"Why didn't BIDEN release the Epstein files!?" Well....

[CousinIT]

[Martin Eden]

1. Is "January 2024" a typo"

Biden was in office until January 2025.

[CousinIT]

3. No. They were released January 2024

However, the courts, not Biden, determined the timing of that release.

There is no evidence that Biden or his administration deliberately withheld or delayed the release of these documents. The process of unsealing them was entirely handled through the judicial system.

The difference now is that the Trump DoJ is purposefully refusing to release them. Biden didn't strut around like a Peacock, making a show of saying he'd release them, and promise his supporters that he would -- and then refuse to do so.

[Martin Eden]

16. Thanks for the clarification

Unlike the orange fascist, Biden let the AG & FBI operate independently.

The only weaponization is happening now.

[KPN]

39. Which while well intended and in normal times would have been inarguable, turns out it -- in particular,

allowing the AG to operate independently -- was a mistake. The Rs had already changed the rules of the game via Barr in T45, so weaponization happening today is not and should not be a surprise. We all knew where things were going to go if we lost in 2024. Now that -- that was a surprise -- and is still too hard to grasp! Ah, the curse of hindsight.

[Martin Eden]

42. The president is responsible for serving and protecting the country

Last edited Mon Jul 21, 2025, 12:58 PM - Edit history (1)

The severity of the crimes committed by Trump 45, combined with the ongoing threat, argued against a "hands off" approach with the Justice Dept.

Which is not to say Biden should have used the AG as a tool for personal vendetta, but J6 and the documents case required that justice be done.

They right would have howled about "weaponization" -- but they're doing it anyway.

[KPN]

44. I appreciate that response -- and totally agree with it, though my post didn't make that clear. Just avoiding

any nastiness here -- my Pavlovian response to all the "defensiveness" I've experienced here over the years.

[Martin Eden]

45. Yes, clarity is important to prevent misunderstandings

So many people are emotionally upset (and rightfully so) that there is a tendency to jump to conclusions.

[oldmanlynn]

29. Didnt her trial end in 2021?

I know there was an appeal that was denied in 2024 in September I believe

[brush]

2. Wasn't it an old story from Clinton/W Bush eras? Reopening that can of worms...

wht the Clinton name connected could be a risk for a Dem to take. After all, even the "Access Holiywood" audio didn't sink trump back in the day.

[Codifer]

5. I can't see the harm to Hillary.

Think about it, would it be even remotely possible for the reich wing to hate her more?

I mean, after Comet Ping Pong Pizza and the kids in the basement and all that.

[brush]

21. Areed on Hillary. I was talling about Bill Clinton's name being associated with the Epstein files.

[mackdaddy]

4. We also have Merrit Garland/Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden, who play by the rules.

They have Bill Barr/Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump who wipe their ass with the rules.

Of course this is one of the reasons MAGA/Trump is in control of all three branches and have a strangle hold on the major media and even universities now.

[lees1975]

8. Garland would never have done it, even if they weren't sealed.

He'd have thrown his hands up at the first filed delay by the other side, thankful that he didn't have to do the work or take the heat.

[rampartd]

22. smith's report on the classified info would be interesting.

[The Mouth]

6. The argument the MAGAts keep making is

"If there actually was anything on Trump then Biden would have released it. Biden didn't thus there is nothing".

In a way I see the point of Trump sometimes just telling the courts to stuff themselves. I would trade a 'contempt of court' charge against the administration in exchange for the very real damage that could have been caused to Trump. Or have them 'leaked'. Democrats, bringing a fencing foil to a flamethrower fight yet again.

[nuxvomica]

7. I can see why they wouldn't be released after January 2024

At the time, Trump was already a candidate (declaring in 2022) and the DOJ has a rule about releasing information that could influence an election, the same rule Comey broke in 2016. That rule would come into play only if Trump were mentioned in the files in any way that could be considered defamatory. Therefore, Garland's DOJ would not have released the files if they implicated Trump.

[MadameButterfly]

9. Yeah, like Obama didn't release what he knew about Russia

Voters should know if a candidate has committed crimes, and Dems have to stop playing so nice. This isn't a cricket match, it's survival of democracy and the planet.

I understand Obama thought Hillary would win anyway and didn't want any grounds to challenge that. By 2020 we should have known better.

[rampartd]

23. lbj kept nixon's meddling quiet

and carter let reagan quash a hostage deal.

in both cases the reason was "for the good of the countr.y"

[MadameButterfly]

25. I don't think Carter knew at the time

why the hostage deal was quashed. That came out later and took a lot of sleuthing. I don't know if it's universally recognized even today that that is what happened.

[rampartd]

34. i believe bani sadr before any repub.

https://theintercept.com/2021/10/11/bani-sadr-reagan-iran-hostages-october-surprise/

[MadameButterfly]

46. Great article

Thanks. I didn't know it in this much detail about Bani Sadr, but I did put two and two together at the time.
I didn't know then about Nixon and Vietnam. But it is now proving to be a pattern. This is what Republicans do.

