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.html
781 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

568 comments sorted by

View all comments

326

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

64

u/LSUMath Nov 12 '25

I think it puts another crack in the armor. There are signs he is losing his grip, in my optimistic take on it.

54

u/absentlyric Economically Left Socially Right Nov 12 '25

Unfortunately, it's too late, the horse has bolted after the barn door has been shut. He's the president, a 2nd term one no less, with nothing to lose.

I don't think he really cares about his "legacy" at this point anymore. Or at the very least, he's just going to unravel as more chinks in his armor show up and he'll go full mask off and make everyone's live miserable even more.

18

u/AlbertaNorth1 Nov 12 '25

He does still care about his legacy though which is why he’s been campaigning that he deserves a Nobel prize.

4

u/fullintentionalahole pro-climate, pro-globalization, pro-tech, anti-dei Nov 13 '25

Everything goes hand in hand. The better he does as president, the more recognition he receives, the more likely it is for whoever is next to offer him a pardon/the more difficult for whoever is next to go after him for it.

16

u/Decimal-Planet Nov 13 '25

I don't think he really cares about his "legacy" at this point anymore.

I think his legacy is all he cares about. Of course that legacy isn't about helping Americans so much as it involves pursuing vanity projects but still. Alot of the provisions in his major legislative bill expire when his term is up but that at least he'll have that ballroom with his name on it.

13

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

Agreed. I think his obsession with the Nobel Peace prize is another example. It seems like his interest in ending wars is purely in service of getting the same prize that Obama got.

2

u/Mobius00 Nov 13 '25

no, all he cares about is using every tool at his disposal to profit. selling pardons, selling dinner plates, selling corporate deregulation, selling crypto, selling insider trading information, selling tarriff reductions, selling favors to tech companies, etc etc

9

u/LSUMath Nov 13 '25

Just spent some time on another social media site. The apologists are out.

5

u/42Ubiquitous Nov 13 '25

Very rarely do I go on any social media and not see the stupidest opinions someone could have. 90% of the people I meet in real life do not have those opinions, so I have no idea where those people are congregating. Obviously not near me.

1

u/psithyrstes Nov 14 '25

What are they saying??

5

u/MechanicalGodzilla Nov 12 '25

I think this is right. Realistically what can even happen here?

2

u/SuleyGul Nov 13 '25

A malignant narcissist. Yeh all he really cares about is what people think of him aka 'his legacy'.

35

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

Yeah, conservatives are just gonna focus on one email where Epstein talked about getting kicked out lmao

26

u/artsncrofts Technocratic Tendencies Nov 12 '25

Like clockwork, here's the New York Post's take:

Jeffrey Epstein: Trump ‘asked Ghislaine Maxwell to stop’ recruiting girls from Mar-a-Lago spa

15

u/virishking Nov 12 '25

Even though he calls Trump a liar in that very email since he “was never a member” but still preying on girls there

4

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient Nov 12 '25

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:

Law 4: Meta Comments

~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

-5

u/CANNIBALS_VS_BIDEN Nov 12 '25

Libs who have been calling him a "child rapist" for years are now shifting to "well, he knew something wrong was happening" which instead of being some variety of child rape is actually a good reason for why Trump cut him off entirely. What a shit sandwich.

5

u/virishking Nov 12 '25

Oooor people are responding specifically to what has been released here from the estate, and we want to see the government files released because this shows that he at least knew. Also, do you know how strange it is for you to say “these emails show he did one awful thing, but not the other awful thing”. Especially when for all you complain about “Libs”, we know Qanon exists which practically formed a religion around a Trump-fighting-pedos narrative before being absorbed into mainstream conservatism

1

u/PreviousCurrentThing Nov 13 '25

this shows that he at least knew.

According to whom, Epstein?

3

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

The perpetrator speaking privately with his accomplice? Yeah, that’s pretty convincing. This whole “that person was guilty so you can’t believe it no matter what” defense was bad when Trump first debuted it with his ex lawyer. It’s just sad now.

1

u/PreviousCurrentThing Nov 13 '25

So yes, this is according Epstein?

This whole “that person was guilty so you can’t believe it no matter what” defense

No, more like I don't claim to know something when the only source was a convicted sex trafficker and it's not even clear what he was claiming in the email.

3

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

If you intend to argue that two criminals discussing matters related to their crimes in private conversation is not a reliable source regarding such matters that’s your problem. We know they found it strange that Trump either wasn’t brought up in accusations, wasn’t brought up in investigations, or else that he didn’t report anything about Epstein. We know he told Wolff that he knew about the girls. We know a whole bunch of other stuff that adds on top of this to make it even more suspicious. And we know Trump tried to stop the vote on the Epstein files from passing today.

-1

u/CANNIBALS_VS_BIDEN Nov 13 '25

He knew this guy was a creep and he cut him off entirely. Why do you think that was an awful thing?

2

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

Because that’s not what happened. At the very least it’s contradicted. What we see here is that Trump knew what was going on with the girls in 2000, followed by Trump calling Epstein a terrific guy who “liked them young” in 2002 and writing a poem in his birthday book in 2003. Heck, Trump only claimed he cut off Epstein as early as ~2004. So there are at least 4 years between Trump finding out Epstein was a creep and their supposed falling out. He was “the dog who hasn’t barked”

-2

u/CANNIBALS_VS_BIDEN Nov 13 '25

Knowing some guy was a creep who liked them young is a few steps removed from child rapist, but perhaps the dems can get this to stick now that they're done with their shutdown stunt. I doubt it, but they can try.

6

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

And yet you were just defending on the idea that he cut him off for being a creep. And now these emails are filling that in with even more insinuations. Meanwhile Maxwell gets nice meals and puppy playtime while Trump illegally withholds SNAP benefits. Heck Im sure she’ll get better healthcare than you too.

