Its inexplicable: Obama and Biden had the Epstein files for years

lustylad's Avatar
Stay stupid, Democrats!


Democrats Get the Epstein Wars Wrong

They are trivializing themselves just as their party senses a possible return to power.


By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Nov. 14, 2025 5:14 pm ET


I know nothing beyond what’s in the press, but I somehow doubt Donald Trump was among the needy types who relied on Jeffrey Epstein for access to women they wouldn’t have had access to otherwise. It’s a point we’ll come back to.

Interesting and perhaps surprising advice has been flowing from the Democratic Party’s loyal handicappers after this month’s gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia. Don’t make impeachment the calling card in next year’s congressional midterms, they say. Consistent overbetting on the unpopularity of Mr. Trump has been the reciprocal of every blown opportunity till now. This includes the 2024 presidential race, which was winnable even amid the Democratic Party’s world-historical malpractices.

Unfortunately this advice conflicts with activists who insisted Democrats show “fight” with the thankless government shutdown that finally ended this week. Now they want more “fight” over Epstein. Never mind that this represents the sorriest possible way of building on recent electoral successes and Mr. Trump’s shrinking approval ratings.

Read carefully in a press somewhat chastened by its previous misreporting and you learn a couple of things. Mr. Trump and Epstein socialized in Palm Beach, but Epstein and his chief accuser, the late Virginia Giuffre, both left clear testimony Mr. Trump never behaved improperly.

In one of three emails leaked by Democrats to create this week’s furor, Epstein says Mr. Trump “knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.” To some of Mr. Trump’s shrillest defenders, this slight hint that Mr. Trump, then a private citizen, might have done more is reason to change the subject to a prior administration’s supposedly “sweetheart” plea deal with Epstein.

They forget its “sweetheart” nature was a description long after the fact by the Miami Herald to slur Mr. Trump. The original plea outcome may have been weak due to a desire to accommodate his victims’ reluctance to testify. But the only “sweetheart” effort came later when the office of the Democratic district attorney of New York County, with the illustrious name of Cyrus Vance Jr., tried to use their nontestimony to reduce Epstein’s sex-offender designation.

Which is exactly the risk Democrats now court. House Republicans answered this week’s selective Democratic release with a deluge of files that tell us nothing new about Mr. Trump but show Democrats like Larry Summers and former Obama White House lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler carrying on with Epstein long after his crimes were known. Down this road lies an obvious risk for the left: Bill Clinton and friends, who were the real power elite Epstein sought to cultivate in his criminal heyday.

To return to Mr. Trump’s history of womanizing: I erred in 2016 in believing his personal baggage would make him a risky nominee. In office, I thought he would be trammeled like no president in history by attacks on his businesses and his history of financial and personal scandals.

Wrong. All this disappeared from the public discourse in favor of a made-up story about Russia. In essence, Democrats immunized him from his own past by accusing him of the one thing of which he could be found innocent. A great enigma of political psychology, the place to look might be the psyche of Rachel Maddow. For reasons Dr. Freud might fathom, she was the left media’s most ardent promoter of the distraction that removed from Mr. Trump the weight of 35 years of tabloidal infamy.

A decade later, it takes Epstein, a certified [forbidden topic], to get Democrats past their discomfort with censoriousness about sex. They and the media are impelled forward by the idea that Mr. Trump resists Epstein disclosure out of personal desperation. In fact, his resistance is the only thing baiting them on and it may not be an accident. He calls it the Epstein “hoax,” a word, it pays to remember, with a specific resonance in Trumpspeak.

Meanwhile, in the wings are the Democrats he and Republicans really fear—the winners of this month’s New Jersey and Virginia races, the popular governors of Pennsylvania, Colorado and Kentucky.

Many GOP-leaning big-money donors, I’m here to tell you, find these folks easier to deal with than Mr. Trump and his acolytes.

