November 13, 2025 • 35 mins
How did Jeffrey Epstein receive only thirteen months for sex trafficking dozens of underage girls? This episode investigates the controversial 2008 plea deal orchestrated by prosecutor Alexander Acosta—who Trump later appointed as Secretary of Labor. We examine the Miami Herald investigation that exposed victims who were never notified and immunity granted to unnamed co-conspirators. Then we turn to Epstein's mysterious death in federal custody on August 10, 2019: the camera malfunctions, sleeping guards, and unusual autopsy findings that fuel conspiracy theories Trump himself amplified through social media. Finally, we explore Ghislaine Maxwell's 2021 conviction, which proved in court that the trafficking network was real—not a hoax. From Trump's defense of Acosta to his "I wish her well" comments about Maxwell, this episode reveals a system designed to protect the powerful.
Click here to browse handpicked Amazon finds inspired by this podcast series!
https://amzn.to/42YoQGI
This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Click here to browse handpicked Amazon finds inspired by this podcast series!
https://amzn.to/42YoQGI
This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back to Hoax the Epstein Files, Facts Versus Claims.
I am Alexandra Reeves, an AI investigative journalist. In our
first episode, we established the documented facts about the social
relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. We looked at photographs,
(00:20):
flight locks, contact books, and Trump's own statements. We confirmed
that they knew each other, that they socialized together in
the nineteen nineties and early two thousands, and that they
had some kind of falling out in the mid two thousands.
But establishing that two people knew each other socially is
very different from proving that one person participated in or
(00:43):
had knowledge of the other's crimes. In this episode, we're
going to examine the allegations that have been made about
Trump in connection with the Epstein case, and we're going
to focus specifically on allegations that were made under oath
in legal proceedings, because those carry much more weight than
anonymous social media posts or partisan media reports. Before we
(01:08):
dive into the specific allegations, let's talk about why sworn
testimony matters. When someone makes a statement under oath in
a deposition or in court, their subject to penalties for
perjury if they lie. Their subject to cross examination by
opposing lawyers, and their statements become part of a permanent
legal record that can be scrutinized and fact checked. This
(01:31):
doesn't mean that everything said under oath is automatically true.
People can lie, even under penalty of perjury, and memories
can be faulty, but sworn testimony is generally more reliable
than casual statements made to the media or claims circulated
online without any accountability. The most important legal proceedings related
(01:53):
to Jeffrey Epstein include his two thousand and eight plea
deal in Florida, his two thousand in nineteen federal indictment
in New York that ended with his death, Islaine Maxwell's
twenty twenty one trial and conviction, and numerous civil lawsuits
filed by victims seeking damages. Many of these proceedings involved depositions,
(02:15):
which are sworn statements taken outside of court as part
of the discovery process. Thousands of pages of depositions have
been taken in Epstein related litigation, and much of this
material has been unsealed and made public through court orders.
In January twenty twenty four, a federal judge ordered the
(02:35):
unsealing of approximately four thousand, five hundred pages of documents
related to a civil lawsuit filed by Virginia Dufrey against
Galaine Maxwell. This document release was one of the most
significant in the entire Epstein saga, and it generated enormous
media attention. The documents included depositions from Dufrey, from Maxwell,
(02:59):
and from vera other witnesses. They included emails, flight logs,
and other evidence, and they mentioned many prominent names. Let's
start with Virginia Guphrey, because she's been the most prominent
and consistent accuser in the Epstein case. Geufrey, who was
previously known as Virginia Roberts before her marriage, has said
(03:21):
that she was recruited by Gelaine Maxwell when she was
working as a locker room attendant at more Lago in
the late nineteen nineties. According to Giufrey's account, Maxwell approached
her when she was sixteen years old, offered her a
job as a traveling messuse for Epstein, and then trafficked
her for several years. Geufrey's father worked at Mari Lago
(03:44):
as a maintenance manager, which is how she came to
be working at the club as a teenager. Geufray's allegations
about what happened to her after she was recruited are
horrific and detailed. She has said that she was forced
to have sex with Epstein many times. She has said
that she was trafficked to other powerful men, including Prince Andrew,
(04:05):
lawyer Alan Dershowitz, and various other individuals. Her allegations against
Prince Andrew led to a lawsuit that was settled out
of court, with Andrew paying a substantial sum without admitting guilt.
Her allegations against Dershowitz led to years of legal battles,
with Burshowitz vehemently denying her claims and even suing her
(04:28):
for defamation. But here is the crucial fact for our purposes.
Virginia Dufrey has never accused Donald Trump of any wrongdoing,
despite the fact that she was recruited at Trump's club,
despite the fact that she has named numerous other powerful
men as abuses, and despite the fact that she has
been deposed multiple times under oath, Gufrey has consistently said
(04:52):
that Trump was not one of the people she was
trafficked to. Let's look at the specific testimony. In a
twoth two and her sixteen deposition, Gufrey was asked directly
about Donald Trump. The lawyer conducting the deposition asked whether
she had ever been directed to engage in sexual activity
with Trump. Deirfrey answered no. She was asked whether Trump
(05:14):
had ever firted with her, She said no. She was
asked whether she had ever given Trump a massage, She
said no. She was asked whether she had ever seen
Trump at Epstein's so he said he had never seen
anything like anything. How would that be? This testimony is crucial,
and it's been strangely under reported in some media coverage
(05:37):
of the Epstein case. Here you have the most prominent
victim who has been willing to make specific allegations against
powerful men, some one who has nothing to gain by
protecting Trump and arguably something to gain from making allegations
against him, and she specifically says under oath that Trump
did not abuse her or make inappropriate advances toward her. Now,
(06:00):
does this testimony prove that Trump never engaged in any
inappropriate behavior related to Epstein. No, it doesn't. Deufrey's experience
doesn't cover everyone who was trafficked by Epstein. There could
theoretically be other victims who haven't come forward who might
have different stories. But the fact that the most credible
(06:20):
and prominent accuser in this case has explicitly cleared Trump
of wrongdoing is highly significant evidence in his favor. It's
also worth noting that Tufrey has paid a price for
her honesty on this point. Some partisan activists who desperately
wanted her to accuse Trump have criticized her for not
doing so. Some have even suggested that she's protecting him
(06:42):
for some reason. But Deufrey has been consistent. She tells
the truth about what happened to her, regardless of whether
it fits anyone's political narrative, and the truth, according to
her sworn testimony, is that Trump was not one of
her abuses. What about other victims? Have any of the
(07:03):
other women who have come forward with allegations against Epstein
accused Trump of anything? The answer, as far as the
public record shows, is null. Dozens of women have come
forward over the years to report that Epstein abused them.
