RogerCooper
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 15:10
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2014
- Messages
- 704
Before Trump, prosecutors wanted evidence proving a crime before launching a prosecution. Trump was clearly aware of what Epstein was doing and commented publicly on Epstein's "very young" women (as well as the privilege that the rich had with women). However, evidence of his participation is limited (but there is some evidence.)So the Democrats were the party in power and had damning evidence against their greatest rival. They could have stopped his reelection but chose not to use this evidence until after Trump was reelected?
Interesting theory.
Being aware of a crime and not reporting is not a crime. It is a serious moral failing.
You should read the article in the NYT by Barry Levine on the unanswered questions about Epstein https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/opinion/epstein-files-fbi-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Y08.u_e_.5tb3K3xvSDYt&smid=url-share
You should remember that Pam Bondi stated that she had the Epstein client list and now denies its existence.