A graph explorer of the Epstein emails

Of course, deflect discussion to Trump. Does that make any of those other people look better to you?

Trump gave information against Epstein in 2009 and unlike Bill and others did cut ties after learning he was poaching girls from Mar-a-Lago.

I specifically made the point to look into those who were friends with Epstein even after knowing what he was doing.

Nice whataboutism though. Feel free to reference source materials to support your claims.

Btw are you a bot or is that just a canned statement you use?

Trump was with Epstein in 2017, he didn't cut ties at all

That's a lie that has already been proven false since Trump's entire trip was documented.

Love how we have actual evidence against people but discussions always devolve into some conspiracy related to Trump.

----

Based on the available evidence, there is no confirmed meeting between Trump and Epstein in 2017. While both men were in Palm Beach during Thanksgiving week 2017, there is no direct evidence they met.

Here's what we know about their presence in Palm Beach that week:

- Trump was at Mar-a-Lago from November 21-26, 2017

- Epstein owned a mansion in Palm Beach and was known to be in the area

- Epstein mentioned both Trump and himself being "down there" (Palm Beach) in an email exchange on November 23, 2017

While there were claims circulating online that Trump spent Thanksgiving with Epstein in 2017, these claims have been thoroughly investigated and found to be unsubstantiated

Trump's official calendar for that week shows his activities included:

- Thanking military members on a virtual call

- Visiting Coast Guard members at Lake Worth Inlet Station

- Playing golf with Tiger Woods and Dustin Johnson

> Trump gave information against Epstein in 2009

Pre-2009 records on Trump there are nasty. One example:

> ... It was at these series of parties that I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old. I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.

Only difference between Clinton and Trump is that Trump is still president.

Even if Trump cut off ties with Epstein in 2017, he should clearly be held accountable for his past actions. Here's 2 pretty damning emails:

---

Epstein to Maxwell 2011-04-02

> i want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump... [VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75% there

---

Epstein to Ruemmler 2018-08-23

> you see, i know how dirty donald is. my guess is that non lawyers ny biz people have no idea. what it means to have your fixer flip

Clinton at least has not been in office for 25 years. Trump is still in office. Surely the priority should be to get the bad people out of institutions asap...?

Well for one those other people are not the current president of the most powerful country in the world.

But sure, lock all of them up, just don't ignore a few because they are too powerful.

Thanks ChatGPT.

It’s been wild to see people subsume not defending child rapists to their partisan identity.

I’m still convinced it’s a minority of loud voices online and on social media.

What I don't understand is the pretense of defending Trump at all. I mean, it's clear that even if you watched Trump assault a 13 year old with your own eyes, it wouldn't impact your support for him. Why pretend that there is some moral divide between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in this when you can just say "I support Donald Trump no matter what, and despite Bill Clinton no matter what"?

Personally I've never been shocked that some of the most powerful people in the world like to go to a private sex-island where they could do as they pleased. That's precisely the incentive to becoming so incredibly powerful in the first place: to be able to pursue personal gain with increasingly less consequences.

Could you explain how “no confirmed meeting” implies “they never met”?

>Of course, deflect discussion to Trump

Interesting attempted deflection away from Trump.

>Trump's official calendar for that week shows his activities included:

Damn, Trump would have 100% listed his sex crimes on his official calendar. Case closed.

>Here's 2 pretty damning emails:

The most "damning" emails are hearsay from other people?

You think he snuck out from secret service and had an off-the-book thanksgiving with a pedo?

I'm saying there's no direct evidence he did and on face value it's ridiculous.

He was meeting the troops and golfing with Tiger Woods and happened to be in the same state Epstein had a house in.

Have any evidence otherwise, or just conspiracy theories?

Yeah it's most likely he snuck out from the SS and had thanksgiving with a pedo while president. /s

No reason to talk about anyone who actually corresponded with Epstein I guess.

This entire thread is about AI generated content from emails.

But we are human, so we can verify sources collected by AI. Care to dispute anything?

Sure. What evidence would you like to use to lock Trump up?

Point to an email in this dump or anything else.

It's clear as day Trump cut ties when he found out who he was and was against him.

Not so much for others.

Plenty of reason. Nab everyone. But deflecting criticism from the pedo in chief is a weird look.

> cut ties after learning he was poaching girls from Mar-a-Lago.

This is, uh, not the slam dunk you seem to think it is.

  > It's clear as day Trump cut ties when he found out who he was and was against him.

Really? I'm very much under the impression that Trump knew exactly who Epstein was.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45961278

Yes it is. Trump cut ties because Epstein was poaching employees. That was confirmed by the employee in question, Virginia Giuffre, who always maintained that she was a normal masseuse at Mar-a-Lago: https://abcnews.go.com/US/virginia-giuffre-trump-jeffrey-eps...

> What I don't understand is the pretense of defending Trump at all.

Because every story eventually collapses into a fraction of the original allegation: https://abcnews.go.com/US/virginia-giuffre-trump-jeffrey-eps...

What do those emails prove?

Do you know who the reduction “[VICTIM]” is referring to? It’s Virginia Guiffre: https://abcnews.go.com/US/virginia-giuffre-trump-jeffrey-eps.... What did Guiffre testify about Trump?

You're proving the point here.

You don't need to trust the media or care about his views on immigration to know that the guy got 34 felony convictions (for attempting to cover up mere infidelity with a porn star), that he's lost a lawsuit regarding sexual assault claims, and that sexual assault claims against him go back to the 70s and involving at least 28 women and him walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants.