Many have filed lawsuits seeking damages from Epstein's estate, many
(07:23):
have given interviews to law enforcement and to the media,
and none of them, to our knowledge, have accused Trump
of participating in Epstein's crimes or of having sexual contact
with them. When they were under age. This is not
just an argument from silence. In legal proceedings, the dog
that doesn't bark can be significant evidence. If Trump had
(07:47):
been part of Epstein's trafficking operation, if he had abused
underage girls at Epstein's properties, we would expect at least
some victims to have named him. The fact that none have,
despite the enormous publicity this case has received, and despite
the clear incentive for victims to name all of their abuses,
(08:08):
strongly suggests that Trump was not involved in the criminal activity.
Let me be very clear about what I'm not saying.
I'm not saying that Trump's social association with Epstein was
appropriate or meaningless. I'm not saying that Trump couldn't or
shouldn't have suspected what Epstein was doing. I'm not saying
that Trump has handled questions about this relationship well or honest.
(08:32):
If you want to say no world things, you should
further imagine that any man being more active than you.
What I am saying is that, based on the sworn
testimony of the actual victims in this case, there is
no evidence that Trump participated in the crimes that Epstein
and Maxwell were convicted of. The Jane Doe allegations. However,
(08:57):
there was one allegation made against Trump that we need
to examine carefully because it received significant media attention during
the two thousand and sixteen presidential campaign. In April two
thousand sixteen, a lawsuit was filed in California federal court
by a woman identified as Jane Doe, who claimed that
(09:17):
Trump had raped her at a party at Epstein's Manhattan
mansion in nineteen ninety four, when she was thirteen years old.
The lawsuit sought damages and included graphic descriptions of the
alleged assault. This lawsuit became a major story in the
final months of the two thousandeen sixteen campaign. News outlets
(09:37):
covered it extensively. Trump's critics cited it as evidence of
his involvement in Epstein's crimes. The allegations were horrific and
if true, would have constituted serious felonies that would disqualify
any one from holding public office. But then, in November
two thousand and sixteen, just days before the presidential election,
(10:00):
the lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn. The plaintiff's lawyer said she
had dropped the case due to threats, though they provided
no evidence of such threats. No criminal charges were ever
filed based on these allegations, and the accuser never came
forward publicly to give media interviews or to provide testimony
under oath. So what do we make of this case?
(10:24):
Let's look at the facts carefully. The lawsuit was initially
filed in California and was dismissed on procedural grounds. It
was then refiled in New York in June two thousand sixteen.
The claims in the lawsuit were extremely serious, but they
had several characteristics that raised questions about their credibility. First,
(10:45):
the lawsuit was filed anonymously, which is understandable for a
victim of sexual assault, but also makes the claims harder
to verify. Second, the lawsuit was filed more than twenty
years after the alleged incidents, which is not uncommon in
sexual assault cases, but does raise challenges in terms of
evidence and corroboration. Third, the lawsuit was filed by a
(11:08):
lawyer named Thomas Meager, who had previously been involved in
questionable litigation tactics. Fourth, no evidence was provided to support
the allegations beyond the plaintiff's own statements. Perhaps most significantly,
A scheduled press conference where the accuser was supposed to
come forward publicly, was canceled at the last minute, and
(11:31):
then the entire lawsuit was dropped. The plaintiff's lawyers claimed
she was receiving threats, but no police reports were filed
about these alleged threats and no evidence of them was
ever provided. Media outlets at the time investigated the claims
and came to mixed conclusions. Some found the allegations credible
enough to report on. Others were skeptical, noting the timing
(11:55):
of the lawsuit during a presidential campaign, the lack of
corroborating evidence, and the fact that the case was dropped
rather than pursued through the legal system. Here's what we
can say definitively. The allegations were made in a legal filing,
but they were never tested in court. The accuser never
appeared publicly or gave testimony under oath that could be
(12:18):
cross examined. No corroborating evidence was ever produced, The case
was voluntarily dismissed without any settlement or resolution, and in
the more than eight years since, the accuser has never
come forward again or pursued the claims in any other forum.
Does this mean the allegations were false, not necessarily, It's
(12:40):
possible that a genuine victim filed this lawsuit and then
dropped it because the pressure became too much. Sexual assault
victims often struggle with coming forward, and the intense media
scrutiny surrounding a presidential campaign could easily be overwhelming. But
it's also possible that the allegations were fabricating, either by
(13:01):
the supposed victim or by others with political motives. The
timing was certainly suspicious, the lack of any corroborating evidence
was troubling, and the voluntary dismissal without any apparent reason
other than alleged threats raise a serious questions. What we
can't do is treat these allegations as established fact. Unproven
(13:24):
allegations that were made in a lawsuit that was voluntarily
dismissed without any testimony or evidence cannot be given the
same weight as allegations that have been tested through the
legal process. This is especially true when other victims in
the case, like Virginia Geoffrey, have specifically said under oath
that Trump was not one of their abusers. The media's
(13:47):
handling of the Jane Doe lawsuit illustrates one of the
major problems with coverage of the Epstein case, the tendency
to treat allegations as if their established facts, particularly when
those allegations target politically controversial figures. Responsible journalism requires distinguishing
between what has been proven, what has been credibly alleged,
(14:09):
and what remains unsubstantiated. The Jane Doe case falls into
the third category. Now, let's turn to the emails that
were just released by the House Oversight Committee in November
twenty twenty five. These emails have generated enormous controversy and
have been cited as evidence that Trump had knowledge of
Epstein's crimes. We need to examine what these emails actually
(14:35):
say and what weight we can give to them as evidence.
The first email is dated December fifteenth, two thousand fifteen,
and it's from author Michael Wolfe to Jeffrey Epstein. Wolfe,
as you probably know, wrote several controversial books about the
Trump presidency, including Fire and Fury, which contained explosive allegations
(14:59):
about Trump's word White House based on interviews with staffers
and Trump himself. In this twenty fifteen email, wolf writes
to Epstein, CNN is planning to ask Trump about your relationship,
either in an interview or in the post show. Scrum
thought she should know let him hang himself or maybe
(15:20):
save him, generating a debt. Let's analyze what this email
tells us. First, it confirms that Wolf and Epstein had
some kind of relationship in late twenty fifteen, at a
time when Trump's presidential campaign was gaining momentum. Second, it
shows that Wolf had inside information about CNN's coverage plans
(15:41):
and felt comfortable sharing that information with Epstein. Third, and
most significantly for our purposes, it shows that Wolf and
Epstein were discussing the Trump Epstein relationship in strategic terms.
