.png)
HOME - BEST PRACTICES - MY SOURCES - DEFINITIONS - 2024 PREDICTIONS - 3 ePSTEIN QUESTIONS - DEM SOC vs DICTATOR - RIGHT vs LEFT 50 YR HISTORY - PROJECT 2025 - ePSTEIN BIRTHDAY BOOK - WHY NO BIDEN DOJ ePSTEIN LEAK? - ePSTEIN and tRUMP - ECONOMY - HEALTHCARE - NATIONAL and HOMELAND SECURITY - DIPLOMACY - RACISIM - HITLER - IS tRUMP A DICTATOR - CRIME - POLITICAL VIOLENCE - DOJ WEAPONIZATION
Because Biden didn’t want even the appearance of a conflict of
interest. It’s not HIS DOJ. I know it’s
a hard concept for maga to grasp with how routinely trump has weaponized “His
DOJ” The AG doesn’t work for the
president it works for the people.
Remember when Biden fired everyone in the DOJ when he came to office, EXCEPT the
guy investigating his son. Could you imagine trump not firing someone
investigating Eric? (Ok bad example).
A plausible explanation for why the Obama/Biden DOJ or FBI might not have leaked
any information implicating trump in the Epstein saga—even if such information
existed—can be broken down into several points:
1. Legal Constraints
Federal agencies like the DOJ and FBI operate under strict rules about
confidentiality, ongoing investigations, and grand jury secrecy. Leaking such
information would be illegal and could compromise prosecutions or
investigations.
2. Institutional Norms and Politics
Professional investigators and prosecutors generally avoid using information for
political purposes. Releasing unverified allegations against a political figure
would violate norms of impartiality and could backfire legally and politically.
3. Strategic Timing
Agencies may choose not to release information if they think it would disrupt
ongoing investigations or trials, or if the timing could be politically
sensitive, risking accusations of partisanship.
4. Risk of Misinformation or Defamation
Even if there were rumors or indirect links, leaking unverified claims could
lead to defamation suits and undermine the credibility of the institutions.
5. Operational Limitations
Investigations sometimes reveal connections that are irrelevant to criminal
liability. A social connection to epstein may not equate to criminal
involvement, so there’s no reason to release it.
Bottom line: If trump was implicated in a way that mattered legally, the DOJ/FBI
would have to act within the law. The absence of leaks doesn’t necessarily
indicate a cover-up, it just highlights an ethical white house.
Here’s a more politically nuanced take on why the Obama/Biden DOJ or FBI might
have avoided touching trump regarding epstein, even if there were potential
links:
1. Avoiding Partisan Backlash
Targeting a high-profile political figure like trump could be seen as
weaponizing federal law enforcement for partisan purposes. Even if investigators
had something, acting on it—or leaking it—could have sparked accusations of a
“deep state” attack from Trump’s base, undermining trust in the DOJ/FBI.
2. Political Calculus
The Obama administration may have weighed the risk of publicizing allegations
against Trump versus letting political processes handle him (e.g., the 2016
election). Publicizing unverified allegations could have mobilized his
supporters and turned him into a martyr figure.
3. Focus on Epstein’s Primary Crimes
Epstein’s case was extremely high-profile and complex, involving trafficking and
abuse across multiple states and countries. DOJ resources may have been
concentrated on prosecuting him and his immediate associates rather than
tangential figures like Trump.
4. Limited Leverage or Evidence
Politically, it’s safer to act only when the evidence is airtight. Releasing
something circumstantial or social in nature could have backfired badly, both
legally and politically.
5. Institutional Caution
High-level administrations tend to be conservative in handling sensitive
criminal information about politicians to avoid setting dangerous precedents.
Leaks could erode norms and create long-term credibility problems for the
DOJ/FBI.
Even if there were any tenuous connections, the combination of legal
constraints, political risk, and lack of actionable evidence would make leaking
information both risky and unlikely. From their perspective, “not touching
trump” could have been seen as the safest, least controversial path, knowing
there would be time later to convict the dirt bag.
Here’s a timeline-style strategic explanation of how the
Obama and Biden administrations might have approached trump-epstein connections
and why nothing leaked:
2008–2015: Early epstein Investigation & Obama
Administration
• 2008: epstein gets a controversial plea deal in Florida
under the Bush administration. trump is a public figure but not politically
central yet.
• 2009–2015: Epstein’s social circle includes trump,
Clinton, and others. The Obama DOJ is aware of epstein but focused on ongoing
federal investigations, mainly in New York and Florida.
Strategic reasoning:
• Avoiding political entanglement: targeting trump pre-2016
would risk appearing partisan.
2016: Presidential Election Year
• trump emerges as the Republican nominee. epstein’s New
York cases are ongoing, and the Obama administration is aware of Epstein’s
activities.
Strategic reasoning:
• Leaking anything about trump would be politically
explosive and likely seen as meddling in the election.
• DOJ/FBI historically avoid interference in active
political campaigns.
• Focus remains on prosecuting Epstein, not peripheral
figures.
2017–2018: Early trump Presidency
• epstein is still under legal scrutiny. Trump is now
president.
Strategic reasoning:
• DOJ/FBI must be extremely cautious; targeting or leaking
info about a sitting president is legally and politically fraught.
• Risk of accusations of partisanship is high; any misstep
could delegitimize the agency.
• No clear criminal evidence against Trump means no legal
justification for leaks.
2019–2020: epstein Arrest and Death
• epstein arrested in 2019 for sex trafficking; dies in
jail.
• Investigations focus on epstein’s associates and
traffickers, including Ghislaine Maxwell.
Strategic reasoning:
• DOJ is focused on actionable prosecutions. Peripheral
figures, unless directly involved in trafficking or abuse, are not the target.
• trump connections are mostly social; politically charged
leaks could distract from prosecutable cases.
• Institutional caution: leaking unverified or
circumstantial info about a former president could create a massive scandal and
legal exposure.
Post-2020: Biden Administration
• epstein already deceased; Maxwell prosecuted.
• Any remaining DOJ/FBI records about Trump-Epstein
contacts would likely be irrelevant legally without evidence of a crime.
Strategic reasoning:
• Leaking old, circumstantial evidence serves no legal
purpose.
• Politically, the risks outweigh benefits: could be framed
as partisan attacks by trump allies.
1. Focus on prosecutions: epstein and Maxwell are primary
targets, not tangential social connections.
2. Institutional caution: DOJ/FBI avoid setting precedents
for politically charged leaks.