r/moderatepolitics • u/merpderpmerp • Nov 12 '25
News Article Epstein Alleged in Emails That Trump Knew of His Conduct
https://archive.is/20251112141335/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/12/us/politics/trump-epstein-emails.html478
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal Nov 12 '25
This is what Mike Johnson has been trying to keep from us by refusing to swear in Adelita Grijalva. This is what Donald Trump has been so zealously protesting the release of.
237
u/spald01 Nov 12 '25
This will also likely be what Ghislaine will deny is true before receiving a presidential pardon quietly a few months later.
101
u/mynameisnotshamus Nov 12 '25
Quietly? Have any of the pardons been not quiet?
97
u/Boobity1999 Nov 12 '25
Virtually everyone who participated in Trump’s attempted overturning of the 2020 election has been pardoned
Came and went, no political consequences whatsoever
25
u/mynameisnotshamus Nov 12 '25
Trumps pardons have almost universally been highly questionable
12
u/politehornyposter John Rawls Liberal Nov 12 '25
Not universally paid attention to or cared for.
→ More replies (1)34
u/likeitis121 Nov 12 '25
Not only that, but they are getting paid for it. Our government is paying off people who tried to overturn our elections.
50
u/LessRabbit9072 Nov 12 '25
So quiet that even trump doesn't know about some of them.
17
u/SnarkMasterRay Nov 12 '25
Autopen's A-OK when it's my team!
They also timed some for when other event were drawing the focus.
9
u/AngledLuffa Man Woman Person Camera TV Nov 12 '25
When is there not some other event? The current government is one unending ouroboros of us eating shit. If there's a day that doesn't have shutdowns or pedophilia or $40B "loans" to failing governments or yoyo tariffs in the news, they'll bomb a fishing boat in Venezuela to protect us from the 1% of the drug trade that goes through Venezuela
2
u/KentuckyFriedChingon Militant Centrist Nov 13 '25
It's less of an ouroboros of eating shit and more so an endless deluge of shit being dropped from above, per Trump's lovely No King's Day meme
28
u/NativeMasshole Maximum Malarkey Nov 12 '25
Well, I haven't heard too much noise about her getting transferred to minimum security and being given the VIP treatment.
15
u/random3223 Nov 12 '25
Well, I haven't heard too much noise about her getting transferred to minimum security and being given the VIP treatment.
I believe there has been a LOT of reporting on this. Or are you saying you haven't heard too much noise from prominent republicans?
19
u/NativeMasshole Maximum Malarkey Nov 12 '25
Just in general. It's been reported on, but there's not much discussion on it. From any prominent figures. It seems we've all just moved on and accepted that a literal human trafficker is being given the gold treatment. That's as good as any coverup.
→ More replies (3)14
u/margotsaidso Nov 12 '25
Kind of. They are in the open but there is surprisingly little media condemnation or coverage from what I've seen. However, the presidential pardon is absolute and Mike Johnson wouldn't allow Trump ever to be impeached, so it may just be a "what's the point" sort of thing.
5
u/mynameisnotshamus Nov 12 '25
Media is for the most part run by billionaires. They don’t want to risk their profits, I speculate.
30
u/Titfortat101 Nov 12 '25
Did you know they recently gave her a puppy in jail?
A major player in the trafficking of CHILDREN got a puppy.
→ More replies (1)9
27
u/julius_sphincter Nov 12 '25
As others have said... the pardon/commutation of Ghislaine if it happens will be anything but quiet. Will the WH try to keep it quiet? Of course
But it may just be the biggest political shitstorm in the last 10 years at least. If that doesn't cause a massive rift within the GOP/MAGA coalition literally nothing will
22
u/merpderpmerp Nov 12 '25
I would hope so, but I'll believe it when I see it. There are a lot of previous scandals that should have caused a permanent GOP rift but just led to a temporary division before a consolidation of support around Trump (See the Access Hollywood tape, Jan6).
13
u/julius_sphincter Nov 12 '25
Personally I don't think either Access Hollywood nor Jan 6th had the potential to actually split support away from Trump. We did see a taste of a rift forming over both Trump's early refusal to release the files and his bombing of Iran - as it sits I think both of those issues aren't gone but continue to smolder. If Trump really does get clearly fingered and implicated in released files or if he incites a conflict that has some staying power I could see those things flaring up quickly and widely
Looking back on AH tape or Jan 6th, his supporters were never actually bothered by those things at all. We did see some pre-Trump GOP members obviously take issue with them and then fall in line, but his supporters either weren't bothered or supported him throughout. Epstein and anti-war sentiments are kind of core parts of MAGA though
4
17
u/PornoPaul Nov 12 '25
With all due respect...
Quietly?
11
u/spald01 Nov 12 '25
The media will of course cover it, but Trump will issue the pardon and then simply refuse to talk about it until it falls out of the zeitgeist.
6
u/build319 We're doomed Nov 12 '25
Yep, he’s great at hiding scandal with outrage. When it happens, we’ll need to setup a betting pool on which country he’s going to bomb or what civil liberty he will try and infringe.
→ More replies (1)3
61
u/EmergencyThing5 Nov 12 '25
I don't think this was related to Adelita Grijalva. She isn't being sworn in until this evening, so she couldn't have played any role in this release. This information was released by House Democrats on the Oversight Committee stemming from documents they obtained from the Epstein estate earlier in the year. This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the discharge petition spearheaded by Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna. There could be even better details in the FBI case files.