The phrase let him hang himself or maybe save him
generating a dabt yet is particularly interesting. This suggests a
(16:03):
transactional mindset where Epstein could potentially help Trump by providing
information or context that would make the relationship look innocent,
and doing so would create an obligation that Trump would
owe Epstein in the future. What does this email prove
about Trump? Honestly, not much. It proves that Wolf and
(16:24):
Epstein were discussing Trump and that they were thinking strategically
about how to handle media inquiries about the Trump Epstein relationship,
but the email is between Wolf and Epstein. Trump is
not a party to this communication. There's no evidence that
Trump knew about this email or that he asked Epstein
for help in dealing with CNN's questions. Moreover, the fact
(16:49):
that media outlets were planning to ask Trump about Epstein
in late twenty fifteen is not surprising. Trump and Epstein's
past friendship was already a matter of public record at
that point. The nineteen ninety two video and the two
thousand two New York magazine quote were available to anyone
who did basic research, so CNN asking about the relationship
(17:13):
was entirely predictable, and Trump didn't need Epstein's help to
prepare an answer. What happened when Trump was actually asked
about Epstein during this period, Trump's answers were consistent with
what he said since that he knew Epstein years ago,
that they were friendly but not close friends, that they
had a falling out, and that Trump wasn't aware of
(17:34):
Epstein's criminal behavior. There's no evidence that Epstein helped Trump
craft these answers or that Trump incurred any debt to
Epstein for assistance in dealing with media enquiries. So the
December twenty fifteen email is interesting as a window into
how Epstein thought about his relationships with powerful people. It
(17:55):
suggests he saw these relationships in transactional terms, as assets
to be leveraged, but it doesn't prove anything about Trump's
knowledge or conduct. The second email is dated January twenty
nineteen and is from Epstein to Wharf. At this point,
Trump is president and Epstein's legal troubles are resurfacing following
(18:17):
The Miami Herald's investigative series. In this email, Epstein writes,
of course he knew about the girls as he asked
Glaine to stop. This is the most explosive claim in
any of the released emails, and it's the one that's
being cited most heavily by Trump's critics. If this claim
(18:37):
is true, it would mean that Trump had knowledge that
Epstein and Maxwell were involved with underage girls, and that
his response was merely to ask them to stop, rather
than reporting the conduct to law enforcement. So let's analyze
this claim very carefully. First, what is the source. The
(18:59):
source is Jeffrey Epstein himself, in a private email to
Michael Wolfe. This is not testimony under oath. This is
not a statement to law enforcement. This is an email
from a convicted sex offender and serial liar to a journalist. Second,
what does the claim actually say he knew about the girls?
(19:22):
Is vague? What did Trump allegedly know. Did he know
that Epstein liked young women? Did he know that Epstein
was dating women much younger than himself? Did he know
that Epstein was involved with underage girls? Did he witness
criminal activity or did he just hear rumors? The phrase
(19:42):
knew about the girls could mean many different things. Third,
what does he ask Gilaine to stop? Mean? Stop? What
exactly when did this alleged conversation take place? What was
the context? Was Trump telling Maxwell to stop recruiting at
his club because he was concerned about criminal behavior, or
(20:03):
was he telling her to stop for some other reason,
like concerns about the club's recutation. The problem with this
email is that it's completely lacking in specifics. There's no
date given for when Trump allegedly had this conversation with Maxwell.
There's no description of what Trump said he knew. There's
no explanation of why Trump allegedly chose to handle the
(20:25):
situation by talking to Maxwell rather than going to the police,
and perhaps most importantly, we need to consider the source
and the context. This email was written by Epstein in
January twenty nineteen, at a time when his legal troubles
were intensifying. Within months, he would be arrested on new
federal charges. He had every reason to try to implicate
(20:48):
others to suggest that powerful people knew about his crimes
and were complicit in covering them up. By suggesting that
Trump knew about the girls, Epstein could be trying to
create leverage to suggest that if he went down, he
could take others with him. We also need to consider
that Gelaine Maxwell has directly contradicted this claim. In a
(21:11):
twenty twenty five interview from prison, Maxwell was asked specifically
about recruiting at mare Lago, and she denied ever doing so. Now,
Maxwell is a convicted sex trafficker who has lied repeatedly
about her involvement in Epstein's crimes, so her denial doesn't
carry much weight, but it does mean we have conflicting claims.
(21:34):
Epstein says Trump knew and asked Maxwell to stop. Maxwell
says she never recruited at Mara Largo in the first place.
Here's the bottom line on this email. It contains an
allegation by Jeffrey Epstein that Trump had some level of
knowledge about his criminal activity. But it's an unverified claim
from an unreliable source. It lacks any specific details that
(21:57):
would allow it to be fact checked, and it's contradicted
by other evidence, including Maxwell's denial and the complete absence
of any victim testimony supporting the claim that Trump had
such knowledge. Can we simply dismiss the email as false? No,
we can't do that either. It's possible that Epstein was
telling the truth in this e mail, that Trump did
(22:20):
have some level of awareness that something inappropriate was going on,
and that Trump's response was inadequate. But possible is not
the same as proven, and we can't treat an unverified
claim in a private email as if its established fact.
The third email is from April two thousand eleven, when
(22:40):
Epstein writes to Maxwell, Donald spent hours at my house
with redacted. That's a dog that hasn't barked. The name
of the person Trump allegedly spent time with has been
redacted by the House Oversight Committee, presumably to protect privacy.
Let's pass this email. Donald spent hours at my house
(23:02):
is a straightforward, factual claim that Trump visited one of
Epstein's properties and spent a significant amount of time there.
The date of two thousand and eleven is interesting because
it's after Epstein's two thousand and eight conviction and Trump's
alleged falling out with Epstein in the mid two thousands.
If this e mail is accurate, it would suggest that
(23:23):
Trump and Epstein were still in contact as late as
two thousand and eleven, which would contradict Trump's claim that
he hadn't spoken to Epstein for many years. However, we
should note that this e mail doesn't say the visit
happened in two thousand and eleven. It's possible Epstein is
referencing a visit that occurred years earlier and is only
(23:45):
now mentioning it to Maxwell. In this two thousand eleven email,
the phrase that's a dog that has embarked is particularly cryptic.
This is a reference to a Sherlock Holmes story where
a key clue is that a dog didn't bark when
it should have. The phrase has come to mean something
conspicuous by its absence. What is Epstein saying here? The
(24:07):
most likely interpretation is that he's noting that Trump has
not been publicly accused of any wrongdoing despite having spent
time at Epstein's house with this redacted person. It could
be Epstein marveling at Trump's ability to avoid scandal, or
it could be Epstein keeping a mental note of potential leverage.
But here's what we don't know. Who is the redacted person?
(24:30):
When did this visit actually occur? What was the nature
of the visit? Was this a social call, a business meeting,
a party, Was anything inappropriate happening during this visit? The
email is so vague that it's almost impossible to draw
firm conclusions from it. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee
(24:50):
have suggested to reporters that the redacted name is that
of a victim, someone who is being trafficked by Epstein
at the time. If that's true, it would be significant
suggesting Trump was present in an environment where trafficking was occurring.
But we don't know if that characterization is accurate, and
even if it is, being present in the same house
(25:12):
as a victim doesn't prove knowledge of or participation in crimes.
So now we have three categories of evidence to consider.
Sworn testimony from victims, allegations made in a lawsuit that
was voluntarily dismissed, and emails from Epstein and others discussing Trump.
