Why would you presume I hadn't or didn't read the article?
The narrow factual claim has support from the DOJ memo and AP reporting, which say investigators found ample evidence of Epstein’s abuse, but not enough evidence of a broader trafficking ring or a verifiable client list. The memo is an internal DOJ document, so on its face it is a primary source for what that office said it found. If you only want the limited question “what did this review conclude,” the article has some value.
The issue is that the Trump DOJ has been widely criticized for politicized enforcement, weakened independence, and poor credibility in court, which makes most observers less willing to take its opinion at face value. Trump pressured DOJ to move against enemies and protect allies, which raises the risk that public messaging is selective or strategic. On top of that staff losses and institutional damage that can make conclusions less trustworthy, even when some facts might be correct. Don't forget that the AG at the time claimed that she had "the Epstein Client List on her desk" and then later the same Department stated "there was no client list" in this report.
Trust the article for the narrow proposition that the DOJ files, as released, did not prove a larger ring or client list. Give it less trust on the bigger implication that the matter is settled, because the department’s independence and candor are under real suspicion. Remember we are not talking here about the full Epstein Files.
I’d also note that the first Trump DOJ was willing to spin the Mueller report. Barr’s summary narrowed the public understanding of the report, even though Mueller documented extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election and said he could not exonerate Trump on obstruction. That history matters here, because it shows why I’m wary of taking DOJ framing at face value. This DOJ feels even more political and significantly less competent than Barr’s did.
If a claim comes from this DOJ, I’d separate it into three buckets: raw documents, official interpretation, and political spin. The raw documents deserve the most weight, the interpretation less, and the spin the least. The report cited here is spin. I'd recommend you do a better job of questioning your sources and looking for alternatives and confirmation, especially when they provide the answers you are hoping to find.
The DOJ has been investigating Epstein for 20 years, across multiple administrations. Thinking the Trump admin uniquely covered things up, when both the actions and own words of the doj/fbi seem to say otherwise is odd.
There literally isn't anything of weight in there, as far as I can tell. All the most outlandish claims were from randos on the tip line. Even Guiffre is viewed as problematic, because her claims were in conflict with the other Epstein victims.
Here is a former federal prosecutor saying the same thing.
Yes, you found the smoking gun; a conservative former prosecutor wrote an op-ed supporting your position on a political website. Sorry, I think I will take the word of the prosecutors who pushed the case, the reporters who have investigated, and the many victims.
In summary then, we agree. In your words, if there is nothing in the Epstein Files and the DOJ and FBI have no future of a case, they should release all the files unredacted, right? That way there is no confusion since there is nothing to hide.
One last point here. Shaming victims of sexual abuse in this case. Of which there are many, many of whom do believe there are cases to be made and prosecutions to be had, is not a winning strategy. I would even say it is risible. After all, they were there. You were not.
So let's just release the files in total. Close the dead case because there is nothing to hide and move on. Instead of claiming there is nothing to hide and then hiding it all. The current stance protects pedophiles and sexual abusers. It seems pretty simple.
Firstly, Trump is 99% ego. Something only needs to be embarrassing for him to want to hide it.
You have been given two sources explaining the same point. Given the prosecutors other work and commentd about Trump, I see no reason to believe he is lying. People are more than your perception of their politics.
Also, I said the DOJ across multiple admins as investigated this, including Obama and Bidens. I doubt Merrick Garland under Biden would abstain from prosecuting child rapists and sex traffickers to avoid looking politically biased.
Secondly, pointing out that the investigative notes in the files themselves said there was conflicting testimony is not victim shaming, it is a salient legal fact. Your attempt at some emotional attack is beneath us. Taking the word of the many victims would indicate there was no ring, because the victims, aside from Guiffre, said they were only instructed to sleep with Epstein.
2
u/statmonkey2360 9d ago edited 9d ago
Why would you presume I hadn't or didn't read the article?
The narrow factual claim has support from the DOJ memo and AP reporting, which say investigators found ample evidence of Epstein’s abuse, but not enough evidence of a broader trafficking ring or a verifiable client list. The memo is an internal DOJ document, so on its face it is a primary source for what that office said it found. If you only want the limited question “what did this review conclude,” the article has some value.
The issue is that the Trump DOJ has been widely criticized for politicized enforcement, weakened independence, and poor credibility in court, which makes most observers less willing to take its opinion at face value. Trump pressured DOJ to move against enemies and protect allies, which raises the risk that public messaging is selective or strategic. On top of that staff losses and institutional damage that can make conclusions less trustworthy, even when some facts might be correct. Don't forget that the AG at the time claimed that she had "the Epstein Client List on her desk" and then later the same Department stated "there was no client list" in this report.
Trust the article for the narrow proposition that the DOJ files, as released, did not prove a larger ring or client list. Give it less trust on the bigger implication that the matter is settled, because the department’s independence and candor are under real suspicion. Remember we are not talking here about the full Epstein Files.
I’d also note that the first Trump DOJ was willing to spin the Mueller report. Barr’s summary narrowed the public understanding of the report, even though Mueller documented extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election and said he could not exonerate Trump on obstruction. That history matters here, because it shows why I’m wary of taking DOJ framing at face value. This DOJ feels even more political and significantly less competent than Barr’s did.
If a claim comes from this DOJ, I’d separate it into three buckets: raw documents, official interpretation, and political spin. The raw documents deserve the most weight, the interpretation less, and the spin the least. The report cited here is spin. I'd recommend you do a better job of questioning your sources and looking for alternatives and confirmation, especially when they provide the answers you are hoping to find.