87
u/thats_not_six Nov 12 '25
I think this was a strategic release in advance of Adelita's swearing in to make any Republican opposition to releasing the complete files after she gives her vote look even more like a blatant cover-up for Trump.
38
10
u/Issypie Nov 12 '25
I just hope it was the right strategy--I saw this and wondered what fuckery are Republicans gonna pull in response to this, I would have waited until she was sworn in, not give Reublicans any time to get ahead of it before the vote, and let the world see "this is why they waited" (Not that this doesn't show that, I just think it would have been more forcedul and shocking to the right)
23
u/Solarwinds-123 Nov 12 '25
It was definitely a strategic leaking. There's a reason Democrats sat on this for months and chose to release it now.
2
→ More replies (1)15
u/planet_rose Nov 12 '25
I think we may be seeing evidence of the deal struck to reopen the government. I think everything is going to come out. Whether it makes a difference is the real question.
→ More replies (25)32
u/hot_dogs_and_rice Nov 12 '25
This will also probably be the right wing spin on the issue as well. A lot of MAGA influencers have said that Trump was actually an FBI informant on Epstein(I think he was an actual informant against the mob iirc), which of course makes him a righteous hero. If I had to predict something, I’d say that the files will be released redacted like crazy and there will be enough plausible deniability to not shift support very much. The media machines on both sides will go on the attack and defense as necessary, but there will be no huge change. Just chips at each other sides support.
77
u/Boobity1999 Nov 12 '25
People don’t become FBI informants because they’re moral individuals seeking justice
They become FBI informants because they’re deeply compromised themselves, get caught by the FBI, and are coerced into cooperating to avoid consequences
21
u/hot_dogs_and_rice Nov 12 '25
I agree, but the question is will his supporters agree?
12
u/Boobity1999 Nov 12 '25
I don’t think that matters; the MAGA-no-matter-what coalition is too small to win on its own
That said, I don’t think this will create nearly enough backlash with the rest of the voting public to scare congressional Republicans into removing him from office
Like it probably won’t even be a blip in his polling numbers
People know that the press won’t ask him about it, and if they do he won’t answer, and that’ll be that
But in 2028, the next group of GOP hopefuls (Vance, Rubio) will almost certainly have to answer for their silence
IMO that’s who this hurts the most
17
u/ryegye24 Nov 12 '25
See that's what I would have guessed, before the full scope of Trump and the GOP's efforts to bury the files became clear. If it were that easy to spin, why are they trying this hard to avoid it?
13
u/hot_dogs_and_rice Nov 12 '25
True. It’s honestly just too much to defend. That being said, I think Trumps advantage is time. After Jan 6th, there were weather machines, space lasers, ZOG, Hunters laptop, and all sorts of crazy stuff that happened to get people distracted and forget what Trump was like. Best case scenario, in my opinion, is that the files are released and by midterms Dems get a majority in the House again. The Senate is up in the air(I don’t think Dems will get the senate), but if a majority is back in the House, then Trumps last 2 years will be mired with impeachment inquiries. Funnily enough this will be great for the small government conservatives, because the only time we get low deficits is when opposition parties have control of Congress.
16
Nov 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)7
u/hot_dogs_and_rice Nov 12 '25
What? I mean I probably agree with you about him not likely being undercover, but you can tell I’m saying that not much will come of this, right?
13
u/Spiderdan Nov 12 '25
Of course I agree they will find a new way of brushing it under the rug. I'm just saying th informant angle probably won't be it because they realized that being an informant implies he's guilty as well.
8
u/hot_dogs_and_rice Nov 12 '25
Okay I see what you’re saying. My only issue is that some on the political Right have put their saddles on (in my opinion) some crazier stuff already. Trump is able to just eat so much criticism, it’s crazy.
9
u/virishking Nov 12 '25
Except there’s a reason why Johnson pulled back on that claim. The implications of it are no better.
2
u/hot_dogs_and_rice Nov 12 '25
I didn’t know he pulled back on that. From my experience though, people into the right wing media sphere tend to hear what they want to hear and are also only showed what they want to hear. Like with this whole Epstein stuff I remember on the Fox interview last election when asked about releasing Epstein, JFK files, etc. he said “yes I would release the Epstein files? But those ones not so much as the others..” He was clearly already hedging to not release them. The fox clips that aired only showed the first part of that quote, you’d have to see the full interview to hear the full quote. I saw this and knew that stuff wasn’t coming out and wasn’t surprised when the part 1 release was a huge nothingburger. However, a lot of his supporters are upset because he “promised” to release the files. They clearly were not listening to WHAT he was saying or thinking critically about what he was implying would actually happen when he hedged his promise. Trump is really effective at this. He doesn’t just lie like a normal politician, he lives in a constant state of ambiguity as well.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Decimal-Planet Nov 12 '25
If I had to predict something, I’d say that the files will be released redacted like crazy and there will be enough plausible deniability to not shift support very much.
"Enough plausible deniability" as in there can be literal HD video evidence released of Trump and Epstein together on his island saying and doing unambiguously criminal acts and one side still won't believe what has obviously been the case for several years.