How do we weigh these different types of evidence against
(25:34):
each other. In any rational evaluation of evidence, we have
to consider the reliability of sources, the specificity of claims,
the availability of corroborating evidence, and the presence or absence
of contradictory evidence. Let's apply this framework to what we've
examined in this episode. The most reliable evidence we have
(25:56):
is the sworn testimony of Virginia Giuffrey and other victims
who have been deposed under oath. These women were subject
to cross examination they faced penalties for perjury if they lied.
Their testimony has been scrutinized by lawyers, investigators, and journalists,
and their testimony consistently indicates that Trump was not involved
(26:19):
in Epstein's criminal activity. Jewfray specifically said Trump never abused her,
never made in appropriate advances, and was not someone she
was trafficked to. This is highly credible exculpatory evidence. The
least reliable evidence is the Jane Doe lawsuit from twenty sixteen.
This was an allegation made in illegal filing but never
(26:42):
tested in court, The accuser never appeared publicly or gave
testimony that could be cross examined, no corroborating evidence was provided,
the case was voluntarily dismissed without resolution. While we can't
definitively say the allegations were false, we also can't try
treat them as credible given the complete lack of supporting
(27:02):
evidence and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the case. The emails
fall somewhere in between. They are authentic communications that provide
a window into how Epstein and others discussed Trump, but
they're not sworn testimony. They come from unreliable sources like
Epstein himself, and they are often vague or ambiguous in
(27:24):
their implications. The emails show that Trump was part of
Epstein's social world and that Epstein and others were strategizing
about how to handle the Trump Epstein relationship, but they
don't prove criminal conduct or even direct knowledge of criminal conduct.
Here's a key principle of evidence evaluation. Extraordinary claims require
(27:46):
extraordinary evidence. If you're claiming that a former and current
president of the United States participated in sex trafficking of miners,
you need very strong evidence to support that claim. You
need vic tim testimony, You need documentary evidence of presence
at crime scenes. You need corroborating witnesses, You need a
(28:08):
pattern of conduct that's consistent with the allegation. What we
actually have is evidence of a social relationship that ended
years before Epstein's crimes became fully public. We have one
flight on Exstein's plane for a short domestic trip. We
have entries in a contact book, we have photos from parties,
(28:29):
we have vague references and e mails from unreliable sources.
And we have consistent denials under oath from the victims
themselves that Trump was involved. That evidence might support a
conclusion that Trump had poor judgment in his choice of friends.
It might support questions about whether Trump heard rumors about
(28:50):
Epstein and fail to take them seriously enough. But it
does not support the extraordinary claim that Trump was criminally
involved in sex trafficking. Let me address a common counter argument.
Some people say that the absence of victim testimony against
Trump isn't meaningful because victims might be afraid to come
forward or might have been paid off. This argument doesn't
(29:13):
hold up well when you look at the specifics of
this case. Many victims have come forward despite enormous personal cost.
The Ginia Dioufrey has made herself a public figure and
has accused numerous powerful men, including Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz.
If she had information about Trump, why would she withhold
(29:34):
it while being willing to accuse others. The idea that
victims are being selectively silenced only about Trump but not
about other powerful figures doesn't make logical sense. Another counter
argument is that Trump's denials about the extent of his
relationship with Epstein are themselves evidence of guilt. After all,
Trump said he never flew on Epstein's plane, but we
(29:56):
know he did at least once. Trump has downplay how
well he knew Epstein, but the photos and quotes suggest
they were friendlier than Trump now admits. Doesn't this dishonesty
suggest Trump is hiding something more serious? This argument has
some merit. Tromp has not been fully forthcoming about his
relationship with Epstein, and that lack of candor is concerning.
(30:20):
When someone is caught in false statements, it naturally raises
questions about what else they might be lying about. However,
there's a huge difference between minimizing a past friendship out
of political self interest and covering up criminal activity. People
lie about embarrassing associations all the time without being criminals.
(30:42):
The fact that Trump is the fact that Trump has
not been completely honest about how well he knew Epstein
is evidence of poor character, judgment, and political calculation. But
it's not evidence of criminal character, but scientific science. All
things are of power and apprehension. We also need to
(31:03):
consider the media environment in which this evidence is being evaluated.
We live in an age of extreme partisanship, where every
piece of information is immediately weaponized for political purposes. Trump's
critics are predisposed to interpret any ambiguous evidence in the
most negative light possible. Trump's supporters are predisposed to dismiss
(31:24):
any criticism as partisan witch hunting, and all and ordinary
citizens trying to figure out the truth are caught in
the middle of these competing narratives. This is why it's
so important to focus on the quality of evidence rather
than the volume of allegations. You can find hundreds of
social media posts and partisan blog articles claiming that Trump
(31:47):
was deeply involved in Epstein's crimes. You can also find
hundreds of posts claiming that the entire Epstein connection is
a hoax designed to smear Trump. Both of these narratives are,
in their extremes, disconnected from what the actual evidence shows.
What the evidence actually supports is a more mundane story.
(32:09):
Trump and Epstein or wealthy men who moved in the
same social circles in New York and Palm Beach in
the nineteen nineties and early two thousands. They attended parties together.
They knew each other well enough for Epstein to offer
Trump a ride on his plane. They had some kind
(32:30):
of falling out before Epstein's first arrest, the exact nature
and timing of which is not entirely clear. Trump's judgment
in maintaining this friendship was poor, especially given the rumors
that apparently circulated about Epstein in Palm Beach society. But
there's no credible evidence that Trump participated in Epstein's crimes
(32:51):
or had specific knowledge that would have triggered a legal
duty to report. Let me be very direct about where
we are in this investigation. We've now ex examined two
categories of evidence, the documentary evidence establishing that Trump and
Epstein knew each other socially, and the allegations that have
been made about Trump in legal proceedings and in meeked communications.
(33:13):
What we've found is that there's clear evidence of a
social relationship, but there's no credible evidence of criminal involvement.
The most reliable witnesses, the victims themselves, say Trump wasn't involved.
The most serious allegations against Trump were made in a
lawsuit that was voluntarily dismissed without any evidence being presented.
(33:35):
The emails that have been leaked are suggestive but vague,
coming from unreliable sources and lacking the kind of specific
detail that would allow them to be verified or refuted.
Does this mean Trump is completely in the clear now?
