Why do you oppose making the Epstein files public?

Claim: Trump served as FBI informant in Epstein probe​

The claim can be traced back to House Speaker Mike Johnson, who told CNN’s Manu Raju that Trump “was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down.”

That eyebrow-raising remark came as Johnson defended Trump’s recent “hoax” comments, which dismissed bipartisan calls to release more Epstein files as a political hit job.

“What Trump is referring to is the hoax that the Democrats are using to try to attack him,” Johnson said on-air. “He has never said or suggested or implied—I’ve talked to him about this many times, many times. He is horrified. It’s been misrepresented."





“He’s not saying that what Epstein did is a hoax. It’s a terrible, unspeakable evil. He believes that himself. When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down,” the Speaker added.





Fact Check: False, no evidence to back the viral claim​



After the comment blew up, Johnson’s office quickly walked it back.

His team clarified that he wasn’t actually claiming Trump had a badge and a wire, but rather that he was echoing something Epstein victims’ attorney Brad Edwards had said.

“The Speaker is reiterating what the victims’ attorney said, which is that Donald Trump — who kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago — was the only one more than a decade ago willing to help prosecutors expose Epstein for being a disgusting child predator,” Johnson’s office explained in a statement to The Washington Post.

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 20: With Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) by his side President Donald Trump speaks to the press following a House Republican meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump will joined conservative House lawmakers to help push through their budget bill after it advanced through the House Budget Committee on Sunday evening. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
With Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) by his side President Donald Trump speaks to the press following a House Republican meeting at the US Capitol on May 20, 2025 in Washington, DC (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
While Trump wasn’t moonlighting as an FBI informant, he did assist Edwards in some capacity back in the day.



Once friends, later foes: Trump’s ties to Epstein resurface in new scrutiny​

Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were not strangers. They were once pals, until things soured in 2004 when they both went after the same Palm Beach oceanfront property. Trump won that real estate battle. In late 2007, Epstein was reportedly banned from Mar-a-Lago for alleged inappropriate behavior toward a club member’s teenage daughter.

Now, Democrats — and even a few Republicans — are pushing the “Epstein Files Transparency Act,” which would require Trump’s administration to hand over more documents about Epstein’s trafficking operation.

Last week, about a dozen of Epstein’s accusers stood outside the US Capitol to testify about their abuse at the hands of Epstein and his longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. Brad Edwards, the victims’ attorney, shared some telling details about Trump’s role years ago. Edwards said that back in 2009, Trump was cooperative and “friendly” to the victims’ plight, noting that Trump “did not think that it was a hoax and was trying to help.”



Portrait of American financier Jeffrey Epstein (left) and real estate developer Donald Trump as they pose together at the Mar-a-Lago estate, Palm Beach, Florida, 1997. (Photo by Davidoff Studios/Getty Images)
Portrait of American financier Jeffrey Epstein and real Donald Trump as they pose together at the Mar-a-Lago estate, Palm Beach, Florida, 1997 (Davidoff Studios/Getty Images)
But Edwards believes something has shifted. “And now it seems like all of a sudden somebody is in his ear, and he’s not. So I’m hoping he’ll come back to where he was back in 2009, be on the side of the victims and stand with us,” he said.



Pressed on whether Trump officially worked with investigators at the time, Edwards would not say. But he noted that the future president “got on the phone, he told me things that were helping our investigation. Our investigation wasn’t looking into him, but he was helping us then.”

White House insists Trump aided victims​

The White House, meanwhile, insists Trump has always been on the side of justice.

“Trump has always been committed to justice and transparency for these victims. That’s why the Trump Administration is releasing thousands of pages of documents and complying with Oversight requests,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement on September 7.

She further alleged that Democrats were the ones who “ignored Epstein’s victims for years and are now only interested in them as a way to attack President Trump.”
 
"My side" is not a "side" you moron. I'm not protecting Trump, I'm giving an opinion. I think he's protecting someone else. And I think we will eventually find out who it is.

I think his actions are "sus"... I just think they are "sus" for a different reason than you think they are, and I back that up with actual information rather than "feels" and how much I hate Trump...
Oh you can give an opinion and others can understand that opinion as defending trump if they so wish.
 
Unless you were trying to protect someone important to you. You don't need a pardon if you are not guilty... Why did Braindead pardon his son? Answer: to protect someone important to him.

I think even you can understand the path that was just shown you on the map.
If trump is innocent he can just pardon whomever he is protecting after the fact right? Release the files!
 