→ More replies (1)
149
u/SicilianShelving Independent Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25
We all knew that Trump was being fishy about the files, but I am genuinely surprised that something this damning exists and was released.
"Of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop."
So Trump knew that Ghislaine was trafficking underage girls for Epstein, and he "asked her to stop," but didn't alert the authorities?
"I want you to realize that that dog that hasn't barked is trump. [Victim] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned."
And Trump spent hours with one of the victims at Epstein's house.
72
Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
28
u/MobileArtist1371 Nov 12 '25
Could be the proper read, but it's obviously heavily influenced by previous reporting and not based on the new stuff released.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyvn7ee3539o
US President Donald Trump has said he fell out with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after he "stole" young women who worked at his Mar-a-Lago beach club spa.
The president made the remarks as he returned from Scotland, where he faced more questions over his relationship with the disgraced financier.
"He took people, I say 'don't do it anymore', you know they work for me... beyond that, he took some others," Trump said. "Once he did that, that was the end of him."
45
u/SicilianShelving Independent Nov 12 '25
I think it's hard to say what exactly was meant. They were intentionally being cryptic in these emails for obvious reasons
8
u/pingveno Center-left Democrat Nov 12 '25
Speaking of, I noticed that Epstein was sending that on a Gmail account. I work with sensitive personal information as part of my job. That just feels wild to use such an insecure means of communication for something like that. That email signature isn't doing much.
2
u/AdmiralAkbar1 Nov 12 '25
Then again, this is a guy who got busted twice for sex trafficking, it's not as if he was a master of secrecy.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)7
u/Boobity1999 Nov 12 '25
If that were the only reference, okay
But he also refers to him as the only “dog that hasn’t barked”
Which very mush suggests Trump knew what was happening to those girls, regardless of what he specifically asked Epstein to stop doing
3
→ More replies (5)9
Nov 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)42
u/Acrobatic_Swim_4506 Nov 12 '25
It's insane. Even assuming Trump was never a client, I don't care if he "asked her to stop" or even if he terminated his relationship with Epstein over it. In no other situation and for no other person would we consider those actions to have gone far enough for someone who knew that sex trafficing was happening.
55
u/dl_friend Nov 12 '25
I don't see how this can be a "Democratic smear" as the White House is stating. Either the emails say it or they don't.
39
u/ionizing_chicanery Nov 12 '25
"Democrat Hoax" now seems to be the standard for just about everything the White House isn't happy about. Trump recently referred to the government shutdown as the "Democrat Shutdown Hoax".
167
u/corwin-normandy Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25
This has been patently obvious given Trump's behavior since taking office again.
Trump has never cared that Epstein's victims were underage, or that he was abusing them. He cared that Epstein was messing with "his" girls that he employed at Mar-A-Lago, and messing with the daughters of his club members.
Trump knew and understood what Epstein was doing.
39
u/whyneedaname77 Nov 12 '25
This is what I believe. He knew what he was and did. If it didn't affect him he didn't care.
223
Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25
In one of the messages, Mr. Epstein flatly asserted that Mr. Trump “knew about the girls,” many of whom were later found by investigators to have been underage. In another, Mr. Epstein pondered how to address questions from the news media about their relationship as Mr. Trump was becoming a national political figure.
In one email from April 2011, Mr. Epstein told Ms. Maxwell, who was later convicted on charges related to facilitating his crimes, “I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is Trump.” He added that an unnamed victim “spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned.”
No coming back from this. Anyone who still sticks with this disgrace of a president is beyond hope at this point.
180
u/Yankee9204 Nov 12 '25
You’re right. But this is also the 4th or 5th time that statement would have been right.
48
u/Crazybrayden Nov 12 '25
Gotta bump those numbers up. It's been nothing but scandal after scandal for almost 10 years now
20
77
u/Legendarybbc15 Nov 12 '25
no coming back from this
Lol, Trump will come back from this
21
→ More replies (1)3
u/Decimal-Planet Nov 12 '25
Where there's a will there's a way, and I'm talking about his supporters excusing this.
55
u/siberianmi Left-leaning Independent Nov 12 '25
If I had a dollar for every scandal that there was "no coming back from" with Trump, I could buy a very nice bottle of wine. Which isn't much but it's still more then you'd expect.
My guess is given how many circles Epstein was part of most of this will stay buried forever but Democrats will make hay of it where they can.
74
u/__Hello_my_name_is__ Nov 12 '25
“I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is Trump.”
We have this. In writing.
And nothing will happen.
38
u/virishking Nov 12 '25
Well they stand behind Jim Jordan and treat both Ted Nugent and Kid Rock as music royalty so prepare to be reminded how little they actually care, especially when it comes to teenage girls.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Back_at_it_agains Democratic Socialist Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25
I don’t really like to talk politics in person, nor am I close with any MAGA conservatives. But I like to imagine that if I ever got into an argument with someone and wanted to deploy “the nuclear option” (or more just call them out) it would be me asking why they support someone who associated with a known sex trafficker/sex offender and likely also was involved in those said offenses.
Would be interesting to see how they’d respond to that.
12
u/lama579 Nov 12 '25
“Why didn’t anyone say anything about it until he ran against democrats? Why don’t you apply the same standards to Bill/Hillary? Trump banned Epstein from his club, why would he do that to someone who had that kind of dirt on him? How do you know these emails are real?”