What keeps these Democrats from power are the antics of their national party: the Russia folly, the border folly, the trans folly, the Biden incapacity folly. The Epstein distraction bids to be another piece of foolishness that does more to inhibit Democrats’ return to real influence than advance it.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/democrat...wrong-93c6210a
lustylad's Avatar
...as a private citizen I would like to know who continued to be associated with Epstein after he was convicted in 2008, who was responsible for getting him his sweet heart deal, and who was taking his money as gifts or political contributions. Originally Posted by txdot-guy
See the WSJ column I just posted - it answers those questions.

Democrats Get the Epstein Wars Wrong

They are trivializing themselves just as their party senses a possible return to power.


By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Nov. 14, 2025 5:14 pm ET


I know nothing.... Originally Posted by lustylad
WSJ Opinion pieces. The part of the publication that no one reads. Ever. Except when it conveniently helps MAGA in their unending fealty. Even then... no one reads it except them.

Y'all don't get it.

The Dems... in their never-ending quest to "stay stupid" are laughing about this whole mess and the desperate attempts by MAGA to deflect.

We aren't doing anything except enjoying the show.

Enjoying watching MAGA try to defend a scumbag who was Besties with another scumbag.

We don't care one damn bit about what Biden or Obama did or didn't do.

In their pathetic attempts to deflect from this, MAGA just makes it look like they are trying VERY hard to hide something.

This POS Jenkins "column" answers nothing. It is just deflection with lots of prettier words to make it look like it has the "answers."

This shit just looks worse and worse the more you keep saying "there's nothing here!"

We know that. We don't care.

We will take every opportunity to criticize and denigrate Trump over this. It is what he would do in a similar situation against his enemies. We learn from the best!
The double standard of the Judicial system in Washington DC has been a growing problem ever since Watergate.


The Epstein case is a mess. All of the big names would get together, but only some knew the secret code to get to the back room of illicit activity. Once some of them found out they just stopped going, but didn't try to condemn the others.


So now you have a situation where probably 50% of the names mentioned never actually went in the back room but if the names are released they will be out of context and people will assume they were in the back room. Originally Posted by farmstud60
So how do you know all about this secret back room. Been there yourself?
lustylad's Avatar
WSJ Opinion pieces. The part of the publication that no one reads. Ever...

This POS Jenkins "column" answers nothing. It is just deflection with lots of prettier words to make it look like it has the "answers." Originally Posted by Mort Watt
Triggered much, mort? Intimidated by too many "pretty words"?

I just glanced at the Jenkins column again - it has over 1,200 comments so far. So it would appear that quite a few people DO read the WSJ opinion pieces. Too bad you're not one of them. If you were, you would know the Journal editorial team and its opinion writers are often scathingly critical of Donald J. Trump.

But thanks for motivating me go back and skim some of the comments, Mort. Here's one especially for you:


"Donald J. Trump is the luckiest man on planet earth. Calling his enemies the Keystone Cops is to ascribe too much competence to them. And is an insult to the Keystone guys.

The mistake Trump makes is that he believes all of his success is due to his incredible political instincts and competence. The fact is that his enemies couldn't have done a better job of getting him elected if they were all sycophants."
Triggered much, mort? Intimidated by too many "pretty words"?

I just glanced at the Jenkins column again - it has over 1,200 comments so far. So it would appear that quite a few people DO read the WSJ opinion pieces. Too bad you're not one of them. If you were, you would know the Journal editorial team and its opinion writers are often scathingly critical of Donald J. Trump.... Originally Posted by lustylad
Interesting tactic. Accuse me of being "triggered." Then go off on a triggered "double-down" on the same triggered shit you posted before.

Soooo...1200 people vindicated your point that Dems "stay stupid."

1200. Out of 5 MILLION print and digital subscribers.

0.02 percent. Zero-point-zero-two.

(hey! That's actually Zero-point-zero! Thank you, sir, may I have another!)

The rest ignored it. Like me. And I am a subscriber. Read it every day. Excellent news and business coverage. Especially global geo-political news. But not the Opinions. Yes, some are critical of Trump. Usually only when he threatens their profits. But so much of it is Right-wing Rupert Murdoch propaganda.

