Republicans just BLOCKED the release of the Epstein Files.

[Rogue AI]

Congress is supposed to REPRESENT We The People. Did they ASK the American People what THEY wanted? Of course not.
So that means as usual, Congress acts in it's own best interests.

Except Congress has no unified 'best' interest. Look around, just in this thread there numerous theories, none are compelling to every single member of Congress past and present.

 

[buttercup]

Why are you repeating my post but imagining your version to be entirely different?

Not your usual perceptive self .

You seemed to be saying that the OP (YoursTruly) assumed that the Dems would have done it differently. I don't want to speak for him, but I'm pretty sure he knows that both sides don't want the truth coming out. I should've been more clear, because I know you know this stuff. The other part of my post was for anyone reading who still doesn't get it.

 

[Rogue AI]

Then why are they doing it?

Durbin and the Democrats would nail Trump to the wall if they could. Three impeachments, half a dozen court cases ... they'll stop at nothing. So why are they holding back?

I imagine if there was a time to act it has since passed. Clearly there is nothing on Trump, or it would have been leaked long ago. That's the point, too many people have too many motivations to keep anything hidden on this.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There you go. Republicans proving they care more about Trump than law & order. More than exposing the lying, corruption and even the elite pedophiles to justice.


Republicans just BLOCKED the release of the Epstein Files.

Since the DOJ is not at this time contemplating further legal action, why would they release the files?

 

[scruffy]

Only one thing would motivate them all, maintaining the legitimacy and quasi-integrity of the government.

lol

That went out the window with the Warren Commission.

The JFK assassination is the first time the government "officially" got into bed with organized crime.

And to keep that from being known for 30 years they gave us the Warren Commission, the biggest put-up job ever (until the J6 circus).

Everyone in politics is dirty. The higher you get up the ladder the more people have on you and the more you have on them. Erm... checks and balances, as it were.

Yeah. Surprised we haven't heard much from The Squad on this.

 

[BackAgain]

Because I’m not convinced that there is a massive “coverup” going on, I do have to wonder what the alternative explanation(s) would be?

One that came to mind is something we used to recognize, but don’t much consider anymore: isn’t it possible that releasing a mere list of names people who were flown to or partying at Epstein Island doesn’t suffice for even an accusation? But it sure would expose these folks on such ”list” to major public-opinion ridicule. On the basis of what? Nothing more than “guilt by association?”

Somehow we used to grasp that such governmental behavior against people was unfair. Indeed, it was pretty much “unAmerican.”

All that said, it would make it a more reasonable belief if the DOJ would finally start engaging in prosecutions of folks who also (per actual evidence) committed any sex crimes or pedophilia.

 

[Rogue AI]

lol

That went out the window with the Warren Commission.

The JFK assassination is the first time the government "officially" got into bed with organized crime.

And to keep that from being known for 30 years they gave us the Warren Commission, the biggest put-up job ever (until the J6 circus).

Everyone in politics is dirty. The higher you get up the ladder the more people have on you and the more you have on them. Erm... checks and balances, as it were.

Yeah. Surprised we haven't heard much from The Squad on this.

That was Cold War politics, there really was a threat that unified the government. No such thing exists now.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Because I’m not convinced that there is a massive “coverup” going on, I do have to wonder what the alternative explanation(s) would be?

One that came to mind is something we used to recognize, but don’t much consider anymore: isn’t it possible that releasing a mere list of names people who were flown to or partying at Epstein Island doesn’t suffice for even an accusation? But it sure would expose these folks on such ”list” to major public-opinion ridicule. On the basis of what? Nothing more than “guilt by association?”

Somehow we used to grasp that such governmental behavior against people was unfair. Indeed, it was pretty much “unAmerican.”

All that said, it would make it a more reasonable belief if the DOJ would finally start engaging in prosecutions of folks who also (per actual evidence) committed any sex crimes or pedophilia.

In fact, it would be highly irresponsible of the DOJ to release any names from the files unless it was in the context of further prosecutions.

 

[BackAgain]

In fact, it would be highly irresponsible of the DOJ to release any names from the files unless it was in the context of further prosecutions.

Right. Discovery goes to the defense lawyers.

The indictment acts like a bullhorn for the government’s side, especially in high publicity cases. That’s bad publicity for those accused of such vile crimes (I don’t care about them at all, in this matter), but the government is required not to unnecessarily expose others to shame or ridicule.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Right. Discovery goes to the defense lawyers.

The indictment acts like a bullhorn for the government’s side, especially in high publicity cases. That’s bad publicity for those accused of such vile crimes (I don’t care about them at all, in this matter), but the government is required not to unnecessarily expose others to shame or ridicule.

Releasing the files would expose the victims as well as the criminals, which would suggest the DOJ should be cautious about issuing indictments.

 

[scruffy]

That was Cold War politics, there really was a threat that unified the government. No such thing exists now.