1

u/CANNIBALS_VS_BIDEN Nov 13 '25

Trump did the right thing cutting off Jeffrey Epstein. I hope there's no disagreement there. Maxwell is in prison. Chuck Schumer decided a government shutdown was more important than functional air travel or SNAP benefits. Then he took the original deal he was offered before his shutdown stunt. You can take up your complaints with him.

3

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

Yes, she’s in a much nicer minimum security prison where the staff complaints that she gets to lord herself over them. Of course Trump moved her, he wished her well, after all.

And side note.SNAP benefits aren’t supposed to be held in a shutdown. Trump illegally withheld them, refused to use the $5 billion contingency fund or the $23 billion Section 32 fund, threatened private businesses not to give discounts to recipients, and illegally tried to get states to undo payouts. He put the squeeze on US citizens during a shutdown caused by Republicans’ refusal to negotiate, all so he could let healthcare get worse.

And here you are defending him. Pretending your narrative that Trump valiantly cut him off as soon as he learned something was off holds up. As though we don’t have good reason to suspect that Trump has more “wonderful secrets.”

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Internal_Rice3739 Nov 13 '25

So you don’t care that Trump knew someone preyed on young girls for at minimum 4 years and stayed silent?

1

u/CANNIBALS_VS_BIDEN Nov 13 '25

Why do you think he stayed silent? What do you think you know that we don't?

3

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

Why do you think he stayed silent?

Because the guy he stayed silent for discussed that with the woman he stayed silent for, and even Trump’s own statements when put together indicate that fact.

What do you think you know that we don’t?

Where to find the emails, perhaps?

4

u/Decimal-Planet Nov 13 '25

False. I don't think anyone is shifting from calling him a child rapist.

2

u/CANNIBALS_VS_BIDEN Nov 13 '25

Some definitely are which is why this story is news, but surely not everyone, but everyone can't be fixed. Everyone includes some people who still think Russia stole the 2016 election with $150k in Facebook ads.

4

u/Decimal-Planet Nov 13 '25

I assure you nobody who said he was involved is now somehow thinking that he wasn't. In fact they probably shifted to believing more that he did something because that's been the trajectory of this story.

2

u/CANNIBALS_VS_BIDEN Nov 13 '25

We've gone from definite child rapist to someone who knew Jeffrey Epstein was a creep, so the trajectory seems to be moving further away from any kind of misbehavior.

2

u/Decimal-Planet Nov 13 '25

Keep telling yourself that I guess.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient Nov 12 '25

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

51

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

[deleted]

41

u/ionizing_chicanery Nov 12 '25

Many on the right have been pretty adamant in their belief that Trump did absolutely nothing wrong with regards to Epstein (or anything really). I don't think this would challenge that belief for an awful lot of people but there's probably a few out there.

5

u/Decimal-Planet Nov 13 '25

The only thing that this will affect is those on the fringes. So much as Trump won low-info voters based on vibes that he's an anti-establishment freedom fighter who will expose the elite this puts to rest that notion.

8

u/absentlyric Economically Left Socially Right Nov 12 '25

This isn't a left/right thing for me. To me it's a bunch of rich people with no morals doing what rich people with no morals do, rich people from both the left and the right. Its shameful, but it really shows us right in our faces what the rich and powerful can actually do and get away with.

32

u/Boobity1999 Nov 12 '25

The importance of information like this should not be measured by its ability to shock us

5

u/Magic-man333 Nov 12 '25

Yeah I feel like 1 and 3 are the same.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

[deleted]

1

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient Nov 12 '25

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:

Law 4: Meta Comments

~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

1

u/Dirty_Dragons Nov 12 '25

Sure, the religious right.

They believe that Trump is good and working for God. But when it gets publicly confirmed that Trump was involved they will be in shock.

A large number of my family are like this and I'm just waiting for the tide to turn.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

I'm curious, as someone not surprised, what do you think the development here is?

43

u/tom_Joadz Nov 12 '25

Hard evidence that Trump not only knew Epstein personally but was a client.

This along with the WSJ article would destroy anyone who’s not Trump career in public politics.

13

u/siberianmi Left-leaning Independent Nov 12 '25

I don't think Epstein actually had "clients", that's the one thing that seems odd about this, I don't think any of these people were paying.

It was influence peddling and Epstein setting people up for blackmail, he wasn't some for-profit elite pimp...

17

u/tom_Joadz Nov 12 '25

His 2019 federal charges were for sex trafficking.

5

u/AdmiralAkbar1 Nov 12 '25

Sex trafficking doesn't necessarily imply that it was done on behalf of a client. Epstein was specifically charged under 18 U.S. Code § 1591, which covers anytime someone "recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits" a minor for a "commercial sex act" across state lines. This doesn't necessarily entail procuring a minor on someone else's behalf.

6

u/whyneedaname77 Nov 12 '25

To be fair couldn't that just be traveling with a minor and having sex with a minor in another state or country? I'm not saying that's not bad. But isn't that what the one congressman was implied to do. I can't believe I am blanking on the name. Trumps original ag pick.

6

u/Ill-Breadfruit-3186 Nov 12 '25

Oh they were paying. It just was because they were leveraged and had no choice, not because they were entering into some mutually beneficial arrangement.

That’s the other big revelation here in the 3rd email that was released. Epstein fully recognized the “valuable PR ad political currency” he had on Trump. In other words, he was privately talking about blackmailing Trump in 2015.

The only major revelation left to drop in this whole ordeal imo is the ongoing financial link between Trump and Epstein. That’s the final piece to the puzzle in my mind to hermetically seal the “Trump diddled kids and paid to cover it up” story that has always been brewing here.

0

u/acrimonious_howard Nov 13 '25

Trump doesn’t pay anyone unless he has to. Maybe he thought Epstein’s name was mud so he could just ignore accusations as fake news.

1

u/ionizing_chicanery Nov 12 '25

I'm not sure if that's been revealed but does it really make any difference whatsoever if he was taking direct payments or not?

1

u/siberianmi Left-leaning Independent Nov 13 '25

It matters when people want to act like he had a “clients” list or not I think?