It means that, based on the available evidence, we cannot
prove that Trump committed crimes or had specific knowledge of
(33:58):
Epstein's crimes. But significant questions remain about Trump's judgment, about
what he might have heard or suspected, and about why
he's been less than fully forthcoming about the extent of
his past relationship with Epstein. In our final episode, we're
going to look at the broader pattern of conspiracy theories
(34:19):
that have developed around the Epstein case. We'll examine the
most common false claims that have been debunked. We'll look
at how misinformation spreads and why it's been so difficult
to maintain a fact based conversation about this topic, and
we'll discuss what legitimate transparency efforts look like versus what
actual hoaxes look like. Thank you for listening to episode
(34:42):
two of Hoax the Epstein Files. We're committed to following
the evidence wherever it leads, without fear or favor toward
any political faction. Join us next time as we continue
this investigation. For more content like this, please go to
Quiet Please dot a I. This episode was brought to
(35:05):
you by Quiet Please Podcast Networks. Thanks for listening, and
please subscribe Quiet Please dot a I hear what matters
Welcome back to Hoax the Epstein Files, Facts Versus Claims.
I am Alexandra Reeves, an AI investigative journalist. In our
first episode, we established the documented facts about the social
relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. We looked at photographs,
(00:20):
flight locks, contact books, and Trump's own statements. We confirmed
that they knew each other, that they socialized together in
the nineteen nineties and early two thousands, and that they
had some kind of falling out in the mid two thousands.
But establishing that two people knew each other socially is
very different from proving that one person participated in or
(00:43):
had knowledge of the other's crimes. In this episode, we're
going to examine the allegations that have been made about
Trump in connection with the Epstein case, and we're going
to focus specifically on allegations that were made under oath
in legal proceedings, because those carry much more weight than
anonymous social media posts or partisan media reports. Before we
(01:08):
dive into the specific allegations, let's talk about why sworn
testimony matters. When someone makes a statement under oath in
a deposition or in court, their subject to penalties for
perjury if they lie. Their subject to cross examination by
opposing lawyers, and their statements become part of a permanent
legal record that can be scrutinized and fact checked. This
(01:31):
doesn't mean that everything said under oath is automatically true.
People can lie, even under penalty of perjury, and memories
can be faulty, but sworn testimony is generally more reliable
than casual statements made to the media or claims circulated
online without any accountability. The most important legal proceedings related
(01:53):
to Jeffrey Epstein include his two thousand and eight plea
deal in Florida, his two thousand in nineteen federal indictment
in New York that ended with his death, Islaine Maxwell's
twenty twenty one trial and conviction, and numerous civil lawsuits
filed by victims seeking damages. Many of these proceedings involved depositions,
(02:15):
which are sworn statements taken outside of court as part
of the discovery process. Thousands of pages of depositions have
been taken in Epstein related litigation, and much of this
material has been unsealed and made public through court orders.
In January twenty twenty four, a federal judge ordered the
(02:35):
unsealing of approximately four thousand, five hundred pages of documents
related to a civil lawsuit filed by Virginia Dufrey against
Galaine Maxwell. This document release was one of the most
significant in the entire Epstein saga, and it generated enormous
media attention. The documents included depositions from Dufrey, from Maxwell,
(02:59):
and from vera other witnesses. They included emails, flight logs,
and other evidence, and they mentioned many prominent names. Let's
start with Virginia Guphrey, because she's been the most prominent
and consistent accuser in the Epstein case. Geufrey, who was
previously known as Virginia Roberts before her marriage, has said
(03:21):
that she was recruited by Gelaine Maxwell when she was
working as a locker room attendant at more Lago in
the late nineteen nineties. According to Giufrey's account, Maxwell approached
her when she was sixteen years old, offered her a
job as a traveling messuse for Epstein, and then trafficked
her for several years. Geufrey's father worked at Mari Lago
(03:44):
as a maintenance manager, which is how she came to
be working at the club as a teenager. Geufray's allegations
about what happened to her after she was recruited are
horrific and detailed. She has said that she was forced
to have sex with Epstein many times. She has said
that she was trafficked to other powerful men, including Prince Andrew,
(04:05):
lawyer Alan Dershowitz, and various other individuals. Her allegations against
Prince Andrew led to a lawsuit that was settled out
of court, with Andrew paying a substantial sum without admitting guilt.
Her allegations against Dershowitz led to years of legal battles,
with Burshowitz vehemently denying her claims and even suing her
(04:28):
for defamation. But here is the crucial fact for our purposes.
Virginia Dufrey has never accused Donald Trump of any wrongdoing,
despite the fact that she was recruited at Trump's club,
despite the fact that she has named numerous other powerful
men as abuses, and despite the fact that she has
been deposed multiple times under oath, Gufrey has consistently said
(04:52):
that Trump was not one of the people she was
trafficked to. Let's look at the specific testimony. In a
twoth two and her sixteen deposition, Gufrey was asked directly
about Donald Trump. The lawyer conducting the deposition asked whether
she had ever been directed to engage in sexual activity
with Trump. Deirfrey answered no. She was asked whether Trump
(05:14):
had ever firted with her, She said no. She was
asked whether she had ever given Trump a massage, She
said no. She was asked whether she had ever seen
Trump at Epstein's so he said he had never seen
anything like anything. How would that be? This testimony is crucial,
and it's been strangely under reported in some media coverage
(05:37):
of the Epstein case. Here you have the most prominent
victim who has been willing to make specific allegations against
powerful men, some one who has nothing to gain by
protecting Trump and arguably something to gain from making allegations
against him, and she specifically says under oath that Trump
did not abuse her or make inappropriate advances toward her. Now,
(06:00):
does this testimony prove that Trump never engaged in any
inappropriate behavior related to Epstein. No, it doesn't. Deufrey's experience
doesn't cover everyone who was trafficked by Epstein. There could
theoretically be other victims who haven't come forward who might
have different stories. But the fact that the most credible
(06:20):
and prominent accuser in this case has explicitly cleared Trump
of wrongdoing is highly significant evidence in his favor. It's
also worth noting that Tufrey has paid a price for
her honesty on this point. Some partisan activists who desperately
wanted her to accuse Trump have criticized her for not
doing so. Some have even suggested that she's protecting him
(06:42):
for some reason. But Deufrey has been consistent. She tells
the truth about what happened to her, regardless of whether
it fits anyone's political narrative, and the truth, according to
her sworn testimony, is that Trump was not one of
her abuses. What about other victims? Have any of the
(07:03):
other women who have come forward with allegations against Epstein
accused Trump of anything? The answer, as far as the
public record shows, is null. Dozens of women have come
forward over the years to report that Epstein abused them.
Many have filed lawsuits seeking damages from Epstein's estate, many
(07:23):
have given interviews to law enforcement and to the media,
and none of them, to our knowledge, have accused Trump
of participating in Epstein's crimes or of having sexual contact
with them. When they were under age. This is not
just an argument from silence. In legal proceedings, the dog
that doesn't bark can be significant evidence. If Trump had
(07:47):
been part of Epstein's trafficking operation, if he had abused
underage girls at Epstein's properties, we would expect at least
some victims to have named him. The fact that none have,
despite the enormous publicity this case has received, and despite
the clear incentive for victims to name all of their abuses,
(08:08):
strongly suggests that Trump was not involved in the criminal activity.
Let me be very clear about what I'm not saying.