Good point.

I'm not sure the government was ever unified though. Lots of people hated Kennedy, wanted him dead. To the right wing of the day he was practically a communist. Today he'd be around the middle somewhere

 

[Picaro]

I thought there was no list.

Well, nobody has seen one, certainly not anybody posting here.

 

[Picaro]

Releasing the files would expose the victims as well as the criminals, which would suggest the DOJ should be cautious about issuing indictments.

Also if a foreign govt. was indeed involved, depending on who it was it's probably more valuable as a secret club over their heads than making it public knowledge.

 

[Rogue AI]

Good point.

I'm not sure the government was ever unified though. Lots of people hated Kennedy, wanted him dead. To the right wing of the day he was practically a communist. Today he'd be around the middle somewhere

Perhaps not fully unified, but certainly more consistent with far fewer fringe elements.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There you go. Republicans proving they care more about Trump than law & order. More than exposing the lying, corruption and even the elite pedophiles to justice.


Republicans just BLOCKED the release of the Epstein Files.

I want those files released, don't get me wrong, but the Democrats were trying to play them. I wouldn't give in to that farce either. They still just might release them on their own terms.

 

[BackAgain]

Releasing the files would expose the victims as well as the criminals, which would suggest the DOJ should be cautious about issuing indictments.

Yep. Of course, sometimes victims benefit from testifying — even though it might take prosecutors much time and effort to secure their willing cooperation.

Some rules are set forth in the U.S.
Justice Manual § 9-27.760 – Allegations Against Uncharged Third-Parties

9-27.760 - Limitation on Identifying Uncharged Parties Publicly​

In all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged parties. In the context of public plea and sentencing proceedings, this means that, in the absence of some significant justification, it is not appropriate to identify (either by name or unnecessarily specific description), or cause a defendant to identify, a party unless that party has been publicly charged with the misconduct at issue. In the unusual instance where identification of an uncharged party during a plea or sentencing hearing is justified, and absent exigent circumstances, prosecutors should obtain the approval of the appropriate United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General prior to the hearing. See JM 9-16.500. In other less predictable contexts, prosecutors should strive to avoid unnecessary public references to wrongdoing by uncharged parties. With respect to bills of particulars that identify unindicted co-conspirators, prosecutors generally should seek leave to file such documents under seal. Prosecutors shall comply, however, with any court order directing the public filing of a bill of particulars.

As a series of cases makes clear, there is ordinarily “no legitimate governmental interest served” by the government’s public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party, and this is true “[r]egardless of what criminal charges may . . . b[e] contemplated by the Assistant United States Attorney against the [third party] for the future.” In re Smith, 656 F.2d 1101, 1106-07 (5th Cir. 1981). Courts have applied this reasoning to preclude the public identification of unindicted parties in plea hearings, sentencing memoranda, and other government pleadings. See Finn v. Schiller, 72 F.3d 1182 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975); United States. v Anderson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (D. Kan 1999); United States v. Smith, 992 F. Supp. 743 (D.N.J. 1998); see also JM 9-11.130.

In most cases, any legitimate governmental interest in referring to uncharged parties can be advanced through means other than those condemned in this line of cases. For example, in those cases where the offense to which a defendant is pleading guilty requires as an element that a third party have a particular status (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 203(a)(2), Unlawful Compensation to Members of Congress), the third party can usually be referred to generically (“a Member of Congress”), rather than identified specifically (“Senator X”). Similarly, when the defendant engaged in joint criminal conduct with others, generic references (“another individual”) to the uncharged parties are typically sufficient for purposes of a guilty plea.

For the same reasons, following the conclusion of a case (whether by closing of an investigation or conclusion of a prosecution), DOJ personnel should not publicly disclose the identity (either by name or unnecessarily specific description) of uncharged parties absent approval of the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, or their designee. When evaluating whether to grant approval, the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, or their designee, may consider factors such as:

• The privacy, safety, and reputational interests of uncharged parties;
• The potential effect of any statements on ongoing criminal investigations or prosecutions, see JM 1-7.600, 1-7.610;
• Whether public disclosure may advance significant law enforcement interests, such as where release of information is necessary to protect public safety or uphold the integrity of the law enforcement investigation; and
• Other legitimate and compelling governmental interests, including whether the public has a significant need to know the information.

* * * *

9-27.000 - Principles of Federal Prosecution

www.justice.gov

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Well, nobody has seen one, certainly not anybody posting here.

Then what is Ghislaine Maxwell doing in prison?

 

[Picaro]

Then what is Ghislaine Maxwell doing in prison?

What are you doing running around without a nurse?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

What are you doing running around without a nurse?

 

[Picaro]

Yet nobody has seen it. Bondi doesn't say any list came from Maxwell. Your conflationary dumbassery isn't excused. Apologize to your mother.