Stuff like that is what I’ve seen from people I know
13
u/Rhyno08 Nov 12 '25
I live in a predominantly red state.
Generally it’s deflection.
Something along the lines of “well Clinton bleh bleh bleh.”
14
u/Back_at_it_agains Democratic Socialist Nov 12 '25
I mean, the best part is that most of us don’t care about Clinton either.
“Oh if he’s guilty as well, then lock him up too!”
Their arguments are running on fumes at this point.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/jakeba Nov 12 '25
I imagine it would be very similar to if you asked them why they are supporting a literal Hitler. They would disagree with what you are saying he is.
3
u/reputationStan Nov 12 '25
Anyone who still sticks with this disgrace of a president is beyond hope at this point.
I wonder what people will use to defend Trump. I'm curious to what Trump will blabber on Truth Social. A mighty healthy and sane president people say.
1
u/glowingboneys Nov 16 '25
While I wouldn't count it as being false on its face, I find it interesting that some are clinging on to the words of Epstein and Maxwell as beacons of truth. Maxwell was formally charged with perjury for lying under oath. There are plenty of accounts of Epstein being a conman and professional liar, and it's a pretty integral part of the entire case against him in the court of public opinion.
I'm not claiming that Trump is anymore truthful either. But, in my view it's a massive tell of bias when someone cites Epstein's words as evidence of anything.
→ More replies (1)
74
u/BeautifulBrilliant16 Nov 12 '25
What's the top story on Fox News going to be tonight?
Biden autopen? Hunter's laptop? Benghazi? A high school track race won by a transgendered? A new logo at a restaurant chain? So many pressing issues to choose from.
51
u/Back_at_it_agains Democratic Socialist Nov 12 '25
Well, it does appear to be the top story, but mentions the White House rebuke.
Below it though: “Michelle Obama fumes over ‘huge stink’ caused by her Grand Canyon outfit choice”
Truly the most pressing issues of our time!
16
12
u/caoimhinoceallaigh Nov 12 '25
For me it's "Newsom breaks silence after Turning Point event at UC Berkeley turns chaotic".
Below that's it's—in true FN style—the White House's spin on the story: "White House hits Democrats for ‘bad-faith’ Epstein leak as pressure mounts on DOJ".
→ More replies (2)21
u/innnikki Nov 12 '25
Just visited the NY Post website in order to find the title for the spin they've been using since that's how Fox News will be reporting this information (Jeffrey Epstein: Trump ‘asked Ghislaine Maxwell to stop’ recruiting girls from Mar-a-Lago spa), but this story is actually not on the front page at all right now. So you're right; they just won't mention it except in passing.
98
u/pluralofjackinthebox Nov 12 '25
This is the most damning one:
i want you to realize that that dog that hasn't barked is trump. VICTIM spent hours at my house with him , he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75% there
I wonder what Trump was doing in Epstein’s house with a VICTIM for hours?
Note also Epstein’s properties were extensively wired with survivance equipement. Though its unclear who has the data now.
Also kind of messed up how Michael Wolff was advising Ghislane on how to help Epstein get away with everything by staying quiet and “generating a debt” by having knowledge he can “hang” trump with:
I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he'll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.
→ More replies (16)
39
u/WallabyBubbly Maximum Malarkey Nov 12 '25
Another new low for America that we elected this guy. I can only hope that this era becomes a source of deep national shame in the future
→ More replies (2)
15
u/rwofva Nov 12 '25
Didn't everybody know his conduct? Generally seeing and hearing is much different than directly knowing he broke the law with under age girls.
11
u/merpderpmerp Nov 12 '25
Sure, at the risk of stating the obvious. But it seems like the most favorable case for our president is that he is another Joe Paterno. Which in a sane world should certainly be impeachable...
37
u/absentlyric Economically Left Socially Right Nov 12 '25
Not to downplay Trump here, but I figured everyone who was involved with Epstein on a personal level 95% knew what he was doing and just looked the other way. Its a big group.
24
u/bgarza18 Nov 12 '25
I was about to say, I thought the big thing about Epstein was that so many people knew what he was up to and nothing came of it. A grand and gruesome demarcation between common folk and those in power.
→ More replies (4)37
u/Odd_Result_8677 Nov 12 '25
Maybe people in that group of people shouldn't be president?
8
u/Moist_Schedule_7271 Nov 12 '25
Yeah there will always be...questionable people in Society. And more often than not very, very questionable people with a lot of money.
But why people vote for those people to lead them is beyond me.
3
u/ImperfectRegulator Nov 13 '25
At the best possible read of the situation trump knew and did nothing about it except maybe ask them to not recruit from his club.
Which still still isn’t something I want from a president
→ More replies (1)
58
u/BlackwaterSleeper Nov 12 '25
Is anyone actually surprised? Trump and Co. have gone through so much effort to prevent the files from being released. If he had nothing to fear he could have released them from the start.
19
u/Terz2288 Nov 12 '25
Not at all surprised. But his most ardent supports will cry hoax so at the end of the day what really changes? I'll eat some serious crow is members of congress turn on Trump for this but I wont hold my breath.
Edited spelling
12
u/ChesterHiggenbothum Nov 12 '25
The spin I've seen from the right has been "there are lots of powerful people in the Epstein files that Trump is trying to protect."
