If Trump was implicated in wrongdoing in the Epstein files, how come Obama or Biden never exposed them?

[Diogenes]

Inquiring minds want to know.

If you do not vote that means you can be presumed to have tacitly acknowledged that Trump was never implicated in wrongdoing in the Epstein files.

 

[QP!]

Stupid question.

The rich powerful donors who were in the Epstein files were desired by both parties which was why no DoJ since GWB.Sr wanted to touch those files.

There was no partisan gains to be made as both houses would be burned.

 

[Diogenes]

Stupid question.

The rich powerful donors who were in the Epstein files were desired by both parties which was why no DoJ since GWB.Sr wanted to touch those files.

There was no partisan gains to be made as both houses would be burned.

Is that a fact?

 

[QP!]

Is that a fact?

Those are facts. Yes.

 

[Diogenes]

Those are facts. Yes.

How do you know?

 

[QP!]

How do you know?

How do I know,...

- no DoJ since Bush Sr wanted to touch those files

- they were full of rich donors who gave to both parties

- that investigating and releasing them would have a bipartisan impact hitting not just Trump but Bill Clinton and many other top people in both parties

Is that what you want to know, how I know?

 

[Diogenes]

How do I know,...

- no DoJ since Bush Sr wanted to touch those files

- they were full of rich donors who gave to both parties

- that investigating and releasing them would have a bipartisan impact hitting not just Trump but Bill Clinton and many other top people in both parties

Is that so?

 

[QP!]

Is that so?

Yes that is so.

 

[QP!]

Can we just dump this thread now as asked and answered and only something stupid people did not already know? @Damocles ?

 

[Diogenes]

Yes that is so.

So you say.

In the absence of any proof, I'll have to rule your "facts" speculative.

Want to reconsider?

 

[QP!]

So you say.

In the absence of any proof, I'll have to rule your "facts" speculative.

Want to reconsider?

Not one point I posted above is speculative

What you mean to say is that despite you being completely ignorant on this topic and not knowing those very public facts, you still formed a very strong and wrong opinion

 

[Diogenes]

Not one point I posted above is speculative

Think not?

Present your corroborating evidence. I'll wait.

What you mean to say is that despite you being completely ignorant on this topic and not knowing those very public facts, you still formed a very strong and wrong opinion

Other than voting the only option that makes sense to me in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I don't recall evincing an opinion, nor do I recall seeing any verifiable proof to substantiate the pertinent "very public facts" you allude to.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Why did not Trump go after Epstein in his first term.

 

[Diogenes]

If you do not vote that means you can be presumed to have tacitly acknowledged that Trump was never implicated in wrongdoing in the Epstein files.

 

[QP!]

Think not?

Present your corroborating evidence. I'll wait.



Other than voting the only option that makes sense to me in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I don't recall evincing an opinion, nor do I recall seeing any verifiable proof to substantiate the pertinent "very public facts" you allude to.

Naw you can educate yourself if you need convincing that Bill Clinton and other powerful people on both sides would be implicated and this would not have remained contained to Trump only or remained partisan

 

[Diogenes]

Naw you can educate yourself if you need convincing that Bill Clinton and other powerful people on both sides would be implicated and this would not have remained contained to Trump only or remained partisan

No proof, no truth.

Your assertion is therefore speculative, as previously noted.

 

[Diogenes]

Grok: The premise of the question appears to be based on a misunderstanding, as Jeffrey Epstein was in fact arrested and prosecuted during Donald Trump's first presidential term (2017-2021). Here's a breakdown of the key facts and timeline, drawing from public records and reporting:

Trump and Epstein had a documented social and professional relationship dating back to the late 1980s, primarily in New York and Palm Beach social circles. They were neighbors in Florida, with Epstein owning a mansion near Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort. Public photos, videos, and flight logs show them together at events in the 1990s and early 2000s, including Trump flying on Epstein's private jet multiple times between 1993 and 1997. In a 2002 New York magazine interview, Trump described Epstein as a "terrific guy" who liked women "on the younger side."

en.wikipedia.org
Their association reportedly ended around 2004-2007 after a falling out—possibly over a real estate bidding war or Epstein allegedly harassing an underage girl at Mar-a-Lago, leading Trump to ban him from the property.