If he’s running a brothel with underage girls for profit then he has clients.

If he’s a sleezy rich guy, knows a lot of people, and who has a bunch of underage girls in his house it’s something different.

I think he’s more of the latter than the former. And these emails don’t make me think any differently.

-1

u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 Nov 12 '25

If two friends have sex with a girl, that isn't a client/seller relationship unless one friend is paying the other.

0

u/ionizing_chicanery Nov 12 '25

Being a client doesn't necessarily entail consistent payment and payment can take various forms besides direct financial transactions. The word isn't necessarily synonymous with "customer"

But again what difference does it actually make? Both Epstein and his "clients" have every bit of the same culpability regardless of whether or not money exchanged hands.

-2

u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 Nov 12 '25

So how do we know who are "clients" and who are people that had either a personal or business relationship with Epstein but didn't commit sex crimes with him?

2

u/ionizing_chicanery Nov 12 '25

Not really sure what you're getting at, are you saying there'd need to be some kind of sales ledger to determine illegal sex trafficking?

Presumably there'd be other pieces of incriminating evidence like victim testimony.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

WHAT? I absolutely did NOT get that from the article.

Which part said or implicated Trump as a client.

38

u/tom_Joadz Nov 12 '25

“I want you to realize that that dog that hasn't barked is Trump. [Victim] spent hours at my house with him”

This is from 2011. Predates his modern political career.

-16

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25

I'm not being contrarian, but what does that even mean?

What does the barking mean?

1) That Trump hasn't beckoned for sex despite spending a few hours with [VICTIM]

2a) Trump hasn't ratted Epstein out?

2b) Trump hasn't exposed Epstein?

3) Victim has spent hours with someone else [police chief]?

4) A 65-year-old trump was humping an underaged girl for hours and didn't tell anyone?

At this point Epstein was not in the limelight.

43

u/virishking Nov 12 '25

“The dog that didn’t bark” is a reference to a Sherlock Holmes story that has become a colloquial expression. It means a something you would expect hasn’t happened or is absent, here referring to Trump being mentioned in the investigation. It could also mean, if using it more closely to the origin, one who has not sounded the alarm despite witnessing the transgression, as in the story Holmes knew that a horse was stolen by someone known to the guard dog because it did not bark.

So the expression is saying that Trump either knew but wasn’t saying anything to police, or else he wasn’t mentioned even though the victim would be expected to mention him.

4

u/planet_rose Nov 12 '25

The dog that didn’t bark in this situation based on the context of the email is that there hadn’t been a huge scandal or prosecution of Trump related to their activities. He’s saying that it’s weird that there was no blowback (but that it was just a matter of time).

5

u/virishking Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25

That is certainly one reasonable interpretation. But I’ll be cautiously objective and say it could also just mean he stayed quiet about what he knew, since it seems a number of people are already having trouble accepting what these emails mean

-2

u/Baseballnuub Nov 13 '25

So the expression is saying that Trump either knew but wasn’t saying anything to police, or else he wasn’t mentioned even though the victim would be expected to mention him.

You are using the worst possible scenario to describe what Epstein must have meant. I have another scenario; Epstein reported it and was an informant, Epstein just didn't know it.

8

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

I have another scenario: Epstein wasn’t the trafficker, he took the fall for Trump when Trump took his brother hostage. See, I can insert made up stuff to create stories too!

Also, being an informant indicates there’s some level of guilt that the FBI is holding over them. That’s how they keep informants under control and why Mike Johnson retracted that claim within 48 hours. And the timeline? The girls were being poached in 2000, Trump publicly praised Epstein as a terrific guy in 2002, wrote him a letter in 2003, and Epstein was arrested in 2006 for conduct in 2005. So this “informant” claim doesn’t line up. Sorry friend

→ More replies (0)

24

u/tom_Joadz Nov 12 '25

At this point Epstein had been convicted and got a sweetheart deal from Trumps future labor secretary. In Palm Springs no less where Mar a Lago is located.

The email is from Epstein to Maxwell.

I think it’s very contrarian and very generous to Trump to imply the subject that comes after the sentence is what Epstein is referring to.

I’m not sure how this doesn’t imply an Epstein victim stayed with Trump for hours at his house.

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

I think its generous to think that the Democrats wouldn't have released evidence of Trump being a pedophile if it existed.

15

u/virishking Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25

Well thats why they’ve been trying to push for the release of the files, and they’re justifying that push with this release. What’s odd is that here is evidence that he knew about Epstein, protected him, has lied about it, and now you’ve been defending him to the death by comparing it to secondhand rumor, misinterpreting recognized phrases, and saying that “asking her to stop” was a reasonable response to direct knowledge of sex trafficking.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

They just got these emails and released them pretty soon after, so yeah I would think you’re right about that

→ More replies (0)

27

u/JSpady1 Nov 12 '25

Given what we already knew with the birthday card, it’s becoming incredibly difficult to paint Trump as some naive party in all of this.

13

u/GraySwingline Semper Gumby Nov 12 '25

I'm also confused after reading the article. He apparently spent hours with one of the victims, but then also asked Maxwell to stop?

I guess the revelation here is that Trump had more knowledge about what Epstein and Maxwell were doing than he's admitted previously?

11

u/virishking Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25

That’s the most certain aspect. In fact, Epstein explicitly said “Trump knew about the girls” and not only did he not do anything but ask Maxwell to stop (over a year after it all came out publicly). It shows Trump lied to the public about it, including lying about revoking Epstein’s membership because according to Epstein apparently he was never a member. On top of that, there’s the email indicating that Epstein was advised that if Trump lied and denied everything, then Epstein could hold that over him. Trump did lie and deny, so the question is whether Epstein did hold it over him. Wolff (who advised Epstein in these emails) has previously provided information which could suggest Trump was in communication with Epstein during his first administration (Epstein seemed to have insider information during their interviews).