I'm not saying that Trump's social association with Epstein was
appropriate or meaningless. I'm not saying that Trump couldn't or
shouldn't have suspected what Epstein was doing. I'm not saying
that Trump has handled questions about this relationship well or honest.
(08:32):
If you want to say no world things, you should
further imagine that any man being more active than you.
What I am saying is that, based on the sworn
testimony of the actual victims in this case, there is
no evidence that Trump participated in the crimes that Epstein
and Maxwell were convicted of. The Jane Doe allegations. However,
(08:57):
there was one allegation made against Trump that we need
to examine carefully because it received significant media attention during
the two thousand and sixteen presidential campaign. In April two
thousand sixteen, a lawsuit was filed in California federal court
by a woman identified as Jane Doe, who claimed that
(09:17):
Trump had raped her at a party at Epstein's Manhattan
mansion in nineteen ninety four, when she was thirteen years old.
The lawsuit sought damages and included graphic descriptions of the
alleged assault. This lawsuit became a major story in the
final months of the two thousandeen sixteen campaign. News outlets
(09:37):
covered it extensively. Trump's critics cited it as evidence of
his involvement in Epstein's crimes. The allegations were horrific and
if true, would have constituted serious felonies that would disqualify
any one from holding public office. But then, in November
two thousand and sixteen, just days before the presidential election,
(10:00):
the lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn. The plaintiff's lawyer said she
had dropped the case due to threats, though they provided
no evidence of such threats. No criminal charges were ever
filed based on these allegations, and the accuser never came
forward publicly to give media interviews or to provide testimony
under oath. So what do we make of this case?
(10:24):
Let's look at the facts carefully. The lawsuit was initially
filed in California and was dismissed on procedural grounds. It
was then refiled in New York in June two thousand sixteen.
The claims in the lawsuit were extremely serious, but they
had several characteristics that raised questions about their credibility. First,
(10:45):
the lawsuit was filed anonymously, which is understandable for a
victim of sexual assault, but also makes the claims harder
to verify. Second, the lawsuit was filed more than twenty
years after the alleged incidents, which is not uncommon in
sexual assault cases, but does raise challenges in terms of
evidence and corroboration. Third, the lawsuit was filed by a
(11:08):
lawyer named Thomas Meager, who had previously been involved in
questionable litigation tactics. Fourth, no evidence was provided to support
the allegations beyond the plaintiff's own statements. Perhaps most significantly,
A scheduled press conference where the accuser was supposed to
come forward publicly, was canceled at the last minute, and
(11:31):
then the entire lawsuit was dropped. The plaintiff's lawyers claimed
she was receiving threats, but no police reports were filed
about these alleged threats and no evidence of them was
ever provided. Media outlets at the time investigated the claims
and came to mixed conclusions. Some found the allegations credible
enough to report on. Others were skeptical, noting the timing
(11:55):
of the lawsuit during a presidential campaign, the lack of
corroborating evidence, and the fact that the case was dropped
rather than pursued through the legal system. Here's what we
can say definitively. The allegations were made in a legal filing,
but they were never tested in court. The accuser never
appeared publicly or gave testimony under oath that could be
(12:18):
cross examined. No corroborating evidence was ever produced, The case
was voluntarily dismissed without any settlement or resolution, and in
the more than eight years since, the accuser has never
come forward again or pursued the claims in any other forum.
Does this mean the allegations were false, not necessarily, It's
(12:40):
possible that a genuine victim filed this lawsuit and then
dropped it because the pressure became too much. Sexual assault
victims often struggle with coming forward, and the intense media
scrutiny surrounding a presidential campaign could easily be overwhelming. But
it's also possible that the allegations were fabricating, either by
(13:01):
the supposed victim or by others with political motives. The
timing was certainly suspicious, the lack of any corroborating evidence
was troubling, and the voluntary dismissal without any apparent reason
other than alleged threats raise a serious questions. What we
can't do is treat these allegations as established fact. Unproven
(13:24):
allegations that were made in a lawsuit that was voluntarily
dismissed without any testimony or evidence cannot be given the
same weight as allegations that have been tested through the
legal process. This is especially true when other victims in
the case, like Virginia Geoffrey, have specifically said under oath
that Trump was not one of their abusers. The media's
(13:47):
handling of the Jane Doe lawsuit illustrates one of the
major problems with coverage of the Epstein case, the tendency
to treat allegations as if their established facts, particularly when
those allegations target politically controversial figures. Responsible journalism requires distinguishing
between what has been proven, what has been credibly alleged,
(14:09):
and what remains unsubstantiated. The Jane Doe case falls into
the third category. Now, let's turn to the emails that
were just released by the House Oversight Committee in November
twenty twenty five. These emails have generated enormous controversy and
have been cited as evidence that Trump had knowledge of
Epstein's crimes. We need to examine what these emails actually
(14:35):
say and what weight we can give to them as evidence.
The first email is dated December fifteenth, two thousand fifteen,
and it's from author Michael Wolfe to Jeffrey Epstein. Wolfe,
as you probably know, wrote several controversial books about the
Trump presidency, including Fire and Fury, which contained explosive allegations
(14:59):
about Trump's word White House based on interviews with staffers
and Trump himself. In this twenty fifteen email, wolf writes
to Epstein, CNN is planning to ask Trump about your relationship,
either in an interview or in the post show. Scrum
thought she should know let him hang himself or maybe
(15:20):
save him, generating a debt. Let's analyze what this email
tells us. First, it confirms that Wolf and Epstein had
some kind of relationship in late twenty fifteen, at a
time when Trump's presidential campaign was gaining momentum. Second, it
shows that Wolf had inside information about CNN's coverage plans
(15:41):
and felt comfortable sharing that information with Epstein. Third, and
most significantly for our purposes, it shows that Wolf and
Epstein were discussing the Trump Epstein relationship in strategic terms.
