By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump’s attempts to distance himself from Jeffrey Epstein are complicated by his own statements. Trump confirmed that the dispute stemmed from Epstein hiring young women from his Mar-a-Lago spa, which led to their falling out and Epstein’s expulsion from the club. This account, however, contrasts with previous statements and reports that suggest the rift may have resulted from other factors, such as competition over a Palm Beach property. These revelations raise questions about what Trump knew about Epstein’s activities, particularly given his past comments and the timeline of events.
Read the original article here
Trump says Epstein poached young women from Mar-a-Lago. That raises new questions about what he knew.
The very statement itself, delivered by Donald Trump, immediately sets off alarm bells. Framing it as Epstein “poaching” young women from Mar-a-Lago, instead of, say, acknowledging the potential exploitation of minors, is a deeply unsettling choice of words. It suggests a perspective where the primary concern isn’t the trafficking and abuse of vulnerable individuals, but rather a perceived violation of some sort of “property” or business practice. It also glosses over the age of these individuals, they were children, and that fact cannot be overstated.
Consider what the normal reaction would be if someone discovered a colleague was allegedly involved in sex trafficking: one would call law enforcement. Not tell the alleged perpetrator that you’re “no longer friends.” The fact that Trump didn’t, instead implying a severed friendship, is highly concerning. It subtly shifts the narrative, focusing on the perceived betrayal by Epstein rather than the abhorrent nature of the crimes themselves.
The implication that Trump employed underage girls at Mar-a-Lago is the next unsettling piece of the puzzle. Why were young women, sometimes children, working at a place like that? What were their roles? Were they subjected to the same potential exploitation as those involved in Epstein’s known network? Given that this was, at least, the venue for Epstein’s operation, is it reasonable to assume Trump was completely unaware of any potential connection, let alone a full-blown operation?
The guest list at Mar-a-Lago deserves serious scrutiny. What was the nature of the interactions at the resort? Were there massages with “happy endings” offered, perhaps by underage girls? Could there be evidence of these potential activities captured on video, which could be used for blackmail? These are not just hypothetical scenarios; they’re questions that must be asked in light of Trump’s statements and the known facts.
The constant drip-feed of information, each admission raising more questions than it answers, is a hallmark of this unfolding story. Trump seems unable to control what he says, consistently revealing aspects of the situation that would suggest a clear complicity. It’s as if he’s incapable of fully comprehending the implications of his words, further implicating himself with each passing statement.
The core of the issue is that Trump is not primarily concerned about the horrific nature of Epstein’s crimes. His focus seems to be on the perceived slight of having those under his employ, or at least access to them, taken away. It’s not about the exploitation of children; it’s about the violation of his “turf.” This shift in perspective is deeply disturbing.
If Trump was truly innocent and knew nothing about Epstein’s activities, the logical course of action over the course of the last 30 years would have been to testify against him. But Trump has remained silent, a point that only deepens the suspicion and begs the question: why?
The media’s coverage of this should be more aggressive in asking the right questions. Instead of focusing on the ambiguity of “young women,” the focus should be on the potential exploitation of children and Trump’s direct involvement. Why were underaged girls working there, and what activities were they engaged in? Were Trump’s beauty pageants used to supply Epstein’s operations? Were the two working together, or were they competing for the same victims?
The phrase “stole,” used in this context, is particularly chilling. It dehumanizes the victims, treating them as mere objects, and mirroring the language of those who traffic in human beings. It’s a choice of words that further implicates him in at least knowing of the activities if not directly involved. It does not suggest that the speaker is even slightly concerned about their welfare.
The focus of all investigations should be the alleged presence of sex trafficking. What occurred at Mar-a-Lago? Were the girls at the resort somehow involved with Epstein’s operations? Did Trump provide access to the young women, knowing what Epstein did? Does the resort operate as a front for child sexual abuse?
In this case, the phrase, “What he knew” is more of a rhetorical question than an actual inquiry. It suggests the obvious; that Trump was a full-on participant, aware of Epstein’s activities and complicit in them. The only question is: will all the facts be released so the world can determine the extent of the truth?