By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump’s recent comments regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein have shed new light on his perspective of the scandal. When asked about his former friendship with Epstein, Trump claimed Epstein “stole” Virginia Giuffre, who was a Mar-a-Lago spa worker at the time. This statement, devoid of any empathy for Giuffre, who later became a key accuser of Epstein, reveals Trump’s view of her as property. Furthermore, Trump’s focus on the inconvenience caused by Epstein’s actions and his promotion of his resort’s spa highlights a lack of concern for the victims of Epstein’s crimes. Ultimately, Trump’s words minimize the severity of Epstein’s actions and instead, he seems more concerned with protecting his own image.
Read the original article here
Trump says Epstein “stole” Virginia Giuffre, a heartless and revealing admission. This statement, made in the context of a tragedy and amidst ongoing allegations, is more than just a poorly chosen phrase. It is a window into a disturbing worldview, a worldview where human beings, particularly women, are seen as possessions. It’s chilling to consider the implications of this, especially when we remember that Virginia Giuffre, the woman at the center of this statement, died by suicide just three months prior, after a life dedicated to fighting for the rights of sex trafficking survivors. Now, to hear her referred to as something that could be “stolen” is a stark reminder of the dehumanization and exploitation that she fought so hard against.
The sheer callousness of the statement is almost breathtaking. It reduces a complex human being, a victim of horrific abuse, to a mere object. The use of the word “stole” immediately frames Giuffre as property, something that can be taken from someone. It suggests a sense of ownership, a feeling that she belonged to Trump in some way. This is a deeply disturbing perspective, and one that seems to ignore or dismiss the suffering she endured. The implications are that Giuffre was a commodity, a thing to be possessed and controlled.
The admission, however unintentional, is revealing. If Trump truly believes Epstein “stole” Giuffre, then he clearly views her, and potentially other women, through a lens of ownership. He may see people as pawns in a game, to be used and discarded at will. This perspective directly contradicts the basic principles of human dignity and respect, and it highlights a fundamental lack of empathy. It’s difficult to imagine someone expressing genuine empathy or compassion when using such language. The phrase itself, “stole her,” suggests a narrative where the victim is simply an object, a thing to be fought over.
The fact that this statement was made at all also raises serious questions. Why would Trump choose those words, knowing the pain and suffering Giuffre had endured? What motivates someone to speak this way about a deceased victim of sexual exploitation? There’s a distinct possibility that this was a ploy to get ahead of any accusations against him in terms of trafficking girls from his properties into Epstein’s network. There is no innocent explanation for this statement, and it demands scrutiny.
Considering the accusations, this statement only serves to strengthen the perception that Trump may have been involved in the same crimes for which Epstein was known. The implication that he had some claim over Giuffre suggests an understanding that goes beyond a casual acquaintance. It places him in the orbit of the alleged crimes and puts a spotlight on his associations. The public is left with the unsettling feeling that the truth is yet to be fully revealed.
And the timing of this statement matters. The outrage, the discussions that are generated, and the questions it raises would, logically, be happening shortly after Giuffre’s death. This isn’t just about a single comment; it’s about the pattern of behavior and the worldview that underlies it. It is a very telling sign of how this person may think about women and those he deems below him in society. The fact that he seems to have no filter when saying something as terrible as this, or has no sense that there are potential consequences to such comments, should alarm us all.
The “spa” also becomes significant in this. The idea of underage girls being employed as “spa girls,” coupled with the language of ownership, paints a disturbing picture. It’s no longer just about a bad choice of words; it speaks to a more profound moral failing. The public should be extremely uncomfortable with anyone in a position of power, or attempting to seek such a position, who thinks of other human beings as property.
In the end, this whole situation should make you ask the question of the value of conservatism. Why is it seen as acceptable to defend the actions of the powerful over defending the safety of the innocent? This should be a major question of importance for those who may consider themselves conservative, as well as the American public in general.
This unfortunate situation should be an important reminder that words matter. When powerful individuals speak, the consequences can be far-reaching. And when those words strip away the humanity of others, the damage is immeasurable.