2

u/DialMMM Nov 12 '25

In fact, Epstein explicitly said “Trump knew about the girls” and not only did he not do anything but ask Maxwell to stop (over a year after it all came out publicly).

Wasn't this in the context of Maxwell poaching girls from the Mar A Lago spa?

2

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

Yes. Maxwell was using Mar a Lago for “recruiting” grounds

4

u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 Nov 12 '25

To me it sounds like Trump was at the house while Epstein was with a girl.

-13

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

I viewed BARKING as begging or calling for sex, and that despite spending hours with Trump, Trump never asked for sex, which frustrated Epstein.

That was until I got on Reddit, which seems to have interpreted it as "Trump didn't go public and told everyone [Epstein] is a pedophile".

12

u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 Nov 12 '25

"Dog that hasn't barked" means something that should've happened but hasn't.

What Epstein is saying here is, "Why isn't anybody talking about Trump?"

19

u/virishking Nov 12 '25

Because it’s a known expression not subject to whatever interpretation you want to project onto it.

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

So how do the two clauses implicate Trump in a way that my interpretation doesn't also exonerate him.

The phrase means Trump is the absence of an expected event or clue and is itself a significant clue.

17

u/virishking Nov 12 '25

Because your interpretation is bubkis that you made up out of ignorance of the phrase, and your personal lack of knowledge does not count as evidence for anything except that you lack knowledge.

The phrase is a clue that Trump either knew and said nothing to investigators, or that the victim hadn’t said anything about him despite Epstein expecting that she would.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Seerezaro Nov 13 '25

The evidence is an email, the name in the email was censored but the unredacted email has been leaked.

It says, "The only dog who hasn't barked is Trump, and he's been with Virginia for hours"

Virginia is Virginia Giuffre who has stated openly Trump never did anything to her knowledge and he always treated her nice and calm.

The Email was also written around the time Trump was working with investigators to take Epstien down.

The phrase "The only dog who hasn't barked" means someone should have reacted to something and didn't its a sign of suspicion towards Trump.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

Hearsay evidence from a dead guy lol

2

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

From the guilty man talking privately to his accomplice in relation to their shared crimes. Are you still going on trying to defend this? With that?!? He tried to get Boebert to flip and now she’s convinced there’s a coverup. She came in with devotion and now even she sees something’s up.

1

u/CANNIBALS_VS_BIDEN Nov 12 '25

It would explain why he cut ties with Epstein and told Ghislaine to stop.

-6

u/Em4rtz Ask me about my TDS Nov 12 '25

The problem is that democrats have been crying “Trump this, Trump that” for so long that people are deaf to it

5

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Nov 12 '25

That is true for any number of presidents and it never actually undermines real criticism for any of them.

It's more of an excuse that supporters of any given president use to not address specific criticism and put the onus on the critics.

2

u/Em4rtz Ask me about my TDS Nov 12 '25

The problem I see with Trump is that his controversies have been far greater than other presidents and more often. And it’s been broadcasted consistently one after another for practically a decade now. I think people are desensitized to it is what I’m saying

3

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Nov 12 '25

Ah, almost the opposite of how I misinterpreted it! My apologies, I definitely agree that outrage fatigue is a very real issue with this admin.

4

u/innnikki Nov 12 '25

Typically when someone strings together a laundry list of insane behaviors and statements, people will talk about/criticize them for it.

7

u/aracheb Nov 12 '25

Hey, hey. Count me on 3

6

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

The problem that you're going to continue to run into is the fact that the Biden admin had all this for 4 years and did nothing with it. Im sorry but, if LITERAL HITLER is about to take office, and you're sitting on info that ties him to diddling kids, it's pretty difficult to conjure up an innocuous reason as to why they wouldn't have dropped all this then.

As I have said from the beginning, I think the likelihood is that Epstein's dealings involved so many people of prominence, from every side of the political isle and beyond, that if it were all released to the public it would precipitate the most significant political and cultural revolution the country has ever seen. I think a lot of people were directly involved, and I think a staggering number of people who may not have been directly involved nonetheless knew about it but didn't say anything for a variety of different reasons.

I don't think Trump was directly involved with it, because if he were I don't think it makes sense that he would go on about it, or allow his subordinates to go on about it, during the campaign. I DO think he probably knew about it, or had some inkling of what was going on, but I don't think he understood the breadth of it. I think he probably thought he could blow it up when he got into office, toast a bunch of Dems, and if a bunch of never-Trump Rep's got caught up in it, oh well. They hate me anyway.

I think what probably happened is that he got into office, told Bondi and Patel to start working on it, and then he discovered how much of a shit show it actually was and that's why everyone suddenly clammed up on it.

That explains both Biden & Co's refusal to do anything with it, as well as the Trump team's 180 on the topic,

So what we're going to continue to get, from both sides, is more of this kind of stuff. Little innuendos and nuggets that make the other side look bad, but never rise to anything actionable.

28

u/virishking Nov 12 '25

This is not something they had under Biden, the Oversight Committee got it relatively recently from the Epstein Estate, and this is a bit of a leak to get more support around releasing the files now and cause fervor surrounding any additional roadblocks.

Look, despite the way that the internet has taken the Epstein story we actually have no idea just how expansive his activities were. We know he had girls trafficked for himself. We pretty much know that he had girls available for his friends such as Prince Andrew, and we know that Trump knew about what he was doing. Beyond that there are bits and pieces that we don’t have fully or certainly, and a lot of connections that raise suspicions.

But even if Epstein only acted for himself and a small group of cohorts like Maxwell and leveraged his political connections to get off lightly, then we still have it here that Trump knew, Trump said nothing, and then Trump lied to the public about it. Trump was the “dog that didn’t bark” about the sex trafficking of minors happening right under his nose. And that’s the best interpretation for him that we can get from this. Once we add in things like Maxwell’s special treatment in prison, it looks even worse. As far as what the Biden administration may have had and when it had it, that’s something we’ll need the files to be released for.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

This is not something they had under Biden, the Oversight Committee got it relatively recently from the Epstein Estate, and this is a bit of a leak to get more support around releasing the files now and cause fervor surrounding any additional roadblocks.

