Donald Trump threatens to sue as Wall Street Journal publishes contents of note he allegedly wrote to Jeffrey Epstein
Today The Wall Street Journal reported on a gift Ghislaine Maxwell – Epstein's chief co-conspirator in his underage sex trafficking crimes, who is now serving a 20-year jail sentence – prepared for him in 2003.
Maxwell collected messages from Epstein's associates and compiled them into a leather-bound birthday album, according to documents reviewed by the newspaper. One of the messages was in Mr Trump's name.
Epstein was not arrested until 2006. That case led to his infamous 'sweetheart' plea deal, negotiated with federal prosecutors, which saw him admit to soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution and serve a 13-month sentence, but escape prosecution for more serious trafficking crimes.
He was then rearrested in July of 2019 on sex trafficking charges, accused of exploiting girls as young as 14. He died in prison a month later. It was ruled a suicide.
The note to Epstein bearing Mr Trump's signature has several lines of typed text – describing an imagined conversation between the pair – inside the outline of a naked woman, drawn with a marker pen.
According to The Journal, the name 'Donald' is signed just below the woman's waist, in a mimicry of pubic hair.
'This is not me. This is a fake thing. It's a fake Wall Street Journal story,' Mr Trump told the paper before it published the story.
'I never wrote a picture in my life. I don't draw pictures of women. It's not my language. It's not my words.'
And he threatened to sue.
'I'm going to sue The Wall Street Journal, just like I sued everyone else,' said the President.
'Forgive my language but this story is complete and utter bulls***,' Vice President J.D. Vance tweeted after publication.
'The WSJ should be ashamed for publishing it. Where is this letter? Would you be shocked to learn they never showed it to us before publishing it?
'Does anyone honestly believe this sounds like Donald Trump?'
The Justice Department and FBI, which have been responsible for investigating the Epstein case, declined to comment.
After the story was published, Mr Trump offered the following post on Truth Social.
'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney-General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' he said.
'This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!'
The above would only involve evidence presented to a grand jury in an attempt to establish criminal charges, meaning testimony related to Epstein himself or Maxwell - a mere fraction of the so-called Epstein files.
No third parties, none of the men for whom Epstein allegedly procured underage girls, have ever faced charges.
Returning to the note. The text of it conveys a mocked-up conversation between Epstein and Mr Trump.
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.
Trump: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.
We already knew that Mr Trump and Epstein were friends for over a decade. They were photographed together on multiple occasions, often alongside Melania Trump and Ghislaine Maxwell, and flight logs show Mr Trump travelled on Epstein's private plane, the 'Lolita Express', seven times in the 1990s.
Those flights were all between Florida and New York, where both men owned property. None went to Epstein's notorious private island, located in the US Virgin Islands.
'I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,' Mr Trump told New York Magazine in 2002.
'He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.
'No doubt about it: Jeffrey enjoys his social life.'
There was a subsequent falling out. According to Mr Trump, his friendship with Epstein ended before his aforementioned guilty plea in 2008. When Epstein was arrested the second time, Mr Trump said he hadn't spoken to him for 15 years.
There has never been any evidence to suggest Mr Trump was involved in Epstein's sex trafficking crimes.
This all comes less than two weeks after the Justice Department released a memo, on July 7, which essentially said it was closing the Epstein case.
The department said a 'systematic review' had 'revealed no incriminating 'client list''.
'There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions,' it said.
'We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.'
The memo also concluded that Epstein did, indeed, kill himself in prison.
It set off a shockwave within Mr Trump's MAGA movement, which felt the Trump administration had betrayed its own promises to release the Epstein files.
Soon after taking office, Mr Trump's handpicked Attorney-General Pam Bondi told Fox News the so-called 'client list' was 'sitting on my desk' for review.
And in February the administration distributed binders full of Epstein-related documents – most of them already public – to selected right-wing influencers, describing those documents as merely 'phase one' of a broader release.
Now, it seems, there will be no further releases.
Mr Trump, for his part, has expressed confusion at Americans' continuing interest in the Epstein case, and has gone so far as to say he no longer wants the support of those within MAGA who keep talking about it.
He has taken to calling the unreleased Epstein files a 'hoax', and now claims they were written by his political enemies, such as former president Barack Obama, former FBI director James Comey and his predecessor Joe Biden.
'Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax,' he wrote on social media yesterday, referring to the Democrats.
'And my PAST supporters have bought into this 'bulls***,' hook, line, and sinker. They haven't learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for eight long years.
'Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don't even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don't want their support anymore!'