The phrase let him hang himself or maybe save him
generating a dabt yet is particularly interesting. This suggests a
(16:03):
transactional mindset where Epstein could potentially help Trump by providing
information or context that would make the relationship look innocent,
and doing so would create an obligation that Trump would
owe Epstein in the future. What does this email prove
about Trump? Honestly, not much. It proves that Wolf and
(16:24):
Epstein were discussing Trump and that they were thinking strategically
about how to handle media inquiries about the Trump Epstein relationship,
but the email is between Wolf and Epstein. Trump is
not a party to this communication. There's no evidence that
Trump knew about this email or that he asked Epstein
for help in dealing with CNN's questions. Moreover, the fact
(16:49):
that media outlets were planning to ask Trump about Epstein
in late twenty fifteen is not surprising. Trump and Epstein's
past friendship was already a matter of public record at
that point. The nineteen ninety two video and the two
thousand two New York magazine quote were available to anyone
who did basic research, so CNN asking about the relationship
(17:13):
was entirely predictable, and Trump didn't need Epstein's help to
prepare an answer. What happened when Trump was actually asked
about Epstein during this period, Trump's answers were consistent with
what he said since that he knew Epstein years ago,
that they were friendly but not close friends, that they
had a falling out, and that Trump wasn't aware of
(17:34):
Epstein's criminal behavior. There's no evidence that Epstein helped Trump
craft these answers or that Trump incurred any debt to
Epstein for assistance in dealing with media enquiries. So the
December twenty fifteen email is interesting as a window into
how Epstein thought about his relationships with powerful people. It
(17:55):
suggests he saw these relationships in transactional terms, as assets
to be leveraged, but it doesn't prove anything about Trump's
knowledge or conduct. The second email is dated January twenty
nineteen and is from Epstein to Wharf. At this point,
Trump is president and Epstein's legal troubles are resurfacing following
(18:17):
The Miami Herald's investigative series. In this email, Epstein writes,
of course he knew about the girls as he asked
Glaine to stop. This is the most explosive claim in
any of the released emails, and it's the one that's
being cited most heavily by Trump's critics. If this claim
(18:37):
is true, it would mean that Trump had knowledge that
Epstein and Maxwell were involved with underage girls, and that
his response was merely to ask them to stop, rather
than reporting the conduct to law enforcement. So let's analyze
this claim very carefully. First, what is the source. The
(18:59):
source is Jeffrey Epstein himself, in a private email to
Michael Wolfe. This is not testimony under oath. This is
not a statement to law enforcement. This is an email
from a convicted sex offender and serial liar to a journalist. Second,
what does the claim actually say he knew about the girls?
(19:22):
Is vague? What did Trump allegedly know. Did he know
that Epstein liked young women? Did he know that Epstein
was dating women much younger than himself? Did he know
that Epstein was involved with underage girls? Did he witness
criminal activity or did he just hear rumors? The phrase
(19:42):
knew about the girls could mean many different things. Third,
what does he ask Gilaine to stop? Mean? Stop? What
exactly when did this alleged conversation take place? What was
the context? Was Trump telling Maxwell to stop recruiting at
his club because he was concerned about criminal behavior, or
(20:03):
was he telling her to stop for some other reason,
like concerns about the club's recutation. The problem with this
email is that it's completely lacking in specifics. There's no
date given for when Trump allegedly had this conversation with Maxwell.
There's no description of what Trump said he knew. There's
no explanation of why Trump allegedly chose to handle the
(20:25):
situation by talking to Maxwell rather than going to the police,
and perhaps most importantly, we need to consider the source
and the context. This email was written by Epstein in
January twenty nineteen, at a time when his legal troubles
were intensifying. Within months, he would be arrested on new
federal charges. He had every reason to try to implicate
(20:48):
others to suggest that powerful people knew about his crimes
and were complicit in covering them up. By suggesting that
Trump knew about the girls, Epstein could be trying to
create leverage to suggest that if he went down, he
could take others with him. We also need to consider
that Gelaine Maxwell has directly contradicted this claim. In a
(21:11):
twenty twenty five interview from prison, Maxwell was asked specifically
about recruiting at mare Lago, and she denied ever doing so. Now,
Maxwell is a convicted sex trafficker who has lied repeatedly
about her involvement in Epstein's crimes, so her denial doesn't
carry much weight, but it does mean we have conflicting claims.
(21:34):
Epstein says Trump knew and asked Maxwell to stop. Maxwell
says she never recruited at Mara Largo in the first place.
Here's the bottom line on this email. It contains an
allegation by Jeffrey Epstein that Trump had some level of
knowledge about his criminal activity. But it's an unverified claim
from an unreliable source. It lacks any specific details that
(21:57):
would allow it to be fact checked, and it's contradicted
by other evidence, including Maxwell's denial and the complete absence
of any victim testimony supporting the claim that Trump had
such knowledge. Can we simply dismiss the email as false? No,
we can't do that either. It's possible that Epstein was
telling the truth in this e mail, that Trump did
(22:20):
have some level of awareness that something inappropriate was going on,
and that Trump's response was inadequate. But possible is not
the same as proven, and we can't treat an unverified
claim in a private email as if its established fact.
The third email is from April two thousand eleven, when
(22:40):
Epstein writes to Maxwell, Donald spent hours at my house
with redacted. That's a dog that hasn't barked. The name
of the person Trump allegedly spent time with has been
redacted by the House Oversight Committee, presumably to protect privacy.
Let's pass this email. Donald spent hours at my house
(23:02):
is a straightforward, factual claim that Trump visited one of
Epstein's properties and spent a significant amount of time there.
The date of two thousand and eleven is interesting because
it's after Epstein's two thousand and eight conviction and Trump's
alleged falling out with Epstein in the mid two thousands.
If this e mail is accurate, it would suggest that
(23:23):
Trump and Epstein were still in contact as late as
two thousand and eleven, which would contradict Trump's claim that
he hadn't spoken to Epstein for many years. However, we
should note that this e mail doesn't say the visit
happened in two thousand and eleven. It's possible Epstein is
referencing a visit that occurred years earlier and is only
(23:45):
now mentioning it to Maxwell. In this two thousand eleven email,
the phrase that's a dog that has embarked is particularly cryptic.
This is a reference to a Sherlock Holmes story where
a key clue is that a dog didn't bark when
it should have. The phrase has come to mean something
conspicuous by its absence. What is Epstein saying here? The
(24:07):
most likely interpretation is that he's noting that Trump has
not been publicly accused of any wrongdoing despite having spent
time at Epstein's house with this redacted person. It could
be Epstein marveling at Trump's ability to avoid scandal, or
it could be Epstein keeping a mental note of potential leverage.
But here's what we don't know. Who is the redacted person?
(24:30):
When did this visit actually occur? What was the nature
of the visit? Was this a social call, a business meeting,
a party, Was anything inappropriate happening during this visit? The
email is so vague that it's almost impossible to draw
firm conclusions from it. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee
(24:50):
have suggested to reporters that the redacted name is that
of a victim, someone who is being trafficked by Epstein
at the time. If that's true, it would be significant
suggesting Trump was present in an environment where trafficking was occurring.
But we don't know if that characterization is accurate, and
even if it is, being present in the same house
(25:12):
as a victim doesn't prove knowledge of or participation in crimes.
So now we have three categories of evidence to consider.
Sworn testimony from victims, allegations made in a lawsuit that
was voluntarily dismissed, and emails from Epstein and others discussing Trump.
How do we weigh these different types of evidence against
(25:34):
each other. In any rational evaluation of evidence, we have
to consider the reliability of sources, the specificity of claims,
the availability of corroborating evidence, and the presence or absence
of contradictory evidence. Let's apply this framework to what we've
examined in this episode. The most reliable evidence we have
(25:56):
is the sworn testimony of Virginia Giuffrey and other victims
who have been deposed under oath. These women were subject
to cross examination they faced penalties for perjury if they lied.
