this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
251 points (93.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

42393 readers
728 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Seriosly, why?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gleb@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

because democrats are on it.

[–] tisktisk@piefed.social 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When... When did they claim they were going to do that?

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That’s not the question.

[–] takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago

The thing is that you normally don't release details of pending investigation, but trump and Republicans were riding on this promise and now that they actually have the power they looking for excuses "files don't exist", "files were created by Democrats", "why you even talk about files?"

It is clear that trump doesn't care about integrity of the investigation (given that people involved in it were fired I think effectively it is stopped) but that he is in those files.

[–] tisktisk@piefed.social 4 points 2 days ago

But if one asks a better question that more accurately presents what another is looking for, it's certainly better guidance than an answer to a nonsensical question, yeah? I know what they say about those who answer questions with questions, but I'm conventionally opposed to such 'wisdom'

[–] PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 2 days ago

Because besides powerful Republicans, powerful Democrats are also implicated (e.g. the Clintons).

[–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Status quo protects the status quo.

The status is not... quo

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] citizensongbird@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

My guess is, because Republican leaders and propaganda outlets were constantly accusing Democrats of witch hunts and politically motivated criminal investigations, Dems releasing Epstein's client list would have been seen as more of the same. Trump's base would have absolutely called it fake news. So Dems waited until Republicans were in control and then said, "Okay, now you can release it." With predictable results.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

It’s possible they were protecting their own. You don’t release only the parts that implicate your opponents and leave out the parts that implicate your friends.

I think it’s also possible there wasn’t any smoking gun that directly implicated anybody. Only loose associations to Epstein that we already were aware of.

So if they did release it, Republicans wouldn’t believe anything in it that made them look bad, and Democrats wouldn’t care as they want a real smoking gun before they react. So it wouldn’t help in the election, and the release would have zero impact.

Instead, let the next administration deal with it. With Trump now in charge, it really is a rock and a hard place. If there are “loose associations” that make him or his people look bad, and they are the ones to release it, Republicans would not be able to question its authenticity.

Notice how Trump is now claiming Obama and Biden were manipulating the documents, which is why he won’t release it. This is giving his people a reason to be skeptical even if he does release something that looks bad.

TLDR, either Democrats are implicated and Biden was protecting, or Biden felt it was better to let the next administration deal with it, especially if the next administration was Trump.

[–] Alsjemenou@lemy.nl -4 points 1 day ago

Okay. Let me give a sane outsider take.

First thing you have to understand is that there is a big disconnect between the conviction of Epstein and the influential connections he had. All the conspiracy talk about the island being a childporn hub for elites is nothing more than that: conspiracy fantasy. His suicide fueled many more ideas about the elite killing him, but again no evidence at all.

However, there is a strong public pressure to research the connections between Epstein and the elites he knew. This has most likely been done in the background, since Epstein did shady finances. But Trump has campaigned heavily on the popular sentiment. And it lives in the minds of people a solution to lock up all the elites/draining the swamp.

So now there is a big problem for the maga populists, there is a 'list' of connections to epstein. But there is no further evidence (yet) that those people did anything illegal, or is entirely complicated financial crime. The list probably includes just about the entire political spectrum includes donors and includes Trump. So everybody wants to handle this the correct way, including those donors. Nobody wants their name public because they spoke to a shady financial advisor. And any case against a super wealthy person needs to be watertight, they can afford a legal team.

Is it possible that there was deeper predatory connections? sure. Epstein had easy access and no question that he was willing to share. Is that going to be written down in a list? absolutely not. Epstein did finances the shady way and that's more likely the reason so many rich people were interested in his business.

So this isnt a political issue. Of course, now it is. But that's because Trump made it one.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›