But again, you and the OP don't get it.

We don't care what the WSJ says or what Obama or Biden did or didn't do.

Right now, we taking advantage of this farce to make the lying, corrupt con man that you support look as bad as possible!

It is what he would do.

We will continue to "stay stupid" on this. But at least we weren't fucking stupid enough to vote for him in the first place. And to continue to blindly support him since.
Interesting tactic. Accuse me of being "triggered." Then go off on a triggered "double-down" on the same triggered shit you posted before.

Soooo...1200 people vindicated your point that Dems "stay stupid."

1200. Out of 5 MILLION print and digital subscribers.

0.02 percent. Zero-point-zero-two.

(hey! That's actually Zero-point-zero! Thank you, sir, may I have another!)

The rest ignored it. Like me. And I am a subscriber. Read it every day. Excellent news and business coverage. Especially global geo-political news. But not the Opinions. Yes, some are critical of Trump. Usually only when he threatens their profits. But so much of it is Right-wing Rupert Murdoch propaganda.

But again, you and the OP don't get it.

We don't care what the WSJ says or what Obama or Biden did or didn't do.

Right now, we taking advantage of this farce to make the lying, corrupt con man that you support look as bad as possible!

It is what he would do.

We will continue to "stay stupid" on this. But at least we weren't fucking stupid enough to vote for him in the first place. And to continue to blindly support him since. Originally Posted by Mort Watt
So you ignore reality and only post stuff against Trump that is probably made up by AI. If he of it actually would have been true Democrats would have already prosecuted Trump for charges related to Epstein.
Yssup Rider's Avatar
Putting myself inside of Trump's tiny mind and huge ego, he likely believes that revealing more shit on Clinton than they have on him will minimize or somehow exonerate his relationship.

After all, he is an incredibly stupid man.
So you ignore reality and only post stuff against Trump that is probably made up by AI. If he of it actually would have been true Democrats would have already prosecuted Trump for charges related to Epstein. Originally Posted by farmstud60
That is truly fucking hysterical. I would ask you to prove it, but...

A) we both know you cannot

B) you did say "probably"...not actually claim it.

C) "proof" ain't how MAGA rolls...definitely an alternate reality in play here

Still, truly hysterical!

Then again, lots of you believed "They're eating the dogs!" also.
txdot-guy's Avatar
However as a private citizen I would like to know who continued to be associated with Epstein after he was convicted in 2008, who was responsible for getting him his sweet heart deal, and who was taking his money as gifts or political contributions. Originally Posted by txdot-guy
See the WSJ column I just posted - it answers those questions. Originally Posted by lustylad
I don’t think the WSJ article does anything to answer any questions. All it does is speculate.

Someone needs to investigate Epstein’s money connections, the connections between him and others on both a personal and professional level.

Real investigators need to be asking questions regardless of whether the person being investigated has money or influence.

If you really want to start draining the swamp Epstein’s political connections is a great place to start.
lustylad's Avatar
I don’t think the WSJ article does anything to answer any questions. Originally Posted by txdot-guy
Sure it does. You wanna force me to pluck out the specific paragraphs for you? Here you go:

In one of three emails leaked by Democrats to create this week’s furor, Epstein says Mr. Trump “knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.” To some of Mr. Trump’s shrillest defenders, this slight hint that Mr. Trump, then a private citizen, might have done more is reason to change the subject to a prior administration’s supposedly “sweetheart” plea deal with Epstein.

They forget its “sweetheart” nature was a description long after the fact by the Miami Herald to slur Mr. Trump. The original plea outcome may have been weak due to a desire to accommodate his victims’ reluctance to testify. But the only “sweetheart” effort came later when the office of the Democratic district attorney of New York County, with the illustrious name of Cyrus Vance Jr., tried to use their nontestimony to reduce Epstein’s sex-offender designation.