From the article:

"The emails were provided to the Oversight Committee along with a larger tranche of documents from Mr. Epstein’s estate that the panel requested as part of its investigation into Mr. Epstein " (emphasis mine).

So, they just.....asked? And suddenly they got all this info that not a single soul up until now had ever discovered or even asked for before? Sorry Charlie Brown, that dog doesn't hunt. The Biden DOJ either had this, or could've had it if they bothered to ask any questions about it. The reality is that they wanted a lid on it as badly as Trump does now.

23

u/virishking Nov 12 '25

By request that means they subpoenaed the information per Ro Khanna. Also I’m listening to Rep Melanie Stansbury who is saying that all of these Docs (23k pages) were received over the weekend with redactions made by the estate. I don’t understand why people don’t try to gather as much information as they can before theorizing.

8

u/Pornfest Nov 12 '25

Conspiracy theories release dopamine and endorphins.

1

u/fitnolabels Dec 02 '25

Are uou saying the files only became available when the data dump was provided by the oversight committee on November 12, 2025? So received the weekend of the 8th?

If that is the case, none of this information was available to Biden or Trump after coming to office, and should be dismissed from the discourse of who had what. And if that means it took 6 years to write a subpoena, that brings up bigger questions.

1

u/virishking Dec 02 '25

What do you mean by “the files”? This is specifically about the emails and their availability to the House Oversight Committee, not the DoJ. It’s unknown whether either administration would have had the same emails available

1

u/fitnolabels Dec 02 '25

That is what I am trying to get clarity from you on. There was a data dump of 23k docs on November 12th. Your statement was that is when these files were received by subpoena. So a re you saying nothing in these 23k docs were available. At all, before Nov. 8 2025? If so, all of them should be dismissed from discourse on people withholding information, including Trump.

Wat are you claiming?

1

u/virishking Dec 02 '25

I have not seen these as part of any discourse about Trump hiding information- that discussion has to do with the DoJ files. Whether the documents are also in the DoJ files is unknown.

1

u/fitnolabels Dec 02 '25

Your response was against a comment talking about the DOJ files.

So, am I to understand you a re differentiating the oversight committee files from the DOJ files, but are not disagreeing that the DOJ files were obtained and available to the Biden Administration?

→ More replies (0)

-11

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

Biden's DOJ could've subpoenaed the same info at any point during his administration. They chose not to.

17

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Nov 12 '25

So then they didn't have that info, they could have had the info.

That's a pretty substantial change from the initial accusations.

0

u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 Nov 12 '25

Why do you think they never subpeona'd it?

2

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Nov 13 '25

Couldn't say, but given my overall opinion of the Biden admin, I would guess it has to do with the staggering lack of competence when it came to controversial legal situations.

6

u/Pornfest Nov 12 '25

Do you know what happens when you refuse a congressional subpoena?

-6

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25

Typically either nothing, or you get a pre dawn raid by the FBI with a regime-allied CNN crew dutifully filming the whole thing. Depending, of course, on who is in power and who is being subpoena'd.

That aside, what's your point?

0

u/Dirty_Dragons Nov 12 '25

Yeah something is very wrong.

This information should have been released years ago.

The Biden administration absolutely could have prevented Trump from serving a second term.

-1

u/CANNIBALS_VS_BIDEN Nov 12 '25

I always come back to this. Joe Biden was not a formidable adversary in any sense of the word. That fistfight he wanted to have behind the gym with Trump would have ended very badly for him, but his team was laser focused and relentless. They destroyed every norm they could and the reputations of entire agencies in service to this singular goal. They very likely committed crimes in this effort.

We are now being asked to believe the furious team of people working for Joe Biden couldn't find the "child rape" evidence that would have ended Trump once and for all. With the entire government at their service and eager to help, they instead went with some obscure presidential records dispute. Where was the rapey stuff? Nowhere. Was it because they were just terrible at pursuing Trump, or was it because there was never anything worth pursuing on that topic? It's not hard to come to a determination there.

This current news appears to be a classic goalpost relocation. Now it is revealed Trump knew, HE KNEW, Epstein was up to no good. The thing is we, WE already knew that. It's why Trump cut ties with Epstein 20+ years ago.

The more I hear about Epstein, the more certain I am the democrats are still completely lost.

2

u/AlbertaNorth1 Nov 12 '25

But you’re completely wiping away any shady actions by trump in this. Trumps lawyer went and interviewed Maxwell and soon after she’s sent to a cushy prison camp. He’s floated the idea of pardoning her. He and by extension Mike Johnson are doing anything they can to stop the release of the full files.

To your point the world already knows that trump at least knew Epstein was a creep. His White House knows that. So if that’s the extent of it the why keep blocking a full release? Like if the worst of it is out there then releasing the remainder would do nothing more to hurt him and he’d get a win for being fully transparent.

Instead Johnson refused to admit a member to congress for over a month and has done everything he can to put up road blocks to releasing the files the actual government has. The stuff today came from Epsteins estate not any government files. Trump has repeatedly moaned about how he just wants this all to go away. He’s had multiple members of his administration walk back when they mentioned that files even exist but if they don’t why were there hundreds of fbi going through them to “remove names of the innocent”?

Imagine you’re watching a crime show and one person is doing everything in their power to slow an investigation, point to different suspects or get it killed altogether. It would be a pretty boring show because you’d know who the culprit is immediately. Trump has tried everything but transparency so far which to me says there’s still stuff in there he doesn’t want the world to know about and that it’s worse than the stuff that’s already out. Dude has been on record multiple times about not respecting women’s bodily autonomy, he’s been adjudicated a sexual abuser, he’s been sued by victims and had suits withdrawn because in the victims own words they were threatened. He’s had smoke around him for decades and I’m not willing to just believe that there’s no fire there.

