You seem to want to "out" and shame Democrats. Why is that?

... if there is an issue, say Epstein, that would make us go knee jerk one issue on a Democratic candidate.

A fair question.

If no one's going to be held ACCOUNTABLE, if the politicians and media are just going to treat spying and sexual assaults as fundraising and clickbait, then yes.

These subjects interest me more:

National single payer healthcare
$25 an hour minimum wage
4 day work week
Nationalize utilities

This includes companies who get government contracts and sitting on benches making decisions.

That’s what I’m going with.

Am I interested is seeing justice for probable crimes? Absolutely.

Am I interested in following up on every crank who calls in with some unverifiable claim or make an outcast of everyone who ever emailed Epstein or was in the files without evidence of a crime? No.

But I don't trust the current DOJ leadership to have provided everything that would be verifiable? Absolutely not. So at least short term, no I wouldn't support moving on in the next Democratic administration. But whatever the equivalent of us calling Hillary Clinton in with no evidence just because we don't like them, no thanks.

I don't think we should ever "move on" whatever that means, until we see what was in the thousands of redacted pages that were in the "release". The fact that the DOJ is refusing to allow anyone to see them has implications that go far beyond the Epstein case and are far scarier.

The complicated part is that we keep hearing about people that were in the Epstein circle not accused of "wrongdoing". Which is NOT a legal term and has no meaning in a court of law. In my opinion anyone that associated with Epstein surely knew what he was doing (nod-nod, wink-wink) and is guilty of wrongdoing - essentially being a scumbag.

But that is different from whether there is evidence of criminality.

But as you note what's relevant is different from person to person.

Casey Wasserman is basically having to give up his talent agency and being called on to step down from the Olympics in spite of his contact with Maxwell was years before she or Epstein got arrested. Was he supposed to know years before she was even accused of anything that she was a scumbag? If not, what justice is served by people shunning him?

Sure many if not all of the people who continued to personally associate with Epstein or Maxwell after his first arrest have at the very least good cause to question their morals, but does that mean anyone who attended a party where either of them were regardless of if they knew Epstein or Maxwell were invited? That sort of mob mentality isn't good in my opinion. My reason for setting the bar at criminal behavior is that's a bright societal line that we generally collectively agree is wrong.

That’s a nice bright line that everyone can easily see.

his sex trafficking or even personal proclivities. From an excellent NYT article on Epstein and Chase bank, a comment was made that Epstein was a "collector of people", pulling together brilliant scientists, influential media and political people with financial people. The way it was described made me think of descriptions of literary salons.

From the article I think Epstein saw being seen with all these influential people as a cover for his nefarious side. As such, he may have hid that side from many. The NYT article was trying to explain why the bank continued their relationship even as red flags appeared. He connected some people who became valued customers. (In addition, at least one of the Chase people was accused.)

I do think anyone with any significant post 2009 should be thoroughly investigated to define if they did anything wrong. There will likely be many whose names were referenced by others in Epstein emails or who were at large gatherings, not hosted by Epstein that he attended, who may have seen nothing. Note just having a feeling he was sleezy is not enough.

For results, see today.

No Dem would ever say, "Let's move on." Some, probably most, might say, "Let the prosecutions roll. Find all child abusers and perverts, coat them with chum, and toss them in the ocean near some fins. Keep me posted."

Now...they might continue...

About prices, health care, AI, jobs, Social Security benefit cuts being eyed for 2032, homelessness, the 2026 election, and, by the way, rampant Epstein-like crimes happening every few seconds in this country (just off our precious screens)...Can someone look into that?

Fetterman maybe? And we all know what an aberration he is.

... feel like it's time to move on.

Any Democrat running for office who even implies that ‘moving on’ is less important than other issues doesn’t get my vote, We can’t move on until everyone who committed, helped commit, or was complicit in any criminal acts or acts against the constitutional order are investigated and, if appropriate, tried for their actions. This includes anyone who lied to Congress.and that’s a long list.

If that were to happen, arguing that we need to avoid politics other than to support the special prosecutor having access to anything needed and protection from anyone acting against him/her. Also, the special prosecutor must be able to directly report findings - no Pam Bondi playing the role of Bill Barr.

You're going to be extremely disappointed. Anybody who was involved with Epstein's illegal activities needs to be identified publicly, and I believe almost every Democrat will agree with that moving forward. However, due to statutes of limitation and other issues, many/most will never be able to be prosecuted for their crimes.