Which is exactly the risk Democrats now court. House Republicans answered this week’s selective Democratic release with a deluge of files that tell us nothing new about Mr. Trump but show Democrats like Larry Summers and former Obama White House lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler carrying on with Epstein long after his crimes were known. Down this road lies an obvious risk for the left: Bill Clinton and friends, who were the real power elite Epstein sought to cultivate in his criminal heyday. Originally Posted by lustylad
You asked who gave Epstein a sweetheart deal back in 2008 - Cyrus Vance Jr.

You asked who continued to be associated with him after he was convicted - Larry Summers, Kathryn Ruemmler, and various other high-profile Democrats.
lustylad's Avatar
Someone needs to investigate Epstein’s money connections, the connections between him and others on both a personal and professional level. Originally Posted by txdot-guy
Much of it is already out there. Ever heard of Les Wexner? Google "Les Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein".
lustylad's Avatar
Interesting tactic. Accuse me of being "triggered." Then go off on a triggered "double-down" on the same triggered shit you posted before.

Excuse me? I merely posted a thoughtful article. You reacted unthoughtfully by calling the author a "POS". Who's "triggered" again?


Soooo...1200 people vindicated your point that Dems "stay stupid."

No, it refuted your claim that "no one reads the WSJ Opinion pieces... ever."


And I am a subscriber. Read it every day. Excellent news and business coverage. Especially global geo-political news.

Good for you, mort. Then you should know better than to make sweeping generalizations about what your fellow WSJ subscribers do or do not read.


But again, you and the OP don't get it.

You're partly right. I don't "get" why the Democrats are going down this rabbit hole. And neither does Holman Jenkins. If you really want to focus on Trump's sex scandals and character flaws, I have two words for you - Stormy Daniels. That dog might actually bark.


We don't care... We will continue to "stay stupid" on this. Originally Posted by Mort Watt
Your choice. I can't stop triggered Democrats from frittering away their Nov. 4 electoral successes. It's not my fault if they think anyone who gives them sound advice is a POS.
txdot-guy's Avatar
Sure it does. You wanna force me to pluck out the specific paragraphs for you? Here you go:

You asked who gave Epstein a sweetheart deal back in 2008 - Cyrus Vance Jr.

You asked who continued to be associated with him after he was convicted - Larry Summers, Kathryn Ruemmler, and various other high-profile Democrats. Originally Posted by lustylad
All of that information is already available. Is the Trump administration really going to make a thorough and impartial investigation any more than the Democrats did. Money is a powerful tool that was used to give Epstein a sweetheart deal. Epstein kept up relationships with many connected people after 2008.

I have serious doubts that the Trump administration under Kash Patel will hold a serious and impartial investigation of anyone.
Schwarzer Ritter's Avatar
WSJ Opinion pieces. The part of the publication that no one reads. Ever. Except when it conveniently helps MAGA in their unending fealty. Even then... no one reads it except them.

Y'all don't get it.

The Dems... in their never-ending quest to "stay stupid" are laughing about this whole mess and the desperate attempts by MAGA to deflect.

We aren't doing anything except enjoying the show.

Enjoying watching MAGA try to defend a scumbag who was Besties with another scumbag.

We don't care one damn bit about what Biden or Obama did or didn't do.

In their pathetic attempts to deflect from this, MAGA just makes it look like they are trying VERY hard to hide something.

This POS Jenkins "column" answers nothing. It is just deflection with lots of prettier words to make it look like it has the "answers."

This shit just looks worse and worse the more you keep saying "there's nothing here!"

We know that. We don't care.

We will take every opportunity to criticize and denigrate Trump over this. It is what he would do in a similar situation against his enemies. We learn from the best! Originally Posted by Mort Watt

MAGA is defending a scumbag...we haven't said one word about Clinton and no one has defended Epstein except maybe Stacey Plaskett. She was willing to work with him. In fact Trump is right about that. Only the democrats worked with Jeff, flew on his plane, or used him as a source.