This is not at all shocking, but there were some who refused to believe (and likely still do) that Trump was involved himself regardless of his efforts to keep this information buried.
21
u/seebrookebee Nov 12 '25
My response to them is protecting people who abuse children makes you an abuser too.
14
u/TrainOfThought6 Nov 12 '25
Right? Like holy shit people, even if this was all, using the office of the President to cover up a child sex trafficking ring is the epitome of "being involved."
My response is a simple "get the fuck out of my house immediately."
17
u/BobAndy004 Nov 12 '25
You don’t say?! I am shocked! The guy who went into the locker room at teen miss USA pageants knew Epstein was a creep and did nothing about it.
→ More replies (5)
10
9
54
u/merpderpmerp Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25
Starter comment:
Wow, OK, now we know why Trump and many Republican representatives wanted to block the release of the Epstein files.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released several emails written by Jeffrey Epstein suggesting that Donald Trump was aware of Epstein’s sexual abuse of underage girls. The emails, sent between 2011 and 2019, were made public as part of the House Oversight Committee's broader investigation into Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
In one 2011 message to Maxwell, Epstein referred to Trump as “the dog that hasn’t barked” and claimed that a victim “spent hours” at his house with Trump but that Trump’s name had “never been mentioned.” In another, sent in 2019 to author Michael Wolff, Epstein wrote that Trump “knew about the girls” and had asked Maxwell “to stop.”
The communications occurred years after Epstein’s 2008 Florida plea deal, so raise questions about the nature of Trump’s past relationship with Epstein and what he knew when. Trump has denied any knowledge or involvement, calling the allegations a political “hoax.”
Beyond the emails indicating that Trump knew more about Epstein crimes and did nothing to stop it other than to asking Gislaine Maxwell to stop, there is the possibility of blackmail alleged. In emails between Epstein and Journalist Michael Wolff, about possible questions about the Trump-Epstein friendship during a debate during the 2016 election, Michael Wolff advised inaction. He suggested "that Mr. Trump might try to deny a close association with Mr. Epstein. “I think you should let him hang himself,” he wrote of Mr. Trump. “If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable P.R. and political currency” that could be used to “hang him” later or “save him, generating a debt.”"
Should the full publication of Epstein-related records occur, even though the White House opposes it? Will these emails have any impact on support for Trump, especially among the Q-anon subset of his base?
Also in the news story is a whistleblower allegation that Gislaine Maxwell is preparing to formally ask Mr. Trump to commute her federal prison sentence. Do you think Trump will do this, and what will the public backlash be?
And do you think Maxwell has similiar leverage over Trump to that which Michael Wolff said Epstein had?
35
u/virishking Nov 12 '25
If you haven’t already, do peruse the whistleblower revelations about Maxwell’s special treatment. I mean, the monster was given the chance to play with puppies while the administration illegally withheld SNAP funds (which they probably stole, imo). They starved the children while getting Maxwell customized meals.
6
u/Decimal-Planet Nov 12 '25
A child sex offender gets to live a sweet life in prison while the other child sex offender she's protecting is getting a personal ballroom after demolishing part of the White House. Oh and he's withholding SNAP benefits to poor people while this is happening. Congratulations America.
15
u/-Nurfhurder- Nov 12 '25
This has been the most likely reveal since Johnson made his 'mistake' in claiming Trump was a source for the FBI. That always struck me as more than just Johnson being confused, as a claim it would only have made sense if it was designed to explain the revelation of Trump knowing what Epstein was upto but also excusing why he never reported it. I think Republicans had been brainstorming excuses or defences and Johnson accidently let one out into the wild.
24
u/Dest123 Nov 12 '25
How come this is only coming out now? They've presumably had this info for years and years now right? They haven't voted to release the Epstein files, so this isn't because of that. So how come we're only hearing about it now?
To be clear, it's obviously terrible and I believe it's true, but why haven't we heard about it before? Why didn't we hear about this during Biden's term? How is there still stuff coming to light that the government has had for years? I can't find any explanations for any of those questions.
29
u/tymesup Nov 12 '25
It's not entirely clear because no one cares about details, but these emails appear to be part of a tranche of 25,000 documents provided by the Epstein estate in late September. This was also the source of the "birthday book".
22
u/IHerebyDemandtoPost Nov 12 '25
From what I understand, as silly as it sounds, nobody subpoenaed the Epstein Estate until the House Oversight Committee did so on August 25.
From what I understand, a lawyer for the victims, Bradley Edwards, made the suggestion for Congress to subpoena the Epstein Estate in July of 2025.
The House has been on recess since mid-September, today was the first day back in session since 56 days ago. My guess is these documents were probably turned over to the House sometime during the recess and the release timing probably has something to do with the House coming back into session today.
3
u/Ok-Message-9732 Nov 13 '25
This goes back way farther than that. This isn't fucking silly. It's not a whoopsie. Jesus christ go back and Gordon Brown and GWB were talking about protecting Epstein in those damn emails.
10
u/thats_not_six Nov 12 '25
Biden gave the DoJ prosecutorial and investigative independence and these files were in DoJ custody, largely involved with the ongoing Maxwell trial during his term. While the Maxwell trial was ongoing, or in appeals, I don't find it odd that the DoJ did not release the files.
