By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Wall Street Journal reported on a “bawdy” birthday note Donald Trump wrote to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003, which included a doodle of a voluptuous woman and salacious language. In response to the report, Trump and his team offered differing defenses. J.D. Vance claimed the story was fabricated, asserting the Trump team was not shown the letter before publication and questioning the Journal’s ethics. Conversely, Trump claimed he warned the publication of a potential lawsuit, stating the letter was “FAKE” and “malicious.”
Read the original article here
Trump and JD Vance’s response to the recent *Wall Street Journal* story concerning Jeffrey Epstein has been, to put it mildly, a spectacular misfire. It’s almost as though they’re still operating on a “deny everything, admit nothing” playbook, a strategy that might have worked a decade ago, but now just comes across as tone-deaf and, frankly, a little embarrassing. The whole situation is like watching a car crash in slow motion, except instead of a car, it’s their reputations, and instead of a crash, it’s a series of escalating blunders.
The core issue revolves around a letter mentioned in the *WSJ* report, purportedly from Trump, that seems to paint him in an unfavorable light regarding his relationship with Epstein. The immediate response from both Trump and Vance was a mix of denial and deflection. They essentially called the story, or at least the letter, a hoax. However, this tactic quickly crumbled. The *WSJ* is a publication with a reputation for meticulous fact-checking and access to key documents. The implication is clear: if they’re running a story, they likely have the goods. And, as the initial response already highlights, their sources include the Epstein Black Book, as well as joint lawsuits with Trump.
The problem here, as many observers have pointed out, is that the “fake news” defense simply doesn’t hold water anymore, especially when leveled against a publication like the *Wall Street Journal*. It smacks of desperation, a clinging to a narrative that has lost its power. Both Trump and Vance appear to have miscalculated badly, underestimating the *WSJ*’s resources and the potential for fallout from the Epstein connection. The fact that Trump fired the Epstein prosecutor the day after the *WSJ* told him about the story only fuels speculation, suggesting an attempt to control the narrative, however clumsy.
Then there’s JD Vance. His role in this debacle highlights just how quickly the Trump train can derail those who hitch their wagons to it. Vance, who built his political brand on proximity to Trump, now finds himself in the uncomfortable position of either defending the indefensible or distancing himself from a figure whose influence is waning. His initial responses, if they were a tactical move, have backfired, further solidifying his image as a Trump loyalist, even as the evidence of Trump’s entanglement with Epstein piles up. One has to wonder if Vance is just the fall guy, ready to take the blame when Trump is no longer capable of taking the responsibility.
The situation has a distinct whiff of the pre-emptive damage control, further complicating matters. The idea that the *WSJ* didn’t have access to the document, that it was somehow a misinterpretation, or a forgery, only adds fuel to the fire, making them look even more clumsy. One can only imagine the discussions taking place, the scrambling to find a way out, the realization that the game is up and the only thing left is to watch the inevitable train wreck.
The fact that Trump and Epstein were associated is not new information, but the details revealed in the *WSJ* story, coupled with the subsequent reaction, have significantly elevated the stakes. Their responses, rather than quelling the controversy, have only served to amplify it, inviting further scrutiny and likely, more damaging revelations. The issue will not go away, and as new materials are made public, the more vulnerable both Vance and Trump will become.
This whole episode is a perfect example of how the old rules of political damage control no longer apply. The MAGA playbook, the reliance on bluster and denial, is being shown to be outdated. They’re not just fighting the media; they’re battling reality, and in this case, reality seems to be winning. It’s a stark reminder that even the most carefully constructed image can crumble under the weight of scandal and a lack of credible response. The only thing remaining is the squirming of those involved as the fire continues to burn.
In the end, the “humiliating flub” isn’t just about the specific details of the Epstein story, it’s about a broader failure of leadership and a demonstration that these leaders may not be as smart or as in charge as they’d like everyone to believe. The world, and the court of public opinion, is watching, and the longer they double down, the more they will be exposed. The ultimate fate of Trump and Vance remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: this is a lesson in how not to handle a crisis, and an example of how to speedrun the destruction of any remaining political credibility.