en.wikipedia.org +1
Trump has consistently stated he cut ties around 2004 and had no knowledge of Epstein's criminal activities at the time.

bbc.com
Epstein's first major legal trouble came in 2005-2008, when he was investigated by Florida authorities for sexually abusing underage girls. He received a controversial plea deal in 2008 (under U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta), pleading guilty to state charges of procuring a minor for prostitution and serving 13 months in a work-release program. This deal has been criticized for being too lenient and shielding potential co-conspirators.

pbs.org
Actions During Trump's First Term

• 2017-2018: Trump appointed Acosta as Secretary of Labor, despite his role in the 2008 plea deal. This drew some criticism but no immediate action against Epstein. Federal investigations into Epstein remained dormant until late 2018, when a Miami Herald investigative series ("Perversion of Justice") highlighted flaws in the 2008 deal and new victim accounts, prompting renewed scrutiny.
  
  pbs.org
• 2019 Prosecution: In December 2018, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY)—part of the Department of Justice under Trump's administration—revived the federal case against Epstein, concluding they were not bound by the 2008 non-prosecution agreement.
  
  pbs.org
  On July 6, 2019, Epstein was arrested at a New Jersey airport upon returning from Paris. He was charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, alleging he abused dozens of underage girls between 2002 and 2005 in New York and Florida.
  
  justice.gov
  The indictment was unsealed on July 8, 2019, by SDNY U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman.
  
  justice.gov
• Trump's Response: Following the arrest, Trump told reporters he was "not a fan" of Epstein and hadn't spoken to him in about 15 years.
  
  pbs.org
  Acosta resigned as Labor Secretary amid backlash over his handling of the 2008 deal.
  
  en.wikipedia.org
  There is no public evidence that Trump or his administration interfered with or delayed the 2019 prosecution; it proceeded under career prosecutors.
• Epstein's Death and Aftermath: Epstein died by suicide in federal custody on August 10, 2019, before trial.
  
  pbs.org
  Trump promoted unsubstantiated conspiracy theories suggesting Epstein was murdered.
  
  en.wikipedia.org
  The case shifted focus to Epstein's associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who was arrested in 2020 and convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking.
  
  congress.gov

Why Might It Seem Like No Action Was Taken?

• Timing: The 2019 charges came midway through Trump's term, not earlier, largely because new momentum built from journalism and victim advocacy in 2018. Prior federal probes had stalled after the 2008 deal.
• Scope: The prosecution targeted Epstein's past crimes but did not immediately pursue a broader "client list" or high-profile associates (e.g., no charges against others like Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew during that period). Investigations into wider networks continued but yielded limited indictments.
  
  nytimes.com
• Recent Controversies (Post-First Term): Debates over Epstein's files escalated in 2025-2026 during Trump's second term, with Congress passing the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025 (which Trump initially opposed but signed).
  
  en.wikipedia.org
  Releases revealed more about Trump's past ties, including unverified allegations of sexual misconduct (which he denies), and claims the DOJ withheld Trump-related documents.
  
  npr.org
  This has fueled perceptions of inaction, but these pertain to file transparency, not the 2019 prosecution itself.

In summary, the Trump administration did go after Epstein through the 2019 federal charges, which were a direct result of DOJ efforts under his presidency. No criminal wrongdoing has been established against Trump related to Epstein's crimes.

en.wikipedia.org
If your question refers to why certain associates weren't pursued or files weren't released sooner, that involves broader systemic issues in the investigations, including legal limitations and missed opportunities across multiple administrations.

nytimes.com

 

[QP!]

No proof, no truth.

Your assertion is therefore speculative, as previously noted.

Except when it was exposed Clinton and other powerful people on both sides were implicated.

So you are wrong
And stupid for not already knowing this has happened and is not speculative

 

[Diogenes]

Except when it was exposed Clinton and other powerful people on both sides were implicated.

So you are wrong
And stupid for not already knowing this has happened and is not speculative

Your objection is noted, and dismissed without prejudice. Come back when you have evidence.

 

[QP!]

Your objection is noted, and dismissed without prejudice. Come back when you have evidence.

Clinton being implicated is proof that Clinton would be implicated

A less stupid person would not keep arguing there is no proof Clinton would be implicated