The Epstein Files

[Bad Bob]

The NeverTrumpers aren't handling this well.

American voters should never elect pedophiles regardless of their political affiliations.

 

[Rawley]

if you're talking about the one that was forced to give Trump a bj at the age of 13 and she bit him instead, tell me how she was gold digging when she never even contacted the fbi.

By suing Epstein. 40 years after the "fact"

 

[jc456]

American voters should never elect pedophiles regardless of their political affiliations.

which ones were those?

 

[jc456]

if you're talking about the one that was forced to give Trump a bj at the age of 13 and she bit him instead, tell me how she was gold digging when she never even contacted the fbi. It was the FBI who contacted and interviewed her, four times. Those interviews were real and then Trump attempted to suppress it. Those are not the actions of an innocent man.

good thing that's never been verified, huh? sucks to be you! you're TDS is hilarious. But, keep trying, looking like a fool is fun for me to watch.

I think you should go visit trump and do a citizen arrest. Go for it.

 

[Delldude]

if you're talking about the one that was forced to give Trump a bj at the age of 13 and she bit him instead, tell me how she was gold digging when she never even contacted the fbi. It was the FBI who contacted and interviewed her, four times. Those interviews were real and then Trump attempted to suppress it. Those are not the actions of an innocent man.

The incident was released in the first tranche, hardly suppressed, indicated FBI interviewed her and referred the contact for further interview.
Just as in the Daily Mail reporting on the incident, she dropped her claims for no apparent reason.

Prior to being asked any questions regarding the case, the agents asked
whether they could audio record the interview. II advised she was not
comfortable being recorded at that time. II requested agents explain to her
the goal and parameters of the fourth interview. She indicated she was
aware that because she was victimized several years prior, the statutes of
limitation of any viable federal violation may have run. She asked agents,
"what's the point?" The agents explained that all victims of crime should
have the opportunity to tell their story; they wanted to provide her with
that opportunity should she choose to accept. The agents also explained why
they wished to keep the fourth interview focused on abuse • endured at the
hands of individuals associated with JEFFREY EPSTEIN. II previously
mentioned she had sexual contact with (current U.S. President) DONALD TRUMP
while she was a minor. She previously explained the contact was facilitated
through her association with EPSTEIN. • was asked whether she felt
comfortable detailing her contacts with TRUMP. ■ again asked what the
point would be of providing the information at this point in her life when
there was a strong possibility nothing could be done about it.

The agents asked II to go home and take as much time as she needed to
think about speaking with the agents further. ■ agreed and the interview
ended.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/27774249/new-epstein-files-related-to-trump.pdf?utm_source=Byron%20York%27s%20Daily%20Memo_03/09/2026&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX%20-%20Alerts%20-%20York&rid=24918354&env=dc7182d0539e99fbd39e0d7296e60ee549f23684f572043c3a7a61c310edbeab

So she never contacted FBI again and also dropped her lawsuit. She didn't want to be sworn and recorded, and didn't want the allegations put on record. That's highly suspicious.

Byron York:

There’s a problem with all this. There is nothing in the woman’s story in the FBI documents that supports her allegation against Trump. Nothing. For that matter, there is nothing that establishes any sort of link with Jeffrey Epstein, either.

First, there is the issue of Hilton Head Island. A lot is known about Jeffrey Epstein, and there has been no mention of him living on Hilton Head Island for any period of time. The Guardian reported that, “Mark Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein’s brother, told the Guardian that he had no knowledge of his brother spending summers on Hilton Head in the early 1980s. ‘I would have known,’ he said in a phone call.”

Then there is the timing. The woman said the alleged Trump encounter happened when she was between 13 and 15 years old. That would be somewhere in the 1983–1985 time range. Virtually every account of the Trump-Epstein friendship places its beginning in the late 1980s. In 2002, before the troubles, Trump said he had known Epstein for 15 years, which would have been since 1987. Early accounts of them being together at the same events date back to the end of the 1980s and into the early 1990s.
__________________
Finally, there is the woman herself. By all accounts, she has led a troubled life. She had drinking and drug problems, and her mother went to prison. “After her time with Epstein, the alleged victim accumulated a record of criminal charges, drug dependency, and domestic turmoil,” the Charleston Post and Courier reported. “She had a daughter and was prosecuted for filing false claims for food stamp applications. [She] avoided prison by completing a drug diversion program.”

