You’re being intentionally dense if you’re suggesting, essentially, “gee golly, with the Trump outrage cycle, I guess we just gosh darn missed the rape allegations when we were covering golden showers from Russian hookers, eating his fried chicken with a fork, and telling Billy Bush that you can grab women by the *****.” Hint: one of those is not like the other. Oh, right, the Epstein case is 8 years old. Billy Bush was, what, 2004?Perhaps not kosher, but definitely better tolerated when the 13-year-olds were hired for that purpose. In addition, at that point the Epstein case was 8 years old, and Trump was pump out new outrages every day. The media loves the new.
But heck, if you have bought into the notion that the media was trying to protect Clinton, probably reason is pointless anyhow.
If you want to recognize that there’s a discrepancy in coverage and that a big story seems to have gotten much less coverage than many other comparatively smaller stories, but reject my postulations as to why, or even suggest that there’s not a known reason, then that’s fine. But if you’re wanting to engage in a rationalization of why this story wasn’t bigger, or pretend that two guys raping a 13 year old was as common three years ago as two guys going bowling, then you’re engaging in the same type avoidance and protection of your cognitive biases that I’ve been seeing you criticize people here for as long as I’ve known you.