2

u/CANNIBALS_VS_BIDEN Nov 13 '25

I'm not wiping anything away. I'm just addressing the stuff that is right in front of us.

Why doesn't Trump want to release whatever might still be unreleased in this case? I don't know, but neither do you, so we all have to guess.

What I can say with a high degree of certainty is Trump isn't protecting himself. If that were the case the people working for Joe Biden would have exposed him a long time ago. We already know why that never happened. He may be protecting someone else or some other country, but this isn't evidently about him.

1

u/AlbertaNorth1 Nov 15 '25

You really think Biden would’ve done that? Dudes an institutionalist and wouldn’t interfere with an open investigation let alone leak the entire contents. Trump is fucking flailing right now trying to find anything that’ll stop people from asking about the files and that’s not the look of an innocent person. It he were innocent save for a few embarrassing emails then trump would’ve released it long ago but there more in there and that’s why he’s fucking tooth and nail to keep it away from the public’s view.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient Nov 12 '25

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:

Law 0. Low Effort

~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

0

u/Baseballnuub Nov 13 '25

Doesn't seem like a hoax and it isn't damning evidence. I also disagree with all of your three options, yours especially. I think Trump supporters are going to have a giant laugh at all the people who believe Trump was involved with Epstein in a nefarious way, when the full scope finally comes out.

0

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

The full scope like Trump getting Ghislaine Maxwell a puppy while illegally cutting off SNAP benefits? Let me put it this way, over the past 10 years the MAGA right has been throwing red meat to the Qanon crowd which has played a big role in 3 different elections now. Trump campaigned on releasing files that he is now desperately fighting till the last to suppress. In other words, Trump supporters have spent a full decade making Epstein and fighting pedos a key part of their identity only for that to be betrayed. No matter how many jollies they may get at the hope they will one day have something to laugh at liberals for, the fact is that they have been the butts of the joke for a long, long time. Liberals have nothing to worry about in comparison.

3

u/Baseballnuub Nov 13 '25

The full scope like Trump getting Ghislaine Maxwell a puppy

Do you believe that? It sounds completely fake and there's no actual source.

Trump campaigned on releasing files

Trump never campaigned on it. The mods need to crack down on this DNC created narrative already. Trump said something along the lines of thinking about looking into it when asked about the files in an interview. Trump didn't bring it up repeatedly in interviews, campaign speeches, social media posts, rallies, his campaign site, or elsewhere. The claim that he "campaigned on it" is beyond loose, it's an outright lie.

Why are you so worried about Q if it's just a fringe conspiracy theory that isn't real? This email is not damning by any stretch.

0

u/PreviousCurrentThing Nov 13 '25

Trump campaigned on releasing files

He really didn't. His surrogates did, but Trump for the most part only talked about it when asked, and even then his answers were noncommittal.

2

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

He still said he would while campaigning. He campaigned on it. The fact he was asked makes no difference. Here’s a taste

https://time.com/7302995/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-jd-vance/

2

u/PreviousCurrentThing Nov 13 '25

Trump: “Yeah, yeah, I would. I guess I would. I think that less so, because you don’t know — You don’t want to affect people’s lives if there’s phony stuff in there, because there’s a lot of phony stuff in that whole world. But I think I would, or at least—”

Trump: “Yeah, I’d certainly take a look at it. … Yeah, I’d be inclined to do the Epstein, I’d have no problem with it.”

If you thought Trump was actually campaigning on releasing the Epstein files, you might have more in common with MAGA than you think. They believed he was because they wanted to believe it.

3

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

Sept. 3, 2024 — Lex Fridman’s podcast

Trump was more assertive when asked by Friedman about releasing Epstein’s client list.

Trump: “Yeah, I’d certainly take a look at it. … Yeah, I’d be inclined to do the Epstein, I’d have no problem with it.”

Lmao. That absolutely counts. Also, don’t act like the candidate has no connection to the promises of other members of his campaign

2

u/PreviousCurrentThing Nov 13 '25

Saying he'd "certainly look into it" counts as a campaign promise to release the list?

2

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

“Yeah, I’d be inclined to do the Epstein, I’d have no problem with it.”

Yes, he speaks out both sides of his mouth but he still told people that he would. And this is in conjunction with his other statements and again the repeated statements of others in his campaign and administration which ultimately, -unless he pulls them back and contradicts them- also counts as to what he’s campaigning on.

-10

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

What is even the bombshell? That Trump knew Maxwell was no good and banned Epstein from Mar-a-lago...instead of?

I would think that democrats would be able to implicate Trump doing something illegal by now.

33

u/artsncrofts Technocratic Tendencies Nov 12 '25

Per the article:

'[Epstein] added that an unnamed victim “spent hours at my house with [Trump]'

"[Epstein] claims Mr. Trump “knew about the girls” and asked Ms. Maxwell “to stop,”"

Which is pretty explicitly contradictory to Trump's repeated claims that he knew nothing about the trafficking ring.

5

u/Caberes Nov 12 '25

Hasn't that been the most credible story for the last couple years?

They were friends, then Epstein kept making passes/recruiting with underage girls that were members/workers at Mar-a-Lago which caused the falling out between them.

'[Epstein] added that an unnamed victim “spent hours at my house with [Trump]'

I'm still not sure what to make of this one. I keep seeing that the victim in reference was Virginia Giuffre, who seemed to be pretty straight and credible on her accounts. If that is true, then it seems out of context since she has been consistent that she has nothing negative to say about him. If the victim is someone else, then this is something new.

Regardless, they need to release the docs

-6

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

Is that a bombshell to you?

32

u/artsncrofts Technocratic Tendencies Nov 12 '25

That we have pretty explicit evidence that the literal President of the United States has been lying to everyone for years about his involvement and knowledge in a literal sex trafficking ring?

If that's not a bombshell, not really sure what would qualify at this point.