[Bluetus]

36. These Beltway lifers are marinated in institutional CYAness

It happens over and over. There seems to be a beltway "honor among thieves" mentality of "there but by the grace of God go I". The natural tendency is to cover everything up. The Warren Commission may be the best example, but it happens time after time.

When there is a power shift, the incoming party has so much desire to implement their agenda, that they don't want to risk losing momentum if they open up ond business, no matter how horrible, traitorous, or just plan evil it was.

[MichMan]

10. Why not after the election then?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Because Biden is not a snivelling vindictive excuse for a human being. . . . nt

[MichMan]

15. I was referring to the DOJ, not President Biden

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. Okay, thanks. Sorry I misinterpreted it. . . . . . nt

[MadameButterfly]

26. You mean, Merrick Garland who didn't even prosecute

Trump in a timely fashion? The Epstein connection would have been moot if we'd gotten Trump on espionage.

[Justice matters.]

11. It's a stupid rule and a very dangerous one.

But that's what you get with a two-party system, I guess.

One party plays by the rules, the other party breaks them and nobody does anything to stop it (just because of fear of losing, which turns out a losing strategy half of the time).

[UTUSN]

13. K&R

[Norrrm]

14. Yes. Investigate Biden..... Don't stop there.

[KPN]

40. Love your signature line! Poster/bumper sticker material.

[cadoman]

17. I really don't give a fuck about release/not release, sealed/not sealed

I just want to see the fuckers who were involved with this man--who molested innocent people and bribed our government--put to justice.

Why is someone who fastidiously records his crimes across multiple states and countries so hard to catch? Yeah I expect Blondi to protect him in Florida, but he also plied his trade in New York, New Hampshire, Britain, and certainly other places. So that's at least two blue states and one foreign country who can also bring charges.

Why haven't they? And how does releasing "the list" or any files get us closer to justice when AGs and FBI/CIA are protecting these criminals?

[Polybius]

18. Or maybe there were other big names on the list too

Releasing the list might have rocked the nation.

[Scrivener7]

28. Good. It needs to be rocked.

[Hornedfrog2000]

32. Ding ding ding

The reason this will never see the light of day. Too many dem friends on the list.

[calimary]

37. Well, too bad. We need to know THAT, too.

[KPN]

41. Even more reason to release them -- what have we got to lose at this point?

[Oopsie Daisy]

24. Someone is out there blaming Garland, I'm sure. He's the convenient scapegoat for everything.

[Hornedfrog2000]

33. He literally is

One of the biggest reasons we are here. He is either a raging weakling, or a fascists. Pick one.

[Oopsie Daisy]

38. Yep... like I said.

[lees1975]

27. The Biden administration, in its political perspective, still played the game like it was the 70's.

Using the power of the Presidency to go after a criminal like Trump would have "looked too political."

Biden accomplished a lot in his four years as President. We had a great economy, low unemployment and a booming stock market. But what he was elected to do was to make sure Trump paid for the crimes he committed in office, get him prosecuted and in prison, no matter how political it looked. Garland wasn't the attorney general to achieve that. The timetable was essential. He blew it.

However, the Epstein files weren't part of their arsenal. If they'd have broken the senate filibuster and packed the Supreme Court, which is public enemy number one right now, this would not be happening.

[ecstatic]

30. It seems like the doj was complicit in covering up for tRump

MAGA is taking great comfort in the idea that if tRump were in the Epstein files then Biden would have released it, but it's clear to me now that Biden didn't know one way or another. He trusted the doj and their integrity and the Epstein case wasn't necessarily on his radar at that time when all hell was breaking out in the Middle East.

Also MAGA still refuses to pick a lane: is Biden a doddering old fool or is he the type who would the meddling in the Epstein case, see that tRump's in the files and release it immediately? Biden could have just as easily enforced punishment for the coup attempt on January 21st but he didn't.

[Martin Eden]

31. The OP stated the files were "legally available" in Jan 2024

That implied that Biden could have released the files a year before he left office, yet that date was the basis for why he couldn't release the files. My question about a possible typo was entirely about that, without digging deeper.

I'm sure President Biden had more important things on his mind. The issue was in the hands of the Justice Dept, which Joe did not use as his personal political weapon like someone else we know.

I suspect a lot of rich influential men are implicated in the Epstein files, possibly some Democrats or big donors. If that's the case, neither side wants full transparency.

The difference is the whacko Qanon rightwingers have been clamoring for "proof" that prominent Democrats are raping children and drinking their blood.

Trump was happy to capitalize on this insane belief when it was to his political advantage -- even though he is likely the most prominent rapist of underage girls in the list.

[Hornedfrog2000]

35. We look completely feckless

And weak. We cant even make people believe a guy who has been photographed 50 times with another pedophile in public, might have been hanging out with him in private. You know, doing shit pedophiles do.

We are the kumbaya, you tried to kill my mom, oh no problem come on over and play this bongo, all is well party.

[Torchlight]

43. We don't look feckless. They however, look rather degenerate.

I'm not willing to adopt their decayed, meritless and base behaviors for a short-lived tactical advantage that would redefine our own behaviors at the expense of our own convictions.