The White House reportedly tried as hard as possible to squash today's Journal story before it was published.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Trump's new tariffs reveal somewhat vindictive and irrational strategy
Myanmar, Laos, Serbia and Syria. They seem unlikely targets for some of the most aggressive moves in Donald Trump's war on the global trading system. Yet these small and troubled nations are among those facing the highest tariffs from the United States in the wake of its president's slew of August 1 trade announcements. Myanmar, which mostly exports clothing to the US, and Laos, which predominantly exports electronics equipment, now face 40 per cent tariffs on the goods they sell to America, while Serbia will be hit with a 35 per cent tariff and Syria 41 per cent. None of these countries have been notably the subject of the same public Trumpian wrath as, say, Canada (35 per cent) and Brazil (50 per cent) since "Liberation Day" on April 2. And the country which is arguably the biggest target or threat to the US in terms of world trade — China — was not mentioned at all but will be engaged with in further negotiations. Having said that, there is still a 40 per cent on goods regarded as being "trans-shipped" to avoid higher tariffs (for which read "trans-shipped from China"). And the tough treatment on Friday of South-East Asian nations which are manufacturing hubs for China must be seen as an indirect assault on the regional economic superpower. In Australia, the focus on Trump's tariff announcements on Friday (AEST) was of course primarily on the "relatively" good news that we were still only facing a 10 per cent tariff, when the spectre of a 15 or 25 per cent generic rate had been mentioned by the US president in the days leading up to the announcement. The outcome somewhat took the wind out of the sails of those who have been criticising the prime minister for not getting to the White House, or into any meeting with Trump, and instead boosted the argument that there was little to be lost from staying out of his uniquely coiffed hair. Australia will enjoy the 10 per cent tariff rate being applied to those countries that buy more goods from the US than they export to America: that is, that run a trade surplus with one of the world's biggest economies. The new tariff regime starts at 10 per cent, based on trade balance, lifts to a 15 per cent rate for countries that only have a small deficit, while those with big deficits, that haven't negotiated, or that have otherwise incurred the ire of the president face this much wider and more unpredictable range of outcomes. It's worth pausing for a moment of silence to mark the momentous shift in global affairs that the Friday announcement confirms: the shift not just from a free trade ambition to a protectionist one by the United States, but a shift to a system of fairly arbitrary, vindictive and sometimes irrational decisions. Beyond that, though, the patterns in the trade deals that have been done to date — or perhaps more appropriately the lack of patterns and rigour — raise a range of other questions about their impact, and the extent to which they appear in some cases to be little more than standover tactics of lesser or greater actual import. Take the deals struck with Japan and the European Union last month. Both exemplified some striking features of the "deals" being done. In both cases, the parties documented very different understandings of the deals they thought they had done. There were also glaring holes in the deals in terms of major sectors about which there was only a conspicuous silence. For example, the EU deal was silent on wine and spirits. Most of the deals have yet to be formalised or legislated. Finally, the US has been claiming in almost all of the deals that it struck prior to August 1 that they involved massive commitments of investment in the US by the trade partners involved. For example, in Japan's case, the White House announced that Japan would create a $US550 billion fund to invest in the US, with Trump making the investment decisions and the US government receiving 90 per cent of the profits. It seemed this astonishing deal was news to Japanese negotiators who, the New York Times reported, had already made an offer (which in itself seemed extraordinary): to create a $US400 billion investment fund with half the profits going to the US government. The US president subsequently referred to the deal that he announced as a "signing bonus", which underpinned Japan "only" facing a 15 per cent tariff impost, even as doubts were aired about whether the investment would ever materialise. The NYT reported that Japan's chief trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa told Tokyo that the deal was that Japan would offer a blend of investment, loans and loan guarantees, totalling up to $550 billion, with profits to be allocated based on each side's committed risk and financial contribution. There have been similar scenes unfolding over possible investments from the European Union and South Korea. Equally unsettling has been the increasingly blatant intrusion of non-trade factors into the tariff decisions announced by the White House. Brazil is facing 50 per cent tariffs because Trump doesn't like the way former president, strongman and Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro is being treated by the Brazilian judicial system, where he is facing up to 40 years in prison for allegedly plotting a coup to stay in power after losing the 2022 election. By agreeing this week to a Trump demand for a ceasefire, Thailand and Cambodia appear to have ended up with lower 19 per cent tariffs they had originally been proposed. Canada appeared to be facing a more punitive tariff regime than Mexico at 35 per cent — which Trump said was due to Prime Minister Mark Carney signalling Canada would recognise statehood for Palestine. But it turns out the higher tariff rate will not apply to goods covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. That covers an estimated 94 per cent of Canada's exports to the US. The tariff decisions will have a very different impact to those suggested by the headline numbers in other countries too. For example, Germany may only face a 15 per cent tariff as part of the EU deal but is particularly exposed through its big automotive exports to the US. Another shock was the 25 per cent rate applied to India. This caused immediate political blowback for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi who claims "bestie" status with the US president but who immediately faced intense criticism at home that this elevated position had not saved India from a punitive tariff rate. What happened in India is just one of the examples of the political shock waves caused around the globe by Trump's moves, in addition to any economic impact they may have. There is considerable concern in Europe, for example, about how European Union member nations react to its deal. The federated nature of the EU structure lends itself to a lot more public debate about a deal not directly negotiated by national leaders. The concern among European political analysts this week is that the deal will play into the hands of far-right and nationalist groups in fuelling resentment against both the EU and sitting governments. It will take countries around the world some time to see how these domestic pressures play out. And then there's the question of how such a deliberately uneven playing field affects their relative competitiveness to each other, even when direct trade with the US is left out of the calculations. It feels like a certain resignation has crept into global trade discussions in the past few months. It is driven as much by a trade-off between uncertainty and certainty as specific tariff numbers. If there is one thing we seem to know about Donald Trump, it is that all that uncertainty is unlikely to end any time soon. Laura Tingle is the ABC's Global Affairs Editor.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
‘Not woke stuff': Trump administration bars US officials from Australia defence talks
Confidential talks canvassing strategies to prevent a war with China and deepen the United States-Australia alliance have been scrapped after the Trump administration abruptly blocked senior defence officials from travelling to Canberra next week. National security experts fear an array of exchanges between US and Australian counterparts will dry up following a sweeping Pentagon edict, announced this week, suspending all participation in think tank and research events because it suspects they do not align with Donald Trump's 'America First' agenda. The edict comes as the US reviews the future of the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine pact and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares for a potential first meeting with Trump in September after months of no discussions between the pair. US and Australian officials were planning to meet some of the nations' top defence experts in Canberra on Monday and Tuesday next week for the fifth round of the US-Australia Indo-Pacific Deterrence Dialogue, but the event was suddenly called off on Wednesday when the American officials were told they were no longer allowed to travel to the event. Around 40 American and Australian national security figures would have gathered to discuss issues such as military integration, nuclear deterrence and strategic interaction with China at the closed-door dialogue, which involved months of planning. The so-called '1.5 track' event brings together current military leaders, government officials and diplomats with non-government researchers. Discussions are held under the Chatham House rule to foster frank discussions on sensitive and complex topics, with the participants' identities kept secret. This would have been the first time the dialogue has been held since Trump's re-election. Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement: 'In order to ensure the Department of Defence is not lending its name and credibility to organisations, forums, and events that run counter to the values of this administration, the Department's Office of Public Affairs will be conducting a thorough vetting of every event where Defence officials are invited to participate.' Rory Medcalf, head of the Australian National University's National Security College, said the 'cancellation of this dialogue is disappointing and counterproductive for alliance interests'.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Not woke stuff': Trump administration bars US officials from Australia defence talks
Confidential talks canvassing strategies to prevent a war with China and deepen the United States-Australia alliance have been scrapped after the Trump administration abruptly blocked senior defence officials from travelling to Canberra next week. National security experts fear an array of exchanges between US and Australian counterparts will dry up following a sweeping Pentagon edict, announced this week, suspending all participation in think tank and research events because it suspects they do not align with Donald Trump's 'America First' agenda. The edict comes as the US reviews the future of the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine pact and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares for a potential first meeting with Trump in September after months of no discussions between the pair. US and Australian officials were planning to meet some of the nations' top defence experts in Canberra on Monday and Tuesday next week for the fifth round of the US-Australia Indo-Pacific Deterrence Dialogue, but the event was suddenly called off on Wednesday when the American officials were told they were no longer allowed to travel to the event. Around 40 American and Australian national security figures would have gathered to discuss issues such as military integration, nuclear deterrence and strategic interaction with China at the closed-door dialogue, which involved months of planning. The so-called '1.5 track' event brings together current military leaders, government officials and diplomats with non-government researchers. Discussions are held under the Chatham House rule to foster frank discussions on sensitive and complex topics, with the participants' identities kept secret. This would have been the first time the dialogue has been held since Trump's re-election. Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement: 'In order to ensure the Department of Defence is not lending its name and credibility to organisations, forums, and events that run counter to the values of this administration, the Department's Office of Public Affairs will be conducting a thorough vetting of every event where Defence officials are invited to participate.' Rory Medcalf, head of the Australian National University's National Security College, said the 'cancellation of this dialogue is disappointing and counterproductive for alliance interests'.