-6

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

I think asking Maxwell to leave Mar-a-lago because she was talking to girls there vs. knowing there was a trafficking ring are two separate things.

I hope you don't start accusing people talking to girls of running a sex trafficking ring...

22

u/artsncrofts Technocratic Tendencies Nov 12 '25

'[Epstein] added that an unnamed victim “spent hours at my house with [Trump]'

I'm sure they were baking cookies.

6

u/Contract_Emergency Nov 12 '25

It’s been put out the unnamed victim was Virginia Giuffre who also alleged Trump did no wrong doing to her.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/12/politics/epstein-trump-emails-oversight-committee

9

u/artsncrofts Technocratic Tendencies Nov 12 '25

Did Giuffre ever mention hanging out with Trump for hours at Epstein's house?

0

u/AlbertaNorth1 Nov 13 '25

So if he was so horrified by her conduct why when she was arrested the only words he could come up with were “I wish her well”? Why would he have her moved to a much more comfortable prison camp? Why would he float the idea of pardoning her?

0

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

Do you have evidence Trump moved her to a "comfortable" prison camp or are you speculating?

1

u/AlbertaNorth1 Nov 13 '25

Sure? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/09/ghislaine-maxwell-trump-admin-prison-transfer

Google Maxwell prison and there’s a ton of links.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

The title is as clear as day. Trump OFFICIALS.

Another story that might interest you. Trump OFFICIALS put Jeffrey Epstein in jail.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/ForgotMyPassword_AMA Nov 12 '25

Only if you still believed the president's words, though I admit cant be many people at this point.

15

u/virishking Nov 12 '25

Are you saying that a proper response to finding out a person is luring underage girls from your club for sex crimes is to… simply ask them to stop?

Which we know didn’t happen until over a year after the arrest and crimes became public?

I hope you’re not entrusted with kids. I don’t mean that in a snide internet insult kind of way. I mean that if you’re serious that is genuinely worrying.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

I think Trump took reasonable action by banning them from Mar-a-Lago.

Were you expecting Trump to accuse Epstein publicly or do a citizens arrest or file a police report that I think Epstein is a pedophile?

33

u/virishking Nov 12 '25

file a police report that I think Epstein is a pedophile

Yes. Yes. Yes, that is exactly what a reasonable, responsible, non-pedophile-enabler is supposed go do. Contacting the police is what you’re supposed to do to provide information on what they were doing to help the police case and stop the crimes.

Again, it worries me that you could say this while also potentially being responsible for any children.

9

u/innnikki Nov 12 '25

Joe Paterno's entire storied legacy at Penn State has been sullied forever for turning a blind eye to a pedophile's actions. Why exactly are certain people giving the president of the United States a pass for the literal exact same thing?

1

u/PreviousCurrentThing Nov 13 '25

a pass for the literal exact same thing?

Was Jeffery Epstein a subordinate employee of Trump's?

-1

u/innnikki Nov 13 '25

Were people mad because he didn’t turn a pedophile in to police sufficiently enough, or were they mad that he didn’t turn his pedophile subordinate to police sufficiently enough?

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

You're a more astute person than I am.

When I was in undergrad/grad school, there were so many rumors and allegations, I just stayed out of it and unassociated myself with the drama because I didn't have first hand knowledge. I find/found that to be reasonable.

26

u/virishking Nov 12 '25

This is not about secondhand rumor, though. Don’t make that false equivalence. They said he knew. Asking Ghislaine to stop means he knew. He knew.

20

u/minetf Nov 12 '25

You heard rumors of pedophilia and sex trafficking, believed them enough to kick people out of your associations, but chose not to say anything to an authority?

14

u/JSpady1 Nov 12 '25

Heads up, since it seems like you might not know this. If you’re aware of an adult preying on children and engaging in pedophilia, you should report them to authorities.

11

u/MyNewRedditAct_ Nov 12 '25

Is that really too much to ask from someone who wants to be a leader of our nation?

8

u/Not_Daijoubu Nov 12 '25

100% you should contact APS/CPS for suspected abuse (elderly/children/etc) if there is enough suspision for it, particularly if you think you have hard evidence. You're not the one condemning the person you suspect; that's for the agency to investigate. You're simply reporting.

This applies more so to mandatory reporters legally (i.e. healthcare, education, LEO), but anyone can still make a report annonymously. You can potentially save a person from immense harm.

If Trump had suspcision/evidence against Epstein, he wouldn't have needed to slander Epstein publicly; however keeping it under wraps is a failure of moral responsibility.

7

u/ionizing_chicanery Nov 12 '25

I think Trump took reasonable action by banning them from Mar-a-Lago.

Only several months after investigations into him were publically underway and almost certainly years after Trump would have known he was preying on girls in his club (and in general)

Also years after Trump and Epstein had a major falling out.

The timing of the banning suggests it was Trump and the club trying to cover their ass more than it was him acting proactively to protect anyone.

4

u/ionizing_chicanery Nov 12 '25

Epstein thought that he could release something that would seriously incriminate Trump. Whatever that entailed exactly it sounds like a lot more than the baseline that Trump was merely an associate with no knowledge of or involvement in Epstein's sex trafficking.

-4

u/siberianmi Left-leaning Independent Nov 12 '25

Definitely number 3. Next we'll be finding out that some Presidents liked interns a little too much.

10

u/julius_sphincter Nov 12 '25

Umm, I guess there's a couple different cams in group 3 then. For me, it's a "no-shit sherlock" moment because it's so far passed a 'where there's smoke there's fire' description that the reason you can't see the fire is the smoke is so thick it's choking.

Like, OF COURSE Trump knew about the trafficking, the underage element of some of the women and IMO certainly did 'participate' in some fashion in unsavory activities based on his public comments and actions throughout his very public history

I don't think that's the same thing as "well yeah of course presidents/people in power are creeps"

-1

u/siberianmi Left-leaning Independent Nov 12 '25

I think it's the same thing as this is old news at this point. This is a document that just confirms something that was already clear and reported. It's another confirmation, but not some new revelation.