The Post and Courier said the woman had three husbands and at least one violent domestic incident. She ended up living with family members in Georgia, “developing a romantic relationship with a terminally-ill man who was saving money for his funeral,” the outlets reported. “She stole an envelope filled with cash from him and spent a year in the county jail for it. Her public defender told the Post and Courier that she described her life to him as having been permanently scarred by her experience with Epstein.”

The short version of the tale is this: There is every reason for reasonable people, that is, those outside the company of anti-Trump fanatics, to be very cautious with this story.

 

[Delldude]

which ones were those?

Biden for sure.

 

[Delldude]

Sums it up Pretti Good.

 

[krichton]

By suing Epstein. 40 years after the "fact"

Could that be because there is a statute of limitations of only 5 years on sexual assault? A civil suit is all that is left for victims.

 

[krichton]

The incident was released in the first tranche, hardly suppressed, indicated FBI interviewed her and referred the contact for further interview.
Just as in the Daily Mail reporting on the incident, she dropped her claims for no apparent reason.

Prior to being asked any questions regarding the case, the agents asked
whether they could audio record the interview. II advised she was not
comfortable being recorded at that time. II requested agents explain to her
the goal and parameters of the fourth interview. She indicated she was
aware that because she was victimized several years prior, the statutes of
limitation of any viable federal violation may have run. She asked agents,
"what's the point?" The agents explained that all victims of crime should
have the opportunity to tell their story; they wanted to provide her with
that opportunity should she choose to accept. The agents also explained why
they wished to keep the fourth interview focused on abuse • endured at the
hands of individuals associated with JEFFREY EPSTEIN. II previously
mentioned she had sexual contact with (current U.S. President) DONALD TRUMP
while she was a minor. She previously explained the contact was facilitated
through her association with EPSTEIN. • was asked whether she felt
comfortable detailing her contacts with TRUMP. ■ again asked what the
point would be of providing the information at this point in her life when
there was a strong possibility nothing could be done about it.

The agents asked II to go home and take as much time as she needed to
think about speaking with the agents further. ■ agreed and the interview
ended.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/27774249/new-epstein-files-related-to-trump.pdf?utm_source=Byron%20York%27s%20Daily%20Memo_03/09/2026&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX%20-%20Alerts%20-%20York&rid=24918354&env=dc7182d0539e99fbd39e0d7296e60ee549f23684f572043c3a7a61c310edbeab

So she never contacted FBI again and also dropped her lawsuit. She didn't want to be sworn and recorded, and didn't want the allegations put on record. That's highly suspicious.

Byron York:

There’s a problem with all this. There is nothing in the woman’s story in the FBI documents that supports her allegation against Trump. Nothing. For that matter, there is nothing that establishes any sort of link with Jeffrey Epstein, either.

First, there is the issue of Hilton Head Island. A lot is known about Jeffrey Epstein, and there has been no mention of him living on Hilton Head Island for any period of time. The Guardian reported that, “Mark Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein’s brother, told the Guardian that he had no knowledge of his brother spending summers on Hilton Head in the early 1980s. ‘I would have known,’ he said in a phone call.”

Then there is the timing. The woman said the alleged Trump encounter happened when she was between 13 and 15 years old. That would be somewhere in the 1983–1985 time range. Virtually every account of the Trump-Epstein friendship places its beginning in the late 1980s. In 2002, before the troubles, Trump said he had known Epstein for 15 years, which would have been since 1987. Early accounts of them being together at the same events date back to the end of the 1980s and into the early 1990s.
__________________
Finally, there is the woman herself. By all accounts, she has led a troubled life. She had drinking and drug problems, and her mother went to prison. “After her time with Epstein, the alleged victim accumulated a record of criminal charges, drug dependency, and domestic turmoil,” the Charleston Post and Courier reported. “She had a daughter and was prosecuted for filing false claims for food stamp applications. [She] avoided prison by completing a drug diversion program.”

The Post and Courier said the woman had three husbands and at least one violent domestic incident. She ended up living with family members in Georgia, “developing a romantic relationship with a terminally-ill man who was saving money for his funeral,” the outlets reported. “She stole an envelope filled with cash from him and spent a year in the county jail for it. Her public defender told the Post and Courier that she described her life to him as having been permanently scarred by her experience with Epstein.”

The short version of the tale is this: There is every reason for reasonable people, that is, those outside the company of anti-Trump fanatics, to be very cautious with this story.

