Because he legally was not allowed to as they were still in active use in legal proceedings.

Which legal proceedings and what date did they end? I looked into this and found no facts to support it.

Those were released and have nothing implicating Trump. In fact, can you point to anything that has implicated Trump in wrong doing?

Sorry, did you forget the comment chain you were commenting on? This wasn't about files that were currently unreleased, it was discussing why Biden didn't release them during his presidency.

As far as Trump goes, yes, he's implicated all over the files. A simple search on any search engine will find plenty of examples for you.

Obama and Biden didn’t release any though. Not one.

Instead… The entire DNC spent a billion and a half on an election just on 2024 to lose historically. Lawfare. States trying to remove Trump from the ballots… all the had to do was release even one incriminating file.

You must have seen files I haven’t. Please link to a file that implicates Trump in wrong doing.

>Obama and Biden didn’t release any though. Not one.

... Right, and I was addressing why that was the case. That's the discussion that was being had here. Seriously, are you aware of the comment chain you're commenting in?

>You must have seen files I haven’t. Please link to a file that implicates Trump in wrong doing.

Did you actually search at all? This was incredibly easy to find, and there are plenty more: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0dzg6e4mo

Are we really still pushing bomber mafia nonsense 80 years later?

>Science can't tell us so far what really exists.

Only inasmuch as nothing can tell us what "really" exists. By any practical definitions of any of the words in that sentence science is the best way of determining what exists.

>the example in the article is an 11GB image that was amplified by copying behaviors

It's not, it's an 800GB image caused by multiple full writes of an 11GB file into the image's layers. I read the article.

>Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.

I'm confused why you would phrase it as "even Donald Trump", as if we should somehow expect Trump to not buy in to Putin's propaganda line? The fact that Trump "admits" that he agrees with Putin should not give any weight to what Putin claims.

>I prefer Twitter in the sense that it's more laissez faire in terms of what kinds of speech get you banned.

Musk literally just said that the term 'cis' is a slur that will get you banned.

Except the way Reddit works increasing the volume of users, even if they aren't seeing ads, provides the entirety of the value of the site that the users who are seeing ads come to see.

This 100% reeks of business people who don't even care to understand what Reddit is coming in and seeing the raw metrics of "% of users who aren't seeing ads" and the "lost" revenue.

In fact he was just doing his show, showing the verdict being read, and mocking the father of one of the slain children's reaction. I can think of no stronger proof that any apologies given were not genuine.

>While plausible, it hasn't really been proven that he ever even looked at his google Analytics

This is not true. Evidence was shown in the trials that InfoWars looked at and responded to traffic analytics.

>Don't assume everyone who was acquitted is guilty because of the few exceptions of injustice such as OJ.

No one was. Even you said

>So since OJ got off you assume everyone acquitted may still be guilty?

which is not the same thing.

No one is pronounced innocent in the US justice system, so by definition yes, anyone who is found not guilty "may still be guilty".