Then there's the non-sexual stuff. If you want to say it's "shady" being twice impeached, or hanging his own arrest photo next to the oval office, or the huge number of business lawsuits, or the way he's now able to sue himself and win, or that he's now pardoning convicted co-conspirators etc., that's on you: as the quote goes, democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

The possibility of pee tapes was funny, but did anyone really care if golden shower was a liquid reference or a "24 carat (plated)" like his redecoration of the oval office?

> Russiagate

A significant number of Trump associates actually went to jail for Russia-related business, and I don't think it's been entirely ruled out for himself. Of course, it has not yet been proven either and I doubt it will be in his lifetime.

With any other administration I would have granted you that leap in logic, but we already learned, three years ago, from Stephanie Grisham that he held off the books meetings specifically to circumvent record keeping laws. So I think a slightly higher standard of evidence is needed before we dismiss the possibility that he met with the pedo who likely had dirt on him.

> Show me where it’s a felony to use your own money to cover up an affair?

The "falsified business records" bit, for which he was convicted under felony charges. Those bits, where he was convicted as a felon, are what makes it a felony.

Likewise, it wasn't a crime for Bill Clinton to have an affair with any of the White House interns (AFAICT Paula Jones was before then), but then Clinton went and lied about affairs under oath, which was.

There's a reason why I put emphasis on "mere infidelity".

> My esteemed colleagues in the bar would be outraged if a legal theory half as aggressively creative as this one was brought against a gang murderer. They would leap at the chance to handle the appeals pro bono.

The fact he was convicted says otherwise on the first part, and the observation that he's still having trouble getting competent lawyers to defend him even now he's back in office speaks poorly of either your esteemed colleagues or of your estimation of them.

You swallowed "Trump cut ties" whole, on a thread discussing messages that prove that wasn't the case. Wow. If I'm ever accused of dozens of felonious depravities I'mma call you.

> on a thread discussing messages that prove that wasn't the case

Point to the messages that proves that wasn't the case.

You have the standard of evidence reversed.

You need to prove what you're accusing him of, not the other way around.

Sounds like you’re assuming that standards for charges/trial should also be used as standards for inquiry/investigation. That is not the case.

By all means investigate away on the thanksgiving email, you will find nothing as nothing exists.

Choosing resources to investigate hearsay that is easily disproven is a waste of time though when you have actual evidence of direct correspondence.

Noone is falling for this crap anymore btw. The Trump smear stuff doesn't work as everyone cried wolf too many times.

Very telling you spend this much energy on a silly email talking about Trump vs people who actually talked and met with Epstein.

> what fundamentally differentiates people who simply don’t like Trump for all the legitimate reasons to dislike Trump from the people who go full blown Rachel Maddow is deep-seated liberal universalism

You should know this isn’t me.

I was honestly optimistic for this Presidency. The corruption and lawlessness were annoying. But the masked ICE agents openly defying the law struck a nerve. And now we’re seeing folks like Megyn Kelly advocate for dismissing child rape.

That Trump is acting guilty, and has taken this from a fringe conspiracy theory to something worth considering, is almost besides the point. My condemnation is of the partisan dismissal of the crime per se, not Trump’s involvement.

Are you Donald? How can you be certain that nothing exists?

>But they turned up their nose at representing Trump because he doesn’t subscribe to their religion.

Of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with his habit of refusing to pay.

> Epstein and pohl are down here in Florida

Wow that's damning pohl, prove you weren't with him.

Even if you provide detailed logs of your whereabouts, that won't be enough because I assume you're lying.

Hearsay is a bitch isn't it.

I wrote “cut ties” because that’s the wording used by the post I was responding to. My point is to respond to the innuendo that Guiffre was providing some sort of sexual services at Mar-a-Lago when she consistently maintained that Trump wasn’t involved in anything like that. Please point me to the email that “proves that wasn’t the case.”

That’s a good reason, but it wasn’t their stated reasons.

> But the masked ICE agents openly defying the law struck a nerve.

The ICE agents are masked because people think they can violently interfere with federal law enforcement. People voted for the guy that promised mass deportations, and the government is entitled to carry out that policy and respond to violent resistance to those operations.

Nobody is “dismissing” Epstein’s crimes. Megyn is reacting to people trying to smear Trump as a “child rapist” and “pedophile” based on zero evidence.

> ICE agents are masked because people think they can violently interfere with federal law enforcement

Not a problem for all other law enforcement. The precedent being set--that masked men can disappear people from the street--is dangerous and un-American.

> People voted for the guy that promised mass deportations, and the government is entitled to carry out that policy and respond to violent resistance to those operations

Sure. None of this requires a mask.

Also, the only injuries ICE officers have suffered have been due to e.g. being dragged by a car [1]. None have been due to someone tracking them down ex post facto.

> Megyn is reacting to people trying to smear Trump as a “child rapist” and “pedophile” based on zero evidence

She argued Jeffrey Epstein is not technically a pedophile. (A defense she similarly mounts with zero evidence.) She described a 15-year old as "barely legal," which is nonsense and disgusting and deeply unsettling given she literally has a daughter around that age.

And until now, Trump has been going out of his way to block the government from fulfilling his campaign promise around the Epstein files. (After his AG lied that they don't exist.) As a result, it took Democrats in the Congress releasing the e-mails to get Larry Summers to step down [2].

[1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/12/dhs-statement-ice-office...

[2] https://apnews.com/article/larry-summers-jeffrey-epstein-ema...

> The ICE agents are masked because people think they can violently interfere with federal law enforcement

Actually it is wearing masks interferes with legal law enforcement. You know how we know, because FBI told ICE that. Because now anyone can wear a mask and pretend to be ice to kidnap people. That really interferes with law enforcement man

> he snuck out from the SS and had thanksgiving with a pedo

we don't know he didn't... at best we can know what he did in daylight when journos were around. the rest we can find only if SS is subpoenaed