By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Speaking at a press conference, Donald Trump claimed he declined an invitation to Jeffrey Epstein’s island, characterizing it as “one of my very good moments.” Trump has previously stated he never visited the island, which was described as a place for sex trafficking. Despite attempts to shift focus, the controversy surrounding Trump’s ties to Epstein persists. The former president has been feeling pressure from both his MAGA base and Democrats.
Read the original article here
The heart of the matter is this: Trump says he turned down a trip to the infamous Epstein island, the place where horrific abuse took place, calling it “one of my very good moments.” It’s a statement that immediately raises eyebrows, given the extensive connections between Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. The whole situation is a tangled web of implications, denials, and uncomfortable truths, all rolled into a few short words.
Now, the immediate reaction is this: if you have to take pride in not going to a place notorious for child abuse, something is deeply wrong. It’s almost as if he’s acknowledging the possibility, maybe even the temptation, to participate in something truly appalling. It’s a bizarre self-congratulatory moment, as if avoiding the island somehow absolves him of any association with Epstein and the crimes that took place. The issue with this statement is that it really does imply he knew about the activities going on there, at least to some degree.
Of course, there’s the inconvenient matter of flight logs. Reports indicate that Trump’s name appears in them. This raises a massive red flag, regardless of the number of times he may have visited, as the implication is far-reaching. He may not have gone to the island precisely on that one particular invitation, but what about the other opportunities? And what does it say that he was even considered for a trip in the first place? It suggests a level of familiarity, even if not on the island itself.
The whole “good moment” thing just rings hollow. It feels like an attempt at deflection, a way to distance himself from the ugliness of Epstein’s crimes. But it backfires because it forces the question: what exactly was he turning down? And what does it say that he considers it such a triumph? It’s not exactly the behavior of someone entirely innocent of any wrongdoing or knowledge of such things.
It also doesn’t help that Trump seems to have a habit of making these kinds of statements. He is usually very careful about this subject. He frequently denies ever going to the island, which isn’t surprising, given the scrutiny. However, it is also known that abuse happened in other locations associated with Epstein, like Mar-a-Lago, and on Epstein’s plane. By only denying the island visits, it opens the door for suspicion.
The problem is that even if he is technically telling the truth about *that particular trip*, it’s the *context* that’s so damning. It points to a connection, and a level of awareness, that’s impossible to ignore. This is a prime example of how the truth can be far more damaging than a lie when it comes to Trump. The nuance gets lost, and the public is left to fill in the gaps with their own conclusions.
Plus, there’s the awkwardness of the phrase itself: “I never had the privilege of going to his island.” “Privilege?” It implies that he was considered to have special status in Epstein’s circle. He knew the invitation existed, and the fact that he’s acknowledging he could have been there implies that he had enough of a relationship with Epstein to be included. This shows he was in the circle of those invited, even if he didn’t physically go to the island.
This whole situation brings to mind other locations as well, like Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in New Mexico. The abuse wasn’t confined to one specific place, and the fact that Trump could be considered for an invitation to such a place speaks volumes. It implies he had an association with Epstein and the people in his inner circle. And if he was offered the trip, he was likely offered others.
Ultimately, Trump’s claim of turning down the trip, and calling it a “good moment,” is a masterclass in how to make a bad situation even worse. It’s a clumsy attempt to create distance that only highlights the problematic connections. It inadvertently admits to a certain level of awareness of what was going on, even if he wasn’t actively participating. And when you’re already under intense scrutiny, statements like these only serve to raise further questions and deepen the shadows. It’s a self-inflicted wound. The words themselves are an admission of something – even if it’s just a degree of knowingness – that will inevitably haunt him.