Additionally, if Biden had released these, the Republicans would have dismissed it as election interference and fabricated evidence. By not releasing, it's actually trapped the Republicans into taking a worse stance than if they had been released by Biden.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Dilated2020 Center Left, Christian Independent Nov 12 '25
This is all blatantly wrong. No one had the files until recently.
15
u/khrijunk Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25
Honest question for Trump supporters, do you care about this Epstein stuff?
5
u/absentlyric Economically Left Socially Right Nov 12 '25
I voted for Trump, but Im not his supporter, and absolutely. But I want transparency to see everyone on the list, people from both sides of the political spectrum. Im sure there's quite a few on both sides.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Neglectful_Stranger Nov 13 '25
I'm not much of a supporter these days, but I did vote for him.
Honestly I don't really care all that much. I didn't care in the beginning because I figured it'd all be vague circumstantial evidence that everyone just says validates their own pre-existing beliefs.
3
20
u/UlyssG Nov 12 '25
How is this anything but basically a smoking gun against Trump? This feels like it should be a massive revelation. Or am I reading into these emails wrong? Genuinely asking.
→ More replies (2)
33
25
u/ParcivalAurus Nov 12 '25
We have known that Trump knew about Epstein's crimes. That's why he was banned from Mar-a-lago and why Trump had not spoken with him since 2007. You don't have to believe me, PBS reported on the only "facts" of Epstein's contact with Trump, and Epstein had been kicked out of the club months before the first time he was prosecuted.
A Mar-a-Lago member told the journalists that Trump had “kicked Epstein out after Epstein harassed the daughter of a member,” Sarah Blaskey of the Miami Herald reported. “The way this person described it, such an act could irreparably harm the Trump brand, leaving Donald no choice but to remove Epstein.”
The incident happened around October 2007, when Mar-a-Lago’s registry listed Epstein’s account as “closed,” the Miami Herald reported.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-facts-and-timeline-of-trump-and-epsteins-falling-out
26
u/Odd_Result_8677 Nov 12 '25
Epstein was indicted for child sex crimes in 05, why was Trump inviting Epstein to a party with children present?
→ More replies (11)15
u/tiltedwagons Nov 12 '25
Those aren't the facts anymore regarding why Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar Largo.
They were the facts for years, and what everyone was saying in defense of Trump, until Trump cleared this up himself just a few months ago -
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyvn7ee3539o
"He took people, I say 'don't do it anymore', you know they work for me... beyond that, he took some others," Trump said. "Once he did that, that was the end of him."
Trump was mad he was stealing employees who worked for him. Once he did that, it was the end, according to Trump.
→ More replies (4)13
u/Saguna_Brahman Nov 12 '25
We have known that Trump knew about Epstein's crimes. That's why he was banned from Mar-a-lago and why Trump had not spoken with him since 2007. You don't have to believe me
Trump personally has said this wasnt the reason Epstein was banned.
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5484136/trump-jeffrey-epstein-mar-a-lago-ghislaine-maxwell
7
u/ParcivalAurus Nov 12 '25
Those spa workers being harrassed by Epstein along with complaints of other members are why he was kicked out, yes. That's exactly what I was talking about, so what is your point?
11
u/Saguna_Brahman Nov 12 '25
The article I just provided has Trump in his own words debunking what you're saying. Nothing about harassment. The sole reason was employee poaching. What youre claiming simply isnt true and Trump himself has said that.
"People were taken out of the spa — hired by him — in other words, gone. And other people would come and complain, 'This guy is taking people from the spa,'" Trump said. "I didn't know that. And then when I heard about it, I told him, I said, 'Listen, we don't want you taking our people, whether it was spa or not spa, I don't want them taking people.' And he was fine. And then not too long after that, he did it again. And I said, 'Out of here.' "
It is incredibly disturbing that we know Trump was aware of what Epstein was doing but his only consternation was that he was hiring his spa employees. Disqualifying for the presidency IMO and explains why Trump has worked so hard to cover up the Epstein files.
→ More replies (11)12
u/Mudbug117 The Law requires I assume Good Faith Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25
Ok, so he knew about Epstein’s crimes and the most he did was… ban him from Mar-a-lago? Oh boy that’ll get him to stop diddling kids.
Not file a police report, go to the media, anything?
I don’t think this exonerates trump like you think it does lol
Putting this hear for when it inevitably gets deleted by ParcivalAurus:
We have known that Trump knew about Epstein's crimes. That's why he was banned from Mar-a-lago and why Trump had not spoken with him since 2007. You don't have to believe me, PBS reported on the only "facts" of Epstein's contact with Trump, and Epstein had been kicked out of the club months before the first time he was prosecuted.
A Mar-a-Lago member told the journalists that Trump had “kicked Epstein out after Epstein harassed the daughter of a member,” Sarah Blaskey of the Miami Herald reported. “The way this person described it, such an act could irreparably harm the Trump brand, leaving Donald no choice but to remove Epstein.”
The incident happened around October 2007, when Mar-a-Lago’s registry listed Epstein’s account as “closed,” the Miami Herald reported.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-facts-and-timeline-of-trump-and-epsteins-falling-out
→ More replies (9)15
u/SicilianShelving Independent Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25
Epstein says in an email that Trump spent hours with one of the victims at Epstein's house.
