this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
255 points (93.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

42506 readers
734 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Seriosly, why?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] specialseaweed@sh.itjust.works 63 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I think it's important to remember that Biden was, perhaps more than any president in my lifetime (and I'm an old man), an institutionalist. He was a senator for just about forever, then the VP for 8 years. He was 78 years old when he became president. He is an old school liberal Catholic, a very nearly extinct person in the Catholic and Christian spheres.

I think he saw his presidency as a repudiation of right wing reactionary politics. His election, in his mind, was in large part a call to what he saw as the original intent and purpose of the executive branch. To put it plainly, he saw himself as elected because America rejected the politicization of government under Trump. Included under that umbrella of beliefs about the purpose of the executive was the unalienable requirement that the executive not direct the FBI to investigate the opposing political party. Remember, Joe Biden was a senator when Nixon resigned. He was there when Nixon was using the executive branch to attack Democrats.

Biden appointed Garland to the DOJ. Garland's record was perfectly fine and appeared well suited to the role, but his biggest strengths (in Biden's mind) was his nonpartisanship and his conservative view of government. By conservative I mean staying within the lines of what the DOJ should be doing, a cautious view of the use of DOJ power. Again, this was done in reaction to Trump and his... let's call it "expansive" view of government power. In Biden's mind, he was righting the ship.

And Garland was exactly as advertised, to a maddening degree. He was cautious to the point of being timid. He refused to throw the weight of the DOJ into investigations with political implications without reaching an imaginary bar of fairness that just isn't realistic. You saw it in the Jan 6th investigations. You saw it in the Kushner deals (and all of the Trump family deals which are obviously dirty). You saw it in Garland's unwillingness to take on wildly politicized federal prosecutor offices because doing so would be political interference (in his mind). You saw it when Robert Hur took unprofessionalism and partisanship to the absolute extreme when attacking Biden under the guise of a special counsel appointment and Garland did nothing because instiutionalism in his mind meant not interfering with the process.

And you saw it in the Epstein case.

Garland did everything by the book to an absurd degree that ended up paralyzing justice. Biden didn't touch Garland or any of it because he believes doing so was itself an injustice, even if Garland was wrong to handle it the way he did. In Biden's mind, the president should not have the power to demand the DOJ take action in a specific case like the Epstein case, especially if there's political implications.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 30 points 6 days ago (3 children)

TL;DR- Biden was the wrong guy for the job.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 20 points 6 days ago (1 children)

depends on what you think the job was

keep the status quo? sure, right guy

blow the terroristic american right wing apart so it'll be another half century before it reforms? wrong guy

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago

I agree with you 100%.

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 6 days ago

I think a more accurate TL;DR is that Garland was the wrong guy for the job, but the Biden thing is more broadly true, too.

[–] specialseaweed@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If one had a fetish for masochistic torture of nuance, then yea, you hit the nail on the head.

[–] Unbecredible@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago

THIS level of political nuance qualifies as torture? He boiled it down for us into TWO men's decisions and delivered it in like 300 words.

Yeah, we're cooked.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 16 points 6 days ago

Because the files vaguely implicate a lot of influential oligarchs who donate to both sides.

We know Trump hung out with Epstein, there are pictures and testimony. It simply doesn't move the needle away from the right. He's just buying trouble.

gdamn thing should have been in the public from day one.

[–] SunshineJogger@feddit.org 11 points 6 days ago

Too many influential and very rich on there most likely. Among all the Republicans probably also a few democrats because we know there are quite a few assholes among those too.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Because spineless Establishment Dems have some obsession with "playing nice," even with vicious MAGA Nazi enemies. I have a million questions, starting with:

Why didn't Biden have HitlerPig and his henchmen arrested within the first 60 seconds after his Inauguration?

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Because spineless Establishment Dems have some obsession with "playing ~~nice~~ insider trading

Ftfy.

The Dem party is known as the party of insider trading after all!

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They are also on the list.

[–] Transform2942@lemmy.ml -4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

No you see Joe Biden just loves institutions so much!

Almost as much as he loves weirdly sniffing women's heads

i think your edginess is really cool

[–] iridebikes@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Obsessed with the hair sniffing bullshit but is fine with Trump being the wingman of one of the planets most prolific pedophiles.

[–] Transform2942@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago

Certainly, there is more evidence in the public record of trump being the worst sort of sex pest, and with Epstein specifically.

Nevertheless "both sides" across at least three administrations chose to protect the elite pedophiles at the expense of the truth and the victims.

[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

Because people on all sides are probably listed.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

too much powerful people on the list: Hollywood moguls/execs, World leaders(people like belerscuni, eventhough hes been caught already), DEM/GOP mega donors, plus the politicians themselves. RFK jr too, since theres a photo out there him interacting with epstein in 1994, plus the epstein/maxwell had ties to israeli's intelligence so its prudent for them to develop a blackmail list that will force the west to divert resources to israel.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)
  1. Donors - some donors are implicated - eg Bill Gates
  2. Bill Clinton - Bill Clinton is a known associate, former president
  3. Celebrities/Press - Steven Pinker and a lot of the other idiots that dems like to pretend are smart and exceptional are implicated.
  4. if Dems released it it would probably be easier for trump etc to dismiss allegations as a smear
  5. Dems did prosecute Maxwell but its not clear anyone else can be charged.

Its clearly stupid to not have released a list of epstein's friends and been like "these people are wanted for questioning"

[–] fittedsyllabi@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Why isn’t Trump and the Republican Party doing it now?

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Because they are the other side of the same coin as Republicans. Neither side wanna help us much. One side actively trying to make it worse for us while the other one is happy we are living shit but don't want it worse.

[–] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

why would they? they have nothing to gain by doing so, and biden didnt run on it.

