Epstein letter: Trump knew

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously timed for the return of the House:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/12/us/politics/trump-epstein-emails.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251112&instance_id=166274&nl=breaking-news®i_id=130978122&segment_id=210450&user_id=fcb1b8a728d5f78d42df74f0dbc09f85


EPSTEIN ALLEGED IN E-MAILS THAT TRUMP KNEW OF HIS CONDUCT

In a message obtained by Congress, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein wrote that Donald Trump spent hours at his house with one of Mr. Epstein's victims.

It's pretty clear this leak was timed for the House reconvening after being off 59 days. Johnson is swearing in Adelita Grijalva, who will become the 218th signature on the discharge petition to release the Epstein files.

The fact that more information hasn't be released or leaked sooner and faster the past few years makes it obvious there is an effort by very powerful people to keep as much info sealed for as long as possible. As far as Trump's involvement is concerned; it's very likely he at least knew of Epstein's disgusting and criminal wrongdoings at the time they were happening and it's certainly plausible he participated in the wrongdoings. Best case for Trump, which really isn't a best anything, is that he is one of many powerful politicians seeking to provide cover for ultra-wealthy political donors who have ties to those implicated in the files.

Trump joked that Epstein liked them young.

Joked about it.

Even though he had a daughter.

Trump has two daughters though he only lusts after Ivanka.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NY Times ran hundreds of "but her emails" articles in 2016 and sat on Epstein's emails the entire time.

Why?

This, this, this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NY Times ran hundreds of "but her emails" articles in 2016 and sat on Epstein's emails the entire time.

Why?

This, this, this.

They didn't have the emails. You really must keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NY Times ran hundreds of "but her emails" articles in 2016 and sat on Epstein's emails the entire time.

Why?

This, this, this.

They didn't have the emails. You really must keep up.

the NY Times had some of Epstein's emails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does "Police Chief etc. I'm 75% there" mean?

Exectly. Where is "there" -- what goal were they working toward?

Sarah Longwell figured this out on her show today. It means Epstein and Maxwell had been wondering who sold them out. Epstein finally figured out it was Trump so he emailed Maxwell to tell her. Trump was the dog that didn’t bark bc when the police chief was dragging everyone, Trump seemed immune annd was not mentioned/questioned even though he was at Epstein’s house for hours with underage girls. “I’m 75% there” means he’s 75% sure or 75% to figuring out the whole thing.

Could be, and that’s just further proof that he raped children. He’s sell anyone out to save himself.

Though, these made up narratives to try to sell Trump as a non child rapists are getting pretty entertaining.

Was he also secretly saving them from the basement of a pizza shop lmao

You drop phrases like "raped children" so easily. I wish you had the courage not to be anonymous when you say such things.

So he can send his army of violent criminals out to kidnap us too?

It is quite interesting to note though that you don’t see too many people defending him in public anymore, isn’t it perhaps it’s because they all know what he really is and don’t want to be associated with him? It works two ways you know.

Wait, what? You're calling him a child rapist because of immigration enforcement?

There is going to come a day where all these comments will be unmasked and communities will splinter.

I can’t wait to find out who is behind the posts supporting Trump at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Epstein files do not matter. Trump's supporters elected a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist who willfully defies the constitution and courts. There is nothing in these letters that will cause him to lose support among his base and Republicans in congress. Trump said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and get away with it, and he is right.

I don’t know, you don’t need them all. You just need a few republicans in office that might still have a soul or a conscience.

I will say that that if you see people you know, or in the general public in your sphere, supporting Trump at this point it would probably be best to keep them far away from your children.

It is only a matter of time before no one will be willing to admit they voted for this man.

Agreed. They know that it’s shameful, but they can’t help themselves when they can support this sick administration anonymously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did Democrats object to releasing the Epstein files today?
Tim Burchett asked for unanimous consent, and Democrats blocked it.
Was this a Trojan horse in the unanimous consent rules?

They didn't. His spin to the media is a lie, of course. You can watch what really happened on CSPAN. His request could not be entertianed because the Republican Speaker Pro Tempore said Burchett had not followed the rules and because he did not have the consent of Republican Mike Johnson, who is on record opposing Burchett's attempt.

My guess is that he tried this because it would have allowed the no votes to hide.

Those who are going to vote NO to release must be on the record individually voting no to the release when they do the vote by normal procedures next week. Burkett tried to end run that and let the no voters try save face (which may mean he is actually a no vote himself).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Democrats object to releasing the Epstein files today?
Tim Burchett asked for unanimous consent, and Democrats blocked it.
Was this a Trojan horse in the unanimous consent rules?

They didn't. His spin to the media is a lie, of course. You can watch what really happened on CSPAN. His request could not be entertianed because the Republican Speaker Pro Tempore said Burchett had not followed the rules and because he did not have the consent of Republican Mike Johnson, who is on record opposing Burchett's attempt.

My guess is that he tried this because it would have allowed the no votes to hide.

Those who are going to vote NO to release must be on the record individually voting no to the release when they do the vote by normal procedures next week. Burkett tried to end run that and let the no voters try save face (which may mean he is actually a no vote himself).

And no one should be able to hide thier vote on this. The people have a right to know whether a congress person is complicit in tis coverup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it looked like the leak might work...

Republicans are bracing for a significant chunk of the conference to vote for Rep. Ro Khanna’s (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-Ky.) Epstein file disclosure bill once it lands on the House floor.

Republicans expecting mass defections on Epstein vote
Senior Republicans privately believe dozens of Republicans will vote for it, possibly 100 or more, according to five people granted anonymity to speak candidly. Democrats pushing the petition publicly predicted that Republicans would rush to support the measure once it hit the floor.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/11/12/congress/house-epstein-vote-gop-defections-00649624

I hope they're right.