Oh you can give an opinion and others can understand that opinion as defending trump if they so wish.
Yeah, you can misunderstand what I am saying with the best of folks. That doesn't make it accurate. The reality: I think Trump is acting suspiciously, but I think it is for a different reason than you do. I give reasons for that based in actual information. You think Trump is acting suspiciously, you want it to be about one thing, so you ignore any information that might lead you away from that one thing you want to find... You have tunnel vision, I suspect it is an active symptom of a greater personal problem... I think Trump lives in your brain, that it is MAGAt Infested... but that is neither here nor there.
 
Who would he be protecting so strongly? I doubt it's Melania. The kids were too young.
I'm thinking maybe Jr. And no, he's not "too young"... He would have been 25 or so when Trump was kicking Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago...

This also would be one way to explain that story where it was noted his name was mentioned in the files... if that one was true.
 
Yeah, you can misunderstand what I am saying with the best of folks. That doesn't make it accurate. The reality: I think Trump is acting suspiciously, but I think it is for a different reason than you do. I give reasons for that based in actual information. You think Trump is acting suspiciously, you want it to be about one thing, so you ignore any information that might lead you away from that one thing you want to find... You have tunnel vision, I suspect it is an active symptom of a greater personal problem... I think Trump lives in your brain, that it is MAGAt Infested... but that is neither here nor there.
Keep defending the creep. No skin off my back.
 
I'm thinking maybe Jr. And no, he's not "too young"... He would have been 25 or so when Trump was kicking Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago...
Still, there's the statute of limitations coupled with Junior's lack of interest in running for office. He'll be controlling TrumpCo once Big Daddy retires. So what's left to protect?
 
Yeah, you can misunderstand what I am saying with the best of folks. That doesn't make it accurate. The reality: I think Trump is acting suspiciously, but I think it is for a different reason than you do. I give reasons for that based in actual information. You think Trump is acting suspiciously, you want it to be about one thing, so you ignore any information that might lead you away from that one thing you want to find... You have tunnel vision, I suspect it is an active symptom of a greater personal problem... I think Trump lives in your brain, that it is MAGAt Infested... but that is neither here nor there.
What would be other reasons? We already discussed Junior and the statute of limitations on statutory rape.
 
Still, there's the statute of limitations coupled with Junior's lack of interest in running for office. He'll be controlling TrumpCo once Big Daddy retires. So what's left to protect?
If that were the case then the "three years" thing would be useless. Is there a "statute of limitations" set on this crime in the states in question?

First, there is no (zero none) statute of limitation for having sex with a minor either in Florida or Federally for folks that participated in Epstein's escapades. (really, there isn't).

Florida calls it "sexual battery of a minor" and there is no statute of limitations.
 
You don't have to like what I said. I actually don't give a fuck that you don't.
Clearly you do... A bit of staring at your belly button might be in order. You may figure out why you care so much. Anyway, I'll continue to hold a conversation of what I think is happening... with folks that actually will hold a conversation rather than emote all over me in angry accusation.
 
If that were the case then the "three years" thing would be useless. Is there a "statute of limitations" set on this crime in the states in question?

First, there is no (zero none) statute of limitation for having sex with a minor either in Florida or Federally for folks that participated in Epstein's escapades. (really, there isn't).

Florida calls it "sexual battery of a minor" and there is no statute of limitations.
Not a lawyer but the article linked states there is, albeit with some caveats.

 
Not a lawyer but the article linked states there is, albeit with some caveats.

I'll reference the law here for you. whatever "article" you have is simply wrong. The actual state statute is listed, there is no SOL...

Florida State Law: No SOL (statute of limitations) for Sexual Battery on Minors​


Florida classifies sex with an underage person as sexual battery (Fla. Stat. § 794.011), a felony if the victim is under 18. Key rules:


  • No statute of limitations for any sexual battery against a victim under 18 at the time of the offense. This was solidified by Donna's Law (2020), which eliminated time limits entirely for these crimes—prosecutable at any time, even decades later.
    • Applies retroactively to pre-2020 acts if the victim was under 18.
    • For victims 16–17, prior laws had a 3-year limit if not reported within 72 hours, but Donna's Law overrides this for minors.
  • Examples from Epstein Context:
    • Epstein's 2008 Florida plea (for 2005–2006 acts) was state-level, but federal charges in 2019 (NY) proceeded due to no SOL.
    • If a participant abused a 16-year-old on the island but recruited/transported from Florida, Florida could prosecute under no-SOL rules.
 
Clearly you do... A bit of staring at your belly button might be in order. You may figure out why you care so much. Anyway, I'll continue to hold a conversation of what I think is happening... with folks that actually will hold a conversation rather than emote all over me in angry accusation.
LOL okay? nobody stopping you.
 
Back
Top