Trump Is Not Complicit With Epstein

 

            In these weeks leading up to the election, in general, and due to the notoriety of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and his connections to numerous figures, President Trump has been tied to Epstein in a variety of manners. Most of them, as any supposed connection to Epstein is, are defamatory and negative in nature. Every accusation, however, has been created from a combination of exaggeration, conflation, and outright manipulation of the truth and evidence. Put simply, Donald Trump is not complicit with Jeffrey Epstein, and that argument is far too easy to make. 

            There are two main arguments that these people who wish to tie Trump to Epstein use. First, is his presence in Epstein’s flight plans to his private island. Secondly, it is Trump’s supposed involvement with Jeffrey Epstein’s exploitation of Virginia Giuffre. Both prove easy to deconstruct once you look into them, despite how foolproof and concrete they might appear. First off, we will deal with Trump’s interpersonal relationship with Epstein.

            We must address an unpleasant reality, however, when focusing on Epstein and Trump. Donald Trump did in fact, regrettably, have a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. But the word have is a key detail, for I speak in the past tense. Donald Trump was indeed aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane in January 1997,(1) he did put together a party with Epstein in 1992,(2) and there are a few other possible interactions they had. But, when looking deep into these interactions, it is hard to truly spot anything incriminating, they were just…odd. The 1997 flight log seems to show the final recorded interaction between Trump and Epstein, and occurred well before Epstein’s first criminal charge (which was around 2006).(3) Trump is recorded as having called Epstein a “terrific guy” in a magazine interview in 2002, but again this is well before Epstein was ever incriminated for anything publicly.

            While it cannot be exonerated as to what occurred during that 1997 flight, it was simply a flight from Palm Beach to Newark, which – considering their company, too – might indicate nothing more than Trump, Epstein, and associates were leaving a gathering in Palm Beach (where both men owned property) and returned to New York (through Newark) to resume their business. The 1992 party, which occurred very early in their relationship and very isolated from any public disclosure of Epstein’s criminal activities, and even before the earliest known crime committed by Epstein,(3) was likely just a playboy’s party, especially considering Trump’s recently divorced status. While, as a conservative Christian, I do not condone this type of behavior, nor any other instance of sexual immorality by Trump, I do not see any evidence that Trump could have participated in Epstein’s depraved sex crimes, which is what matters the most to me.

            Other than these several appearances together spread over the years, and terminating before the earliest criminal charge was levied against Epstein in 2006, there is the supposed, and more serious, connection of Trump to Virginia Giuffre, Epstein’s earliest victim and one of his most outspoken opponents. However, this too is disprovable, and with much greater certainty than the previous section. Namely, because Mrs. Giuffre herself denies the connection. During a deposition on November 14, 2016, which was revealed in August of 2019, Giuffre stated that "...he [Donald Trump] didn’t partake in any sex with us...Donald Trump never flirted with me."(4) Well, there you have it. Straight from her mouth, the person so widely used to incriminate Trump has exonerated the man of all allegations.

            That is all there is too it, as the evidence shows. While conjecture does not prove arguments as well as empirical fact, one must ask: if Trump’s appearances alongside Epstein are enough to incriminate him, why are other names that appear like Clinton (who also denied connections to Epstein) innocent? The blatant hypocrisy that exists around this entire situation must be overcome and the truth observed. Such as in this article, where the truth is revealed regarding Trump, and his barely suspicious relationship with Epstein. Despite what narrative people might try to push, the facts stand in Trump’s favor and innocence.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. “Unsealed Flight Logs Show That Trump Was on Epstein’s Private Jet in 1997.” INSIDER, 9 Aug. 2019, https://www.insider.com/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-flight-logs-unsealed-2019-8.

2. “Tape Shows Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Discussing Women at 1992 Party.” NBC News, 17 July 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tape-shows-donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-discussing-women-1992-party-n1030686.

3. “A Timeline Of Sex Offender Jeffrey Epstein’s Convictions And New Allegations.” HuffPost, 12 July 2019, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jeffrey-epstein-timeline_n_5d2763c8e4b02a5a5d57857f.

4. “What the Unsealed Epstein Documents Reveal About Trump.” Intelligencer, 9 Aug. 2019, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/what-the-unsealed-epstein-documents-reveal-about-trump.html.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Conquest's Second Law and Libertarianism

  IN political science there is a concept known as “Conquest’s laws of politics.” It is named after Robert Conquest, a conservative British historian best known for his books on the Soviet Union . Similar to Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics,” Conquest’s laws define three principles of political action that can be considered reliably accurate. These three laws are: Everyone is conservative about what he knows best. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that is controlled by a cabal of its enemies. All these laws have interesting implications and can be looked at one by one. However, today the one law that I want us to focus on in particular is the second law, that, “Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.” It certainly sounds interesting and can have broad implications for political strategy. For libertarians in part
Read more

Active Measures: Part I, "Demoralization"

  This is the first of a planned three-part series that will focus on analyzing the origins, perpetrators, and fulfillment of Soviet-style subversive “active measures” in the United States and elsewhere in the West. Because of the amount of information that there is to talk about, owing to the enormity of data that is revealed through thorough research of this subject, this multi-volume approach has been taken. This first installment is focused on the strategy of “demoralization”.             BACK in the 1980s a now-infamous interview was hosted by George E. Griffin with KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov. This interview, little known to the general public, exposed the four-part strategy by which the Soviet KGB sought to subvert enemy nations. Many commentators, especially in recent years, have noted that these “active measures” that Bezmenov exposed are highly reminiscent of situations happening in contemporary society. Along with George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four , Bezmenov’s revelat
Read more

Divide and Conquer

THE  political situation in America is pretty awful, and has been for probably up to a decade (although, I’d argue it has always been bad, and has only become obvious in recent years). Every month, every week, every day even, we must watch on in an ashamed stupor as the assembly of people elected to direct with steadfast loyalty our country act like toddlers left alone in a classroom. A simply net positive GDP growth means nothing, because the cogs of the machine have grown greasy and old. As a great exhibit of the condition of our country, recent statistics show a very legitimate desire for secession among certain Americans. This is not good, it is as simple as that. Every nation-state, every civil society, is a human experiment. Locke, who I oft differ to, saw civil society as the consensual assembly of humans under common principles (Locke 2015, p. 77). The State, therefore, is consequently obliged to be sensitive of and accommodating to the human condition; not sensitive or acco
Read more