More Epstein files were released, and the left is excited to say President Trump was mentioned, but it’s very dated and debunked news. The media will undoubtedly make the most of it right up until the midterms.
Trump flew with Epstein more often than was known before, but between 1993-1996, or more before Epstein’s crimes were known. The President has already said he socialized with him during that time until 2004. Epstein’s crimes became known in 2008, and many prominent Democrats were still hanging out with him. However, to be fair, that doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.
In 2020, one tip report to the FBI alleged that Trump and others were involved in a rape and murder. However, that particular tip was investigated and debunked:
Jeffery Epstein has recordings of Donald Trump with victims.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. pic.twitter.com/sniIQJsS2H
— Evan (@daviddunn177) December 23, 2025
The tipster said Epstein recorded powerful men having sex with girls and that she had seen or possessed copies of such recordings.
However, during sworn testimony in the Giuffre v. Maxwell litigation, she walked back the tape claims and admitted she did not possess tapes.
She acknowledged her earlier statements were exaggerated or based on belief, not firsthand proof.
Once they lie, nothing they say can be trusted.
In court filings, her allegations about recordings were treated as unreliable and unsupported.
Eli Lake wrote about revealing this unreliable information on Sunday at the Free Press after the “Tubba Bubba” photos were published:
The fact that the files are being released at all violates longstanding Justice Department rules, which bar the agency from disclosing information it gathers about individuals during an investigation until and unless they are charged with a crime. That rule was famously broken in the middle of the 2016 presidential election when FBI director James Comey discussed the details of the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server during her time as secretary of state. Comey did not charge her, but he discussed in detail her risky cybersecurity arrangement.
“The Justice Department has long had rules against even confirming or denying the existence of an investigation, let alone disclosing information an investigation has obtained regarding uncharged persons,” Andy McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted perpetrators of the first World Trade Center attack, told The Free Press. “The government is supposed to comment publicly only when it has formally charged a person, who at that point is given the full array of Bill of Rights protections—including representation by counsel and court enforcement of due process—to fight back.” …
None of the files yet released prove the elaborate theory that has spread about Epstein: that he was running a sex-trafficking ring to blackmail America’s power elite. Instead, the release has fed another round of innuendo while eroding long-standing rules to keep the politics of personal destruction far away from our justice system.
The mob forced this, and it’s wrong. That is the reason President Trump objected.
Now The Guardian says that if you open the Epstein files in Adobe you can unredact the redacted parts.
I don t know the whole story but so far some of what was redacted is nothing important.
the name of a lawyer who defended Epstein was redacted, now unredacted ; his name is Indyke….Also what he did was un-redacted.
He works or used to work for the same lawyer firm ( Parlatore law) who defends Pete Heghseth and has defended Trump in the past.
The same firm as Epstein’s, but not the same lawyer.
Hegseth and Trump hiring a lawyer from the same firm means nothing, but we know the left and their evil media will use that against Trump.
People hire lawyers from firms that have a good reputation for winning cases, it does not mean you agree with or are friends with the criminals they defended in the past.
Now how come the Epstein files can be unredacted so easily in Adobe?…
Incompetence? Mistake? possible but not very likely…
Intentional? Much more likely…
Someone may have made them easy to unredact either because:..
… -a- they hate Trump and were hoping the unredacted stuff could be used against Trump…
… -b- that person likes Trump and since nothing in the files is solid evidence against Trump they thought it would help him ?
It is hard to believe it was just a mistake, just incompetence…I would bet money it was intentional.
Comments are closed.