By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst growing scrutiny of his administration’s handling of evidence related to Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump has denied ever visiting Epstein’s private Caribbean island, Little Saint James. Trump stated that he was invited, but declined to go. This denial follows reports of Trump’s repeated presence in Epstein files and a Justice Department official meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell. The former president’s comments come as he faces increased pressure for transparency regarding the 2019 child sex trafficking case.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump Says He “Never Had the Privilege” to Go to Epstein’s Island. Well, that’s quite a statement, isn’t it? The words themselves are loaded, aren’t they? “Privilege.” It’s the kind of word that automatically raises eyebrows in this context, particularly when used by someone denying involvement in something as controversial as the Epstein saga. The whole thing just feels…off. It’s almost as if he’s acknowledging the island was a special, perhaps even exclusive, place to be.
The sentiment behind those words is a little hard to swallow, considering the details and testimonies surfacing over time. Think about it: why would someone use the word “privilege” when talking about *not* going to a place now infamous for, you know, alleged child sex trafficking? Wouldn’t you just say, “I never went there,” plain and simple? Why complicate it with a word that suggests missing out on something desirable? It seems like a really bizarre choice of words.
Looking at the context, a deeper look suggests Trump and Epstein knew each other, and knew each other well. The discussions surrounding his previous actions paint a clearer picture. Apparently, Epstein frequented Trump’s properties, including Mar-a-Lago, and there are reports of Epstein bringing underage girls there. It’s hard to square those facts with a claim of never having been to the infamous island. It’s all so confusing.
The narrative around Trump’s relationship with Epstein seems to be shifting and difficult to follow. There are accounts of Trump seemingly downplaying his relationship with Epstein, claiming he was not fond of him, and, in fact, threw him out of his club. Then we have the contradictory details of Epstein being a fixture at Trump’s properties, the alleged “delivery” of girls to Trump’s homes, and Trump’s apparent knowledge of Epstein’s activities. And of course, we have the use of the word “privilege.” It just all points in a very different direction.
The question also arises: why would someone lie about something like this? Especially when there’s so much evidence and eyewitness testimony suggesting otherwise? It’s hard to shake the feeling that this is more than just a simple denial; it’s a conscious effort to rewrite history and distance himself from the scandal. The words chosen matter. The language used is so telling.
And let’s be honest, the choice of words, “never had the privilege,” is not just about denying presence; it’s about constructing a narrative. It implies that the island was something special, a place of prestige and exclusivity, like a super-elite club. He could have simply said he didn’t go, full stop. The fact that he didn’t speaks volumes.
The claims that Trump “threw him out of the place” don’t fully hold up either. They’re a clever deflection tactic. It could be argued that the public’s attention is drawn away from what’s really important by that statement. It is distracting, and probably designed to be so.
The fact that Trump has a history of making such claims, coupled with the overwhelming evidence, makes the denial less believable. If he wanted to be taken seriously, he would have used a much more straightforward, simple statement. The choice of words reveals a great deal.
Perhaps the most frustrating part is the apparent lack of serious investigation. Why aren’t journalists and the media holding him accountable for the contradictory information? Why aren’t they pushing for clear answers, or pressing him directly about these things? Where’s the deep dive into the inconsistencies and outright lies? The general public deserves to know the truth, not just more obfuscation.
In conclusion, the statement “I never had the privilege” is a textbook example of how to create a convenient denial while still keeping the door open. It doesn’t deny a relationship; it frames it as a matter of luck. It uses a word that, in this context, raises far more questions than it answers. And it reveals a lot about a person who, even in denial, can’t quite bring himself to avoid the implications. The whole situation smells fishy, and the public deserves more transparency.