So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.
Do you really think that information can be owned?
Are you under the impression that the information wasn't already in the public domain and simply ignored because it led back to Democratic politicians?
Again --- neither Jeffrey Epstein nor the British royal family were/are "politicians". This was not a "politics" story, desperate though you may be to beat it into one so you can have your little message board wankfest.
The Royal Family is certainly an Issue of Political Consequence -
But still
Do you know who Bill Clinton is?
Fatter o' mact I do. Do you?
I done did my research on Bull Clinton, and all the other challengers, in 1992 because it looked like HW was vulnerable, which turned out to be true. So I got interested, did my homework and ranked them all in order of preference. I don't remember what the whole ranking was but Clinton was dead last. He did however have one talent which was campaigning, and he did get the one thing done, getting Bush out of office. That's all I expected, and it's all I got.
But that was 27 years ago and he's since served both his allotted terms. Which means he was long past running for anything in the time period of this quashed story.
Happy to help. That'll be $300 for the history lesson.