Dem
47
GOP
53
It wasn't going to stay under wraps forever. Yesterday, the executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein delivered a bunch of materials to the House Oversight Committee, including the now-infamous "birthday book." And the Democrats on the Committee wasted no time in sharing the letter from Donald Trump to Epstein, first brought to public attention by The Wall Street Journal. Here it is, for those who haven't seen it already:
It's not so easy to read, so here's the text:
Voice Over:
There must be more to life than having everything.
Donald
Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is.
Jeffrey
Nor will I, since I also know what it is.
Donald
We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey
Yes, we do, come to think of it.
Donald
Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?
Jeffrey
As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.
Donald
A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.
Donald J. Trump
For us, this raises many questions. For example, did Trump write this himself? Maybe, because it's kind of hacky, but maybe not. Second, what exactly was the author going for? Something like a sonnet, maybe? Third... is anyone else picking up on the enormous amounts of gay subtext? This could have been copied and pasted from the script of Brokeback Mountain. I can't quit you, Jeffrey.
Naturally, the administration and MAGA world both responded by declaring it a fake, and a hoax, and yadda, yadda, yadda. Their particular "proof" is that the signature on the letter is not a match for Trump's actual signature. For example, here's White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich:
This is a pretty weak defense. Clearly, in the examples Budowich shares, Trump was signing something formal, and so wrote his whole name. On the Epstein document, which was between friends, he more casually signed just his first name. Here is a collection of examples someone put together of Trump just signing his first name:
Clearly, it's a match. Also, the released letter comports to the description given by the Journal, and later echoed by others. It's also worth noting that the Journal clearly believes it's real, or they would not have published it, for fear of losing a defamation suit. The Democrats also believe it's real; if they were outed as creating or perpetrating a fake, that would become the basis for 10,000 hours of coverage on Fox. And 10,000 hours of coverage on Newsmax, too—but nobody would see it.
At this point, as we try to figure out what this release might mean going forward, we think it is instructive to have a roundup of some of the lowlights of Trump's history in this area (something that also came up in the mailbag this weekend):
Trump, of course, claims this is all a grand conspiracy, targeting him because he is succesful and he has deep pockets. On the whole, this is a nearly inconceivable claim. Because of the consequences to women of making such claims (even if true), it is fairly rare for women to lie about this (less than 10% of claims are false, according to some studies; others place the figure at lower than 5%). Even a "billionaire" is not going to have that kind of bad luck 20 or 30 or 40 times. Plus, some of the claims have actually been adjudicated, and proven in a court of law.
On top of that, of course, is Trump's own behavior. He's the one who cheated on his wives. He's the one who had that conversation with Billy Bush. He's the one who palled around with Epstein. He's the one who said what he said about his own teenage daughter. All of this is verified by video and photo evidence. There literally could not be a conspiracy when it comes to these things.
Having laid out the unpleasant evidence (though we're hardly being comprehensive here), the following assertions would appear to be incontrovertible to us:
The evidence speaks clearly for itself.
What this means is that even if the Epstein files are made fully public, they aren't going to be that revelatory. It's already abundantly clear, based on already-public evidence, that Trump is guilty of sexual misconduct at a level that would be fatal to the career of any other politician.
The issue here is exactly what information that is not already publicly known might be present in the Epstein documents. To us, there are really only two questions that might have been considered unanswered as of Sunday night: (1) Did Trump know about Epstein's sexual acts with underage victims? and (2) Did Trump himself participate in those acts?
As of Monday, however, we consider #1 to have been answered. Trump insists he didn't know, but he is an inveterate liar in general, and he's a proven liar in the Epstein matter. Every exculpatory claim Trump has made, including "I never sent Epstein a card on his 50th birthday" has been proven to be false. There must be something that Trump is trying to hide, and it's not just "I knew Epstein." Everyone is already aware of that; it has to be something more that the President is covering up. And the BEST case scenario for him is that he's covering up that he knew what Epstein was up to.
That means the only question that is even possibly unanswered is whether Trump also joined Epstein in raping the underage victims. We are aware of the testimony of Katie Johnson and others, as we note above. But those claims have not been subject to cross-examination, and so it's at least possible they might not stand up to scrutiny. We think they probably would stand up, but we allow for the possibility they would not.
Time will tell if information comes to light, one way or another, that conclusively proves Trump was a participant in Epstein's crimes, as opposed to just being aware of them. The only thing we feel confident about is that the release of the letter yesterday is only going to heighten pressure to release everything. And if "AG" Pam Bondi, et al., won't do it, maybe the Epstein estate will. And don't forget that Epstein's victims are busily compiling their own evidence right now.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the politics angle, we have the following questions we don't really know the answers to:
Again, we just don't know about any of these possibilities. The one thing we do know is that we're multiple months into this scandal having flared up, and yet it's still making front-page news. That is not good news for Trump. (Z)