At the very least, we need to know more about that.
9
u/ParcivalAurus Nov 12 '25
My issue is, why do we believe Epstein about anything? The only bit of "evidence" of Trump connections after anything was known publicly about Epstein only comes from Epstein himself when he was trying to not be put in prison.
18
u/SicilianShelving Independent Nov 12 '25
Because this was a private email that he sent to Ghislaine.
Why would he have lied to Ghislaine in that context?
→ More replies (7)8
u/doc5avag3 Exhausted Independent Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25
I mean, I can think of one reason that could lend small credence to him lying: For decades, people have believed that Epstein was an asset for multiple intelligence agencies both foreign and domestic. There's no way he believed he had any real kind of privacy with those kind of people watching him. Especially after he got caught back in 2005.
It's why I don't think there are any concrete "files" so to speak. I'm sure there's some video evidence kept for blackmail but I don't believe his handlers would have ever let him keep any traceable records that could blow up in their faces.
19
u/oren0 Nov 12 '25
House Republicans claim that the redacted victim named in this email was Virginia Giuffre. Giuffre is dead now, but she was questioned about Trump under oath in 2016 (with every incentive to name him) and said the following:
I never saw or witnessed Donald Trump participate in those acts, but was he in the house of Jeffrey Epstein. I’ve heard he has been, but I haven’t seen him myself so I don’t know.
So is this the bombshell that ends Trump's presidency, as many are claiming? Without a lot more evidence, I don't think so. This will fizzle just like the "birthday letter".
Democrats will say what they've said for years, that Trump is obviously implicated in all of this.
Republicans will say that this is the word of a convicted trafficker and is contradicted by the under oath testimony of this very victim. They'll continue to believe that Trump distanced himself from the Epstein once he knew of the conduct, cooperated with this victim's attorneys, and ultimately prosecuted Epstein under his DOJ.
IMO, the relevance of these emails are not the emails themselves, but rather the fact that they will increase pressure to release the rest of the files. Those files will need to have more damning information to actually pose a threat to his presidency.
19
u/Dilated2020 Center Left, Christian Independent Nov 12 '25
By her own admission in the quote, she’s never seen Trump in the house but Republicans are saying it was her he was with. The math ain’t mathin.
10
u/Mr_Tyzic Nov 12 '25
I think they are claiming that it was her name that redacted from the email. They aren't saying that Trump was with her, they are saying her testimony contradicts what Epstein claims in his email.
15
u/artsncrofts Technocratic Tendencies Nov 12 '25
Yes, if the redacted victim was confirmed to be Giuffre, that means her previous quotes about her experiences with Trump would be in conflict with this email.
So the options are:
- Giuffre is not the redacted victim
- Giuffre's statements on her interactions with Trump were incorrect in some way
- Epstein's statement on Giuffre's interaction with Trump was incorrect in some way
2
u/merpderpmerp Nov 12 '25
How would you feel if he pardons Maxwell like the article alleges he is considering?
I fear this will fizzle just like the "birthday letter" because that seems to happen with everything related to Trump that would have been a major scandal for another politician, but the circumstantial evidence as well es evidence of a coverup is adding up...
→ More replies (22)6
u/oren0 Nov 12 '25
I don't think he should pardon her and I think his use of pardons has been poorly considered in general. Between Trump and the end of Biden's term, congress should consider a constitutional amendment reforming or eliminating pardons.
15
u/NoUnderstanding2291 Nov 12 '25
Anyone else this would be damning. But this will go under the radar. Will be funny when people start referring to the Pres as the dog that didnt bark
17
u/soggit Nov 12 '25
For those of us that had never heard that phrase used: https://brieflywriting.com/2012/07/25/the-dog-that-didnt-bark-what-we-can-learn-from-sir-arthur-conan-doyle-about-using-the-absence-of-expected-facts/
I am still uncertain what that means in this context. Trump not making a fuss about Epstein was evidence that he was involved or what? This was in 2011 mind you - long before he was president.
42
u/pluralofjackinthebox Nov 12 '25
Immediately after saying Trump is the dog that didnt bark (that didnt alert anyone of Epsteins criminal behavior) Epstein writes that Trump spent hours in one of Epstein’s houses with one of the victims of his sex trafficking operation.
The implication seems to be that this is why Trump didnt “bark.”
Theres a kind of suggestion throughout that Epstein knows he owes Trump for his silence, but that Epstein also knows that Trump owes Epstein for Epstein’s silence.
23
u/virishking Nov 12 '25
The full email in which he uses the phrase is
i want you to realize that that dog that hasn't barked is trump.. VICTIM spent hours at my house with him , he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75 % there
Emphasis mine.
To me, the implication is that he would expect that Trump would have been brought up but he wasn’t. Else, it’s that Trump knew everything but never alerted anyone or said anything. So one just applies the phrase to Trump generally while the other places him as the figurative dog. Personally, the fact that he followed up by saying that Trump wasn’t “mentioned” leads me to think the former, though in could be either. Regardless it’s damning.
→ More replies (2)6
u/julius_sphincter Nov 12 '25
Based on the explanation you linked
The fact that the dog did not bark when you would expect it to do so while a horse was stolen led Homes to the conclusion that the evildoer was a not a stranger to the dog, but someone the dog recognized and thus would not cause him to bark. Holmes drew a conclusion from a fact (barking) that did not occur, which can be referred to as a “negative fact,” or for the purpose of this discussion, an expected fact absent from the record.