Their testimony has been scrutinized by lawyers, investigators, and journalists,
and their testimony consistently indicates that Trump was not involved
(26:19):
in Epstein's criminal activity. Jewfray specifically said Trump never abused her,
never made in appropriate advances, and was not someone she
was trafficked to. This is highly credible exculpatory evidence. The
least reliable evidence is the Jane Doe lawsuit from twenty sixteen.
This was an allegation made in illegal filing but never
(26:42):
tested in court, The accuser never appeared publicly or gave
testimony that could be cross examined, no corroborating evidence was provided,
the case was voluntarily dismissed without resolution. While we can't
definitively say the allegations were false, we also can't try
treat them as credible given the complete lack of supporting
(27:02):
evidence and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the case. The emails
fall somewhere in between. They are authentic communications that provide
a window into how Epstein and others discussed Trump, but
they're not sworn testimony. They come from unreliable sources like
Epstein himself, and they are often vague or ambiguous in
(27:24):
their implications. The emails show that Trump was part of
Epstein's social world and that Epstein and others were strategizing
about how to handle the Trump Epstein relationship, but they
don't prove criminal conduct or even direct knowledge of criminal conduct.
Here's a key principle of evidence evaluation. Extraordinary claims require
(27:46):
extraordinary evidence. If you're claiming that a former and current
president of the United States participated in sex trafficking of miners,
you need very strong evidence to support that claim. You
need vic tim testimony, You need documentary evidence of presence
at crime scenes. You need corroborating witnesses, You need a
(28:08):
pattern of conduct that's consistent with the allegation. What we
actually have is evidence of a social relationship that ended
years before Epstein's crimes became fully public. We have one
flight on Exstein's plane for a short domestic trip. We
have entries in a contact book, we have photos from parties,
(28:29):
we have vague references and e mails from unreliable sources.
And we have consistent denials under oath from the victims
themselves that Trump was involved. That evidence might support a
conclusion that Trump had poor judgment in his choice of friends.
It might support questions about whether Trump heard rumors about
(28:50):
Epstein and fail to take them seriously enough. But it
does not support the extraordinary claim that Trump was criminally
involved in sex trafficking. Let me address a common counter argument.
Some people say that the absence of victim testimony against
Trump isn't meaningful because victims might be afraid to come
forward or might have been paid off. This argument doesn't
(29:13):
hold up well when you look at the specifics of
this case. Many victims have come forward despite enormous personal cost.
The Ginia Dioufrey has made herself a public figure and
has accused numerous powerful men, including Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz.
If she had information about Trump, why would she withhold
(29:34):
it while being willing to accuse others. The idea that
victims are being selectively silenced only about Trump but not
about other powerful figures doesn't make logical sense. Another counter
argument is that Trump's denials about the extent of his
relationship with Epstein are themselves evidence of guilt. After all,
Trump said he never flew on Epstein's plane, but we
(29:56):
know he did at least once. Trump has downplay how
well he knew Epstein, but the photos and quotes suggest
they were friendlier than Trump now admits. Doesn't this dishonesty
suggest Trump is hiding something more serious? This argument has
some merit. Tromp has not been fully forthcoming about his
relationship with Epstein, and that lack of candor is concerning.
(30:20):
When someone is caught in false statements, it naturally raises
questions about what else they might be lying about. However,
there's a huge difference between minimizing a past friendship out
of political self interest and covering up criminal activity. People
lie about embarrassing associations all the time without being criminals.
(30:42):
The fact that Trump is the fact that Trump has
not been completely honest about how well he knew Epstein
is evidence of poor character, judgment, and political calculation. But
it's not evidence of criminal character, but scientific science. All
things are of power and apprehension. We also need to
(31:03):
consider the media environment in which this evidence is being evaluated.
We live in an age of extreme partisanship, where every
piece of information is immediately weaponized for political purposes. Trump's
critics are predisposed to interpret any ambiguous evidence in the
most negative light possible. Trump's supporters are predisposed to dismiss
(31:24):
any criticism as partisan witch hunting, and all and ordinary
citizens trying to figure out the truth are caught in
the middle of these competing narratives. This is why it's
so important to focus on the quality of evidence rather
than the volume of allegations. You can find hundreds of
social media posts and partisan blog articles claiming that Trump
(31:47):
was deeply involved in Epstein's crimes. You can also find
hundreds of posts claiming that the entire Epstein connection is
a hoax designed to smear Trump. Both of these narratives are,
in their extremes, disconnected from what the actual evidence shows.
What the evidence actually supports is a more mundane story.
(32:09):
Trump and Epstein or wealthy men who moved in the
same social circles in New York and Palm Beach in
the nineteen nineties and early two thousands. They attended parties together.
They knew each other well enough for Epstein to offer
Trump a ride on his plane. They had some kind
(32:30):
of falling out before Epstein's first arrest, the exact nature
and timing of which is not entirely clear. Trump's judgment
in maintaining this friendship was poor, especially given the rumors
that apparently circulated about Epstein in Palm Beach society. But
there's no credible evidence that Trump participated in Epstein's crimes
(32:51):
or had specific knowledge that would have triggered a legal
duty to report. Let me be very direct about where
we are in this investigation. We've now ex examined two
categories of evidence, the documentary evidence establishing that Trump and
Epstein knew each other socially, and the allegations that have
been made about Trump in legal proceedings and in meeked communications.
(33:13):
What we've found is that there's clear evidence of a
social relationship, but there's no credible evidence of criminal involvement.
The most reliable witnesses, the victims themselves, say Trump wasn't involved.
The most serious allegations against Trump were made in a
lawsuit that was voluntarily dismissed without any evidence being presented.
(33:35):
The emails that have been leaked are suggestive but vague,
coming from unreliable sources and lacking the kind of specific
detail that would allow them to be verified or refuted.
Does this mean Trump is completely in the clear now?
It means that, based on the available evidence, we cannot
prove that Trump committed crimes or had specific knowledge of
(33:58):
Epstein's crimes. But significant questions remain about Trump's judgment, about
what he might have heard or suspected, and about why
he's been less than fully forthcoming about the extent of
his past relationship with Epstein. In our final episode, we're
going to look at the broader pattern of conspiracy theories
(34:19):
that have developed around the Epstein case. We'll examine the
most common false claims that have been debunked. We'll look
at how misinformation spreads and why it's been so difficult
to maintain a fact based conversation about this topic, and
we'll discuss what legitimate transparency efforts look like versus what
actual hoaxes look like. Thank you for listening to episode
(34:42):
two of Hoax the Epstein Files. We're committed to following
the evidence wherever it leads, without fear or favor toward
any political faction. Join us next time as we continue
this investigation. For more content like this, please go to
Quiet Please dot a I. This episode was brought to
(35:05):
you by Quiet Please Podcast Networks. Thanks for listening, and
please subscribe Quiet Please dot a I hear what matters
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.