It’s performative, since they know it will never become law(ie, the Senate, Trump will see to that).

But at least it reveals cracks in the orange clown’s power.

(We have known for a long time that republican votes are based upon keeping their jobs, not their integrity)

True. Republicans today have zero integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Democrats object to releasing the Epstein files today?
Tim Burchett asked for unanimous consent, and Democrats blocked it.
Was this a Trojan horse in the unanimous consent rules?

They didn't. His spin to the media is a lie, of course. You can watch what really happened on CSPAN. His request could not be entertianed because the Republican Speaker Pro Tempore said Burchett had not followed the rules and because he did not have the consent of Republican Mike Johnson, who is on record opposing Burchett's attempt.

My guess is that he tried this because it would have allowed the no votes to hide.

Those who are going to vote NO to release must be on the record individually voting no to the release when they do the vote by normal procedures next week. Burkett tried to end run that and let the no voters try save face (which may mean he is actually a no vote himself).

And no one should be able to hide thier vote on this. The people have a right to know whether a congress person is complicit in tis coverup.

EXACTLY!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously timed for the return of the House:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/12/us/politics/trump-epstein-emails.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251112&instance_id=166274&nl=breaking-news®i_id=130978122&segment_id=210450&user_id=fcb1b8a728d5f78d42df74f0dbc09f85


EPSTEIN ALLEGED IN E-MAILS THAT TRUMP KNEW OF HIS CONDUCT

In a message obtained by Congress, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein wrote that Donald Trump spent hours at his house with one of Mr. Epstein's victims.

It's pretty clear this leak was timed for the House reconvening after being off 59 days. Johnson is swearing in Adelita Grijalva, who will become the 218th signature on the discharge petition to release the Epstein files.

Do you remember the "birthday book?"

Of COURSE he knew.

[Anonymous]

Tried to bring the discharge petition to the House floor today. Mike Johnson approved it. Hakeem Jeffries did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously timed for the return of the House:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/12/us/politics/trump-epstein-emails.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251112&instance_id=166274&nl=breaking-news®i_id=130978122&segment_id=210450&user_id=fcb1b8a728d5f78d42df74f0dbc09f85


EPSTEIN ALLEGED IN E-MAILS THAT TRUMP KNEW OF HIS CONDUCT

In a message obtained by Congress, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein wrote that Donald Trump spent hours at his house with one of Mr. Epstein's victims.

It's pretty clear this leak was timed for the House reconvening after being off 59 days. Johnson is swearing in Adelita Grijalva, who will become the 218th signature on the discharge petition to release the Epstein files.

Do you remember the "birthday book?"

Of COURSE he knew.

He knew and was Epstein’s best client. Trump actively took part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does "Police Chief etc. I'm 75% there" mean?

Exectly. Where is "there" -- what goal were they working toward?

Sarah Longwell figured this out on her show today. It means Epstein and Maxwell had been wondering who sold them out. Epstein finally figured out it was Trump so he emailed Maxwell to tell her. Trump was the dog that didn’t bark bc when the police chief was dragging everyone, Trump seemed immune annd was not mentioned/questioned even though he was at Epstein’s house for hours with underage girls. “I’m 75% there” means he’s 75% sure or 75% to figuring out the whole thing.

Could be, and that’s just further proof that he raped children. He’s sell anyone out to save himself.

Though, these made up narratives to try to sell Trump as a non child rapists are getting pretty entertaining.

Was he also secretly saving them from the basement of a pizza shop lmao

You drop phrases like "raped children" so easily. I wish you had the courage not to be anonymous when you say such things.

So he can send his army of violent criminals out to kidnap us too?

It is quite interesting to note though that you don’t see too many people defending him in public anymore, isn’t it perhaps it’s because they all know what he really is and don’t want to be associated with him? It works two ways you know.

Wait, what? You're calling him a child rapist because of immigration enforcement?

There is going to come a day where all these comments will be unmasked and communities will splinter.

For sure. For example, you will be held accountable for the things you say. And by that, I mean, some people are going to be taken out back and summarily dealt with. We won't be jailing the traitorous types of Jan. 6 protestors and the like in the future. We'll have permanent solutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wish they had released more context regarding what Epstein/Maxwell were talking about at the time.

My guess is that Epstein thought that Trump was the guy who narced on him because of their falling out over that real estate deal.

My guess is Trump knowingly had sex with an underage trafficked victim in Epstein's house based on this latest leak of Epstein saying Trump spent hours with a victim. Hey MAGAs, what do you think Trump was doing with one of Epstein's girls? Discussing the weather?

The female in question needs to come forward. That's the only way. Everything else is innuendo and allegation.

The name is indeed Virginia per BBC

.it is not Virginia Giuffre.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c2dr3z9egljt

Virginia is the name in the unredacted email viewed by BBC

Guiffre is not the only person names Virginia. It doesn’t make sense for it to be her. She was too old and out of the picture at the time.

VG was very careful in what she said, which was that she never "saw" trump "with" underage girls. There is subtext, which everyone is ignoring.

Yup. When I was in an office that is political adjacent, an older woman taught me the art of saying something without saying something. She showed me a recommendation letter she was writing that meant she didn't like the person at all and told me that recipient would understand her subtext.

We all do this to some extent. The person in your example should've just declined to write a letter of recommendation, since she wasn't actually recommending the person.

But I don't see this in Virginia's comment. Does the other PP wants to clarify the subtext she reads into the statement?

DP.
Presumably it means exactly what she said: she never personally witnessed Trump interfering with underage girls. Which isn’t surprising. These weren’t 70s type orgies. But just because someone wasn’t actually watching doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and wasn’t well known.