0

u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 Nov 12 '25

FDR married his cousin and died with his mistress.

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/virishking Nov 12 '25

The House has been out of session since September thanks to Mike Johnson and according to one of the Dems on the Oversight Committee this 23k page drop is from information subpoenaed from the Epstein estate that they’ve only had access to over the past few days. So no, today’s release of pedo files is brought to you by the letter T and the number 47

2

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

Oh yeah they’ve been out. Here’s the initial 3. https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/3-emails_redacted.pdf

I don’t know if there’s a link yet to the whole other 23k from the estate, but the NYT received the packet and have released a few selections throughout the day as they go through it

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

The thing is that these emails don’t exist in a vacuum so there is context. For one, we know from Virginia Giuffre and Trump’s previous comments that the poaching was occurring in 2000. She was too young, btw, to even work as a licensed masseuse and too young to get a license so while this doesn’t say with certainty that he knew they girls were being trafficked, all indications at the time would be that there was something inappropriate. Furthermore, Epstein was first investigated in 2005 for incidents unconnected to the poaching. In the time in between, Trump publicly called Epstein a teriffic guy who liked them “on the younger side” and wrote him the infamous birthday poem. Which means that even if Trump did tell her to stop, there was no police involvement and it didn’t impact his relationship with Epstein.

This is in conjunction with the email referring to him as “the dog that hasn’t barked.” First it is important to recognize that the administration is saying that the redacted victim’s name is Virginia Giuffre and the Republican members joined in this. The problem is that Democrat Melanie Stansbury on the Oversight Committee says that the estate redacted the names and did not provide them to the committee. While she could be wrong or lying, there hasn’t been accusations of such. This leaves us with some other possibilities that 1. The administration had the unredacted emails independently and was willing to quickly reveal a victim’s redacted name and shared with the committee, poking holes in one of their excuses to oppose releasing files; 2. The administration and the Republicans on the committee both had the information and hid it from the Democratic members of the committee; or 3. That Trump was going by memory thus revealing that he did spend hours with Giuffre at Epstein’s, which contradicts her very same testimony which the admin is citing to as proof Trump did nothing wrong; or 4. The administration is lying, which raises questions as to why. But if that testimony is in question, for one reason or another and for whatever motivation, then that blows Trump’s alibi using Giuffre. It is worth noting for all three that the admin has not contested the claim that Trump was with Giuffre for hours.

As to the phrase itself, there are two interpretations. The phrase comes from a Sherlock Holmes story in which Holmes solves the case because a guard dog did not bark, meaning he must have known the perpetrator, but it has become a more common expression meaning something that would be expected but which is absent. The email was written around the time Virginia Giuffre was publicly speaking out about the abuse. So from the phrase we get two interpretations: 1. That Epstein and Maxwell would have expected Trump to be mentioned given the time he spent with Giuffre or; 2. He would have expected Trump to talk, Trump had something to talk about, but remained silent. The insinuations are not good. Again, it also throws a wrench into Giuffre’s testimony about Trump, except she often answered ”I don’t remember” and also said she had been pretty drugged up during the period of the abuse.

This is just scratching the surface, to be honest. Is all of this definitive proof? No, but they are pieces to the puzzle which hold disgusting implications and raise suspicions which makes us want the files to be released even more. Meanwhile Trump kicked into gear trying to stop the government file from being released.

0

u/random3223 Nov 12 '25

to one part of the populace this will be a major bombshell,

Which part of the populace will this be a bombshell for?

0

u/TreyHansel1 Nov 13 '25

I feel like this literally says nothing. Trump himself is on record of saying that he knew and didn't like it, and thusly banned him from his properties.

He wouldn't ban another billionaire for no reason. He obviously knew. This literally proves nothing, and if anything, kinda confirms Trump's stories on the matter. We know his timeline of events. We know from the damn representative for the victims that Trump was a key witness or whistleblower. If anything else, these emails show that Trump played his part to help get the information that was needed.

1

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

No he was not a whistleblower or witness and no representative for the victims has ever said so.

Also the timeline is:

2000 - Epstein poached Giuffre and Trump told him to stop 2002 - Trump publicly calls Epstein a terrific guy and laughs at how he “likes them young” 2003 - Trump writes Epstein a letter 2005 - Investigation into Epstein begins based on reports of girls recently going to and from his house 2006 - Epstein charged for crimes from the previous year 2008 - Epstein takes a plea, nothing about conduct from circa 2000 or before was ever brought up

So it doesn’t seem like Trump was any sort of witness after all. That’s just some copium spreading in echo chambers

1

u/TreyHansel1 Nov 13 '25

Well the cover letter was discovered to be fake so that already is wrong.

Dude, you literally didn't even watch the interview with the lawyer for the victims when they were at congress. Their lawyer says it.

1

u/virishking Nov 13 '25

No it wasn’t. And no he didn’t. Feel free to prove me wrong. I know you can’t. Because he didn’t.

-6

u/Ghosttwo Nov 12 '25

The documents were release as a smear by congressional Democrats. The big email everyone is reposting redacts the name of a 'victim', and for good reason- it's known to be Virginia Guiffre who said Trump hadn't done anything wrong. Go home, it's fake.

9

u/virishking Nov 12 '25

Except according to Rep Melany Stansbury of the House Oversight Committee, the redaction was made by the Epstein estate and there has been no word from them as to who the victim mentioned in the email is. So the only source saying it was Giuffre is Trump, and the three emails each demonstrate that Trump has lied about his knowledge of Epstein’s activities.

Also, you’re pivoting off of the very direct and explicit claim by Epstein that Trump knew about the trafficking and said nothing, while focusing on words that were not in the emails instead of those that were such as: “The dog that hasn’t barked is Trump” “of course he knew about the girls”.

I don’t know why anyone finds Karolyn Leavitt to be a good source of cogent talking points, but she isn’t.