• takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    6 months ago

    During Biden the investigation was still ongoing, Maxwell was sentenced and was appealing.

    SCOTUS for some “strange reason” extended her appeal time until 2025, essentially putting seal on the files.

    I can’t say what Biden was or wasn’t planning to do, but releasing files was not an option because of SCOTUS.

    To be frank as long as the investigation was ongoing there was a chance that charges would be pressed (you might argue that would never happen, but that’s a speculation)

    What trump did though is when he took office he shut down the investigation, said there’s nothing to investigate, no charges to being and basically portrayed that Epstein was just that guy living in basement and downloaded tons of CP.

    This is why people demand files released. If there is no investigation ongoing and no charges were placed, let us see them and decide ourselves if that conclusion is reasonable.

    • disregardable@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      let us see them and decide ourselves if that conclusion is reasonable.

      Non-lawyers have zero capacity to do that, though. There’s a big difference between what any one person wants the law to be and what it actually is.

      • takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m sure we can find few lawyers outside of DOJ.

        Besides, lawyers exist because courts have strict requirements regarding interpretation of a law in order to sentence someone.

        You don’t need to study law to be able to tell that somebody did something heinous or not.

        • disregardable@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          You don’t need to study law to be able to tell that somebody did something heinous or not.

          A lot of heinous things aren’t necessarily against the law. For example, there’s an email in the file from a law professor advising him on legally trafficking minors to states with lower ages of consent.

          • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Cool. Don’t care. In the wood chipper. As with anyone in the files. We can sift through the ashes afterwards to determine guilt.

          • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            A lot of heinous things aren’t necessarily against the law. For example, there’s an email in the file from a law professor that’s against the law.