The first interview, in which she didn't say much was released. The next 3 in which she named Trump for raping her were suppressed. These are the facts. Trump is telling us every day he's a pedophile.

 

[Delldude]

The first interview, in which she didn't say much was released. The next 3 in which she named Trump for raping her were suppressed. These are the facts. Trump is telling us every day he's a pedophile.

You must have overlooked the linked interview I provided.

It specifically mentions the three interviews and her never commiting to a fourth.

Get your facts together.

 

[jc456]

Could that be because there is a statute of limitations of only 5 years on sexual assault? A civil suit is all that is left for victims.

prove it then

 

[Delldude]

Internet sensation.

 

[Dante]

Haaaaaaaaaahaha TDS over and over ten years, yeah, he’s all good

Russia Russia Russia Magatoids - Mueller Report does not exonerate him - Trump proclaimed that he had been totally exonerated

The report concluded that Russia had systemically sought to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that the candidate and his campaign had encouraged their clandestine assistance. It laid out 10 cases in which the president and his aides had sought to impede the F.B.I. investigation. Its key passage read: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

But the attorney general, while keeping the text of the report secret, ostensibly to redact sensitive information, announced only that “the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

Mr. Trump proclaimed that he had been “totally exonerated.”

 

[Frankeneinstein]

If that were the case, the flock wouldn't be putting so much effort into downplaying this goddamn massive, horrific crime.

give the examples of "putting so much effort into downplaying"...would it be from coming up empty on accusations time after time yet finding ones allies littering the field of media driven filth instead? the media pretends, the socially educated worships then parrots and then blame failure on everyone but themselve.

 

[Mac1958]

give the examples of "putting so much effort into downplaying"...would it be from coming up empty on accusations time after time yet finding ones allies littering the field of media driven filth instead? the media pretends, the socially educated worships then parrots and then blame failure on everyone but themselve.

^^^ Demands examples and then immediately provides one.

There is simply no communicating with people who operate at this low a frequency.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The report concluded that Russia had systemically sought to help Mr. Trump win the election

^That^ would exonerate him...^that^ claim says that russia used the system itself to get trump elected, no claim that trump had anything to do with it [it in fact omits him which would not occur if he was found to have taken part]... i.e. e.g. Russia rigs the primaries so hillary is the opponent making a trump victory a certainty...that would be "systemic" no need to involve either participant [only an example of course]...as there are so many socially educated voters that ^that^[your quote] actual proof of exoneration from the report would easily fool anyone who has said education dane t

 

[Frankeneinstein]

^^^ Demands examples and then immediately provides one.

and yet look who refuses to prvide his own

 

[Frankeneinstein]

There is simply no communicating with people who operate at this low a frequency.

TRANSLATION: "Better to keep my mouth shut and look socially educated than to open my mouth and remove all doubt"

 

[Dante]

^That^ would exonerate him...^that^ claim says that russia used the system itself to get trump elected, no claim that trump had anything to do with it [it in fact omits him which would not occur if he was found to have taken part]... i.e. e.g. Russia rigs the primaries so hillary is the opponent making a trump victory a certainty...that would be "systemic" no need to involve either participant [only an example of course]...as there are so many socially educated voters that ^that^[your quote] actual proof of exoneration would easily fool anyone who has said education dane t

Trump was not "exonerated" by the Muller report, and Mueller himself came out later to clarify that.

You sick people believe technicalities clear somebody.



try reading this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/end-of-my-presidency-trump.html

When Jeff Sessions, then the attorney general, shared the news in the Oval Office, the president slumped in his chair. “Oh my God,” he said, according to the report. “This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency,” he said, adding an expletive.

Mr. Trump then became angry and blamed Mr. Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation, something he would never forgive Mr. Sessions for.

“Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency,” Mr. Trump reportedly said. “It takes years and years, and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.”

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, ultimately agreed that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump or his associates engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia to disrupt the 2016 election, although Mr. Mueller was less definitive on the issue of obstruction of justice.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Trump was not "exonerated" by the Muller report, and Mueller himself came out later to clarify that.

why would he need to clarify it if exoneration wasn't in the report? in fact the line that he found it to be "systemic" interference exonerates trump, the fact that meuller felt the need to "clarify" himself meant he knew the report said just that, "exoneration" without that clarification...the report is the overriding factor here as it is a statement of oath whereas he can say anything he wants outside that report as he is not under oath and without being held accountable for it...but whatever is said now, the report clearly exonerates trump from the outset, from line one in your post danny