[–] citizensongbird@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

My guess is, because Republican leaders and propaganda outlets were constantly accusing Democrats of witch hunts and politically motivated criminal investigations, Dems releasing Epstein's client list would have been seen as more of the same. Trump's base would have absolutely called it fake news. So Dems waited until Republicans were in control and then said, "Okay, now you can release it." With predictable results.

[–] Alsjemenou@lemy.nl -4 points 6 days ago

Okay. Let me give a sane outsider take.

First thing you have to understand is that there is a big disconnect between the conviction of Epstein and the influential connections he had. All the conspiracy talk about the island being a childporn hub for elites is nothing more than that: conspiracy fantasy. His suicide fueled many more ideas about the elite killing him, but again no evidence at all.

However, there is a strong public pressure to research the connections between Epstein and the elites he knew. This has most likely been done in the background, since Epstein did shady finances. But Trump has campaigned heavily on the popular sentiment. And it lives in the minds of people a solution to lock up all the elites/draining the swamp.

So now there is a big problem for the maga populists, there is a 'list' of connections to epstein. But there is no further evidence (yet) that those people did anything illegal, or is entirely complicated financial crime. The list probably includes just about the entire political spectrum includes donors and includes Trump. So everybody wants to handle this the correct way, including those donors. Nobody wants their name public because they spoke to a shady financial advisor. And any case against a super wealthy person needs to be watertight, they can afford a legal team.

Is it possible that there was deeper predatory connections? sure. Epstein had easy access and no question that he was willing to share. Is that going to be written down in a list? absolutely not. Epstein did finances the shady way and that's more likely the reason so many rich people were interested in his business.

So this isnt a political issue. Of course, now it is. But that's because Trump made it one.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 155 points 1 week ago (10 children)

Legal Eagle just released a video about "the real Epstein files". The main point they covered in the video is victim impact. The victims could be threatened and harassed because of the info.

Another point not covered is that criminal case info is typically not disclosed. Releasing a list of accused perpetrators (i.e. pedophiles/child rapists) encourages vigilante justice. It also interferes with any ongoing investigations, which should (at least in theory) still be ongoing.

I don't want Trump to release the case info. I want his DOJ to announce charges against people like Les Wexner, based on that info. And I want it to not just be his political enemies and bullshit lies.

[–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 100 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

Virginia Giuffre would argue otherwise. BTW, she just died. By “suicide”. After being struck with a bus at 110km/h, which would’ve killed most. (Fun fact, police didn’t want to send help to the accident scene).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/virginia-giuffre-father-death-cause-b2743303.html

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

Fucking hell. I didn't even know that.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 108 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because it could hurt rich people and both parties are on the side of rich people.

[–] Binturong@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago

This is the actual answer, cutting right through the smoke and mirrors and bullshit. Anyone who had the displeasure of reading through the flight logs that were available in their entirety online almost a year ago and probably still are: saw just what names pop up, often multiple times. This is the most bipartisan issue there ever was, so NOBODY in power wants to touch it.

[–] Snailpope@lemmy.world 83 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Because a bunch of them are also child rapists

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

…or they’re friends with child rapists, or owe favors to child rapists. Those three are the only answers that make sense.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 55 points 1 week ago

Because you don't publish details of investigation. You publish indictments once investigation is done. That's essentially weaponization of DOJ.

Republicans were promising to release (and suggesting Democrats are on it). Now as they have the power, they refuse. Claim the files don't exist then that they are fake, then they are boring.

At this point it is very clear that trump is in them.

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 50 points 1 week ago (4 children)

The give reason must be procedual, but the real reason is that the Epstein files undoubtedly also contain the names of democrats or democratic backers. They were more than happy doing nothing with those files.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 45 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Well specifically, it is still an ongoing investigation, so nobody has a "complete set of files to release."

In February Pam Bondi said she had the first phase of files in her office, made a big public announcement about having requested all remaining files, and said she was waiting on them to be delivered. She even wrote a letter to Kash Patel about it and publicly released the letter.

Then when she read whatever was in that second half of files that got delivered to her, she suddenly wasn't so eager to release it.

Even more than knowing what is in there about Trump, I would be most interested to know what banks knowingly financed what Epstein was doing. I would guess any bipartisan fears about information in there that could "destroy the country," is more likely related to banks and corporations that are considered "too big to fail," rather than any super scandalous information about individuals.

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

She released that first phase to MAGA influencers and made a big show out of it. She was asked about releasing the Epstein list and she said it's on her desk along with mlk and jfk files and would release it

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago

First, Bill Clinton is almost certainly all over them, and older Democrats still think of the Clintons as the epitome of Democratic success. Some of the old guard is still trying to push focus away from the Epstien files. Just two days ago, Nancy Pelosi was calling the Epstien files a distraction, which is a bat-shit crazy thing to say about evidence that could prove that your opponent was involved in a pedophile ring.

Second, Epstien probably has some sort of ties to the intelligence community. I don't know that I believe all these stories about him being a secret Mossad asset, but I think its very possible that the someone in the CIA was using him. Alex Acosta, who prosecuted Epstien in 2008, claimed that he was told to back off because he, "belonged to intelligence," and they're clearly withholding a lot of information, there's definitely something they don't want people to know. Anyway, since 9/11, the Democrats and Republicans have had basically the same position on the intelligence community (essentially, abject deference), so if the CIA says that it would be a national security risk to release the files, the Democrats aren't going to release the files.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 1 week ago (9 children)

They were sealed until Jan 2024 as part of Maxwells appeal process.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 29 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Here is Christine Pelosi, daughter of Nancy Pelosi, saying "It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated." Democrats and their billionaire owners are just as implicated by this as Republicans.

https://xcancel.com/sfpelosi/status/1147657745253855233?lang=en

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›