Trump's favorite lines of defense aren't working in the Epstein controversy
Since he burst onto the political scene in 2015, Trump has made claims, dropped them, adopted a new argument that contradicts the old one, casually admitted something he long denied, changed the subject and generally just thrown every possible argument at the wall to see what would stick.
He spent years arguing that Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States, then simply admitted that wasn't true and falsely blamed Hillary Clinton for starting the rumor. He swore his 2016 campaign had only low-level contacts with Russia; then admitted his son, son-in-law and campaign head met at Trump Tower with a Russian woman claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton — and argued that anyone would do the same.
Even his defense attorneys adopted this tactic, arguing during his impeachment trial over the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that he could be tried instead on criminal charges, then claiming when he faced criminal charges that he had presidential immunity.
It's all reminiscent of Bart Simpson's infamous defense when confronted with a note from school: 'I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything.'
Faced with controversy over the release of any records related to the late pedophile and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Trump has again tried the same defenses, but they don't seem to be working as well.
By his own admission, Trump had a long history with Epstein that included socializing with him at a Mar-a-Lago party, attending a Victoria's Secret party together and flying on his private jet. (Trump has denied allegations of sexual misconduct and has denied any impropriety related to Epstein's crimes.)
But after spreading a conspiracy theory related to Epstein's death in 2019, suggesting that his death may not have been a suicide in 2020 and promising in 2024 that he would declassify the Epstein files if re-elected, Trump has found himself in a bit of a pickle. The Department of Justice and FBI released a memo on July 7 concluding that there was no evidence of an 'incriminating 'client list,'' but that just fanned the flames.
Trump then tried out several different arguments in succession:
There's nothing interesting in the files: 'I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. It's pretty boring stuff.'
Epstein is old news: 'Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy has been talked about for years.'
This is a bad time to talk about it: 'I can't believe you're asking a question on Epstein at a time like this, where we're having some of the greatest success and also tragedy, with what happened in Texas, too.'
If there was anything incriminating about Trump in the files, the Biden administration would have released it: 'If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn't they use it?'
The Biden administration might have added false information to the files: 'You know, the Biden administration ran that for four years. I can imagine what they put into files.'
Or maybe the Obama administration: 'These files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden.'
It's all a hoax: 'I call it the Epstein hoax.'
As before, these arguments abound with contradictions. Either there's incriminating information in the Epstein files, or there isn't. Either the files are boring but true, or they are salacious but a hoax. He can't simultaneously argue that the files are not very interesting but also hint that a secret cabal of Democrats planted explosive information in them. (At one point, he literally said of the records "it's sordid, but it's boring.")
Trump put birtherism to rest by admitting he was wrong. It worked because as its chief proponent, he could effectively exonerate Obama of his baseless claims. Once again, Trump was one of the superspreaders of the Epstein conspiracy theories. But this time, he can't exonerate himself, and there's no one else who has the credibility to do it either.
If we wait a few days, he may even have a new argument.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Barack Obama thinks adults shouldn't eat ketchup
The president's controversial stance on ketchup is sparking debate Barack Obama has stirred up an unexpectedly spirited debate over a beloved American condiment, and the reactions are as saucy as the subject itself. During a lighthearted episode of the Michelle Obama IMO podcast, co-hosted by the former First Lady and her brother Craig Robinson, Barack shared his long-standing—and rather unwavering—belief that ketchup is strictly for kids. 'In my opinion, and this is controversial in my family, but you should not eat ketchup after the age of 8,' he said, his tone firm despite the room's laughter. Michelle, clearly familiar with this culinary hill her husband is willing to die on, noted that the ketchup cut-off age seems to get younger every time he brings it up. 'Last time, I think it was 10,' she chuckled. Barack stood his ground, expanding on his perspective. 'I have nothing against kids having ketchup on burgers or fries—even ketchup on hot dogs, which is hard for me to watch—but at a certain point, you've gotta outgrow it,' he said. He conceded, 'I might be a little too draconian in my attitude,' but maintained that 'ketchup has its place.' Craig, ever the playful provocateur, called it like he saw it: 'It sounds like you're saying ketchup is childish.' Barack didn't disagree. 'When I see a grown person pouring a lot of ketchup on something—I told you this was controversial in my family,' he repeated, smiling at the familial pushback. Despite his condiment convictions, Michelle confirmed that the Obama household is far from ketchup-free. 'There's always ketchup in the house,' she said. 'Everyone uses it. Except him.'
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump Doesn't Rule Out Pardon For Ghislaine Maxwell - Laura Coates Live - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Trump Doesn't Rule Out Pardon For Ghislaine Maxwell Laura Coates Live 47 mins President Donald Trump denied again today that he was briefed on his name appearing in files tied to the Jeffrey Epstein case, despite reports by CNN and other outlets on the briefing. The administration remains dogged by public criticism over its handling of the case.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Murkowski: Trump administration funding freeze could result in ‘closing schools'
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) fears the Trump administration's multibillion-dollar education funding freeze could cause schools in her state to close as districts struggle to keep employees without the money. The administration originally froze a total of $6 billion in funding to schools, affecting after-school and summer programs, along with classes for adult and English learners. Last week, the president released about $1 billion that was aimed at after-school programs, but $5 billion is still held up. 'Many of our school districts have already made really hard decisions about closing schools,' Murkowski told ABC News. 'Both in Fairbanks and Anchorage, we've seen layoffs,' she continued. 'If your literacy skills are weak, if you're working on your English skills, I mean, these are all things that are keeping people out of the workforce at a time when we're trying to get people into it,' Murkowski added. 'So I am very worried.' She was one of nine Republicans to sign a letter to the Office of Management and Budget last week demanding the funding be released and rejecting the administration's claim the money is going toward 'woke' programs. The letter prompted the office to release the about $1 billion in funding for after-school and summer programming, prompting a sigh of relief for parents. But the rest of the money is still in limbo, with no timeline on when it will be given to schools. 'I'd like to see some of the other programs released, but, you know, we haven't heard one way or the other,' Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( who led the Republican letter, told ABC. While Murkowski is hesitant to say the money is cut, she stresses the funding needs to be released before the school year begins. 'I don't want to call it cuts yet, because my hope is that they're just unpaused and that they are going to materialize,' Murkowski told ABC News. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