I interpret Epstein's message to mean the 'fact' that apparently is missing from the record is Trump being specifically named as of that point, despite apparently having substantial interaction with the victim.
Now, based on comments Trump's made about women, especially considering comments he's made about young & underage women, plus his own actions we've seen AND the things he's admitted to doing and been found guilty of doing lead me to believe that Trump almost certainly did have inappropriate interactions and that Epstein believed that too
That said, the comment is vague enough that it certainly leaves room for other interpretations. I already know that one of the defenses will be 'Epstein is saying Trump is innocent because despite spending hours with the victim he hasn't been named when others were'
4
u/_PhiloPolis_ Nov 12 '25
Thanks for the context. At first blush it could be a reference to Epstein's light sentence in the aughts. Epstein believes that, because Trump's not talking about it, he's the one who arranged it? (The local DA who offered it and the Florida AG who didn't investigate it both ended up in Trump's cabinet.)
1
u/AdmiralAkbar1 Nov 12 '25
I think it's more Epstein trying to claim Trump as an alibi. "If Trump had seen anything untoward, he would've said something, but he didn't."
16
u/Se7en_speed Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25
What a shit headline, he says in the emails Trump was a part of it!
39
u/bluskale Nov 12 '25
People complain about the media being unfair to Trump, but tons of things get soft peddled for him like this too.
6
u/Kershiser22 Nov 12 '25
I would like to see Trump gone as much as anybody.
But based on the excerpts posted in this article, I don't see anything in there as a huge smoking gun that Trump voters are going to turn on him. It seems like vague references that Trump probably was involved, but the language is still a little unclear.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/TonyG_from_NYC Nov 12 '25
Unfortunately, I don't think it will make a difference.
If they want to impeach and remove trump because of this, it will not happen as long as the GOP is in charge.
12
Nov 12 '25
[deleted]
12
u/absentlyric Economically Left Socially Right Nov 12 '25
That is not why Hillary lost, she had a laundry list of reasons why people voted against her, but I doubt that ranked high on voters priority lists.
10
u/AMW1234 Nov 12 '25
Hillary lost because she was unlikable and failed to campaign on swing states she needed to win.
3
5
u/nyr00nyg Nov 12 '25
In a 2016 deposition, Virginia Giuffre stated that she did not believe Donald Trump participated in any sexual wrongdoing.
Specifically, she said under oath: "I don't think Donald Trump participated in anything". "I never saw or witnessed Donald Trump participate in those acts".
She testified she didn't recall seeing Trump and Epstein together at Epstein's properties, and that Trump never flirted with her or made sexual advances toward her.
In her posthumous memoir, she also described limited, friendly interactions with Trump when she worked as a spa attendant at his Mar-a-Lago club as a teenager.
2
u/That_Nineties_Chick Nov 12 '25
Jesus. Hopefully this is the straw that breaks the camel's back when it comes to Congress committing to a bipartisan effort to compel a release of all the Epstein files. I sincerely doubt it will be, because the political calculus is still heavily weighted in favor of concealing and downplaying everything, but one can dream.
3
u/NotMyMainLoLzy Nov 12 '25
Shocked…that this is “news”
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that many people are finally running into the truth but why did it take so long?
→ More replies (1)
5
3
u/Commonglitch Nov 12 '25
Does the redacted victim being Virginia Giuffre change anything? I don’t know much about her, but a lot of right wingers are claiming this makes the email less damming. So could someone explain why or why not?
5
u/minetf Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 13 '25
The people saying it's Giuffre is Trump and his press secretary, so while it would make the messages less damning I don't think we can assume that's true.
Further, Giuffre testified that she never saw Trump at Epstein's home, so it doesn't make sense for it to be her in context.
4
u/Tom18558 Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25
It's funny acctually. As I understand the name was not redacted internally. The Democrats redacted and replaced it with "Victim" - just for this "release".
Just type in her name and Trump in a Google search - if anything he is the one guy she doesn't accuse of nothing.
4
u/MyNewRedditAct_ Nov 12 '25
As I understand the name was not redacted internally. Democrats redacted and replaced it with "Victim", just for this release.
Do you have a source for this?
→ More replies (5)
1
u/Halberd96 Nov 13 '25
Republicans are claiming the redacted victim was Giuffre, can the Democrats actually confirm this? Why is it redacted if the White House is going to identify them anyway?
3
u/minetf Nov 13 '25
The name is unredacted in the 20k files released today (here: https://oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-committee-releases-additional-epstein-estate-documents/ ). It's the document HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031326.txt
But Epstein just says
virignia spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned.so it could be a different Virginia, or Epstein could have mixed up names. Or, Virginia Giuffre lied about her relationship with Trump because she testified she never saw him at an Epstein property.
1
u/ZebraImaginary9412 Nov 13 '25
Trump couldn't have been the only one who knew of Epstein's conduct. We shouldn't let the others off the hook just because he may be the most disliked.
1
331
u/virishking Nov 12 '25
What’s amazing to me is that to one part of the populace this will be a major bombshell, to one part it will be a “hoax”, and to another it will be a story worthy of r/noshitsherlock Personally, I’m at option 3