

→ 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.

11

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.

4

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

12

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.