By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump has denied the authenticity of his signature on a birthday greeting to Jeffrey Epstein from 2003, but this denial raises questions about the implausibility of a long-ago forgery. The author argues that the simplest explanation is likely the correct one, highlighting the principle of parsimony. Another writer suggests that Trump’s lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal offers an opportunity to determine the truth through testimony and handwriting analysis. The ultimate question at hand is whether Trump signed the card.
Read the original article here
Why would someone forge Trump’s signature in a letter to Epstein 22 years ago? Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? And the answers, or the lack thereof, are quite revealing.
The immediate thought that springs to mind, as we delve into this, is that it seems rather unlikely. Why would someone go to the trouble of forging a signature on a letter to Epstein, a man who, at the time, wasn’t necessarily the lightning rod he would become? Who would have foreseen the future? And more importantly, what would be the motivation? It’s a question that requires a deep dive, but the consensus seems to be, based on the input, that the whole idea is pretty ridiculous.
The suggestion that Democrats, with a presumed mastery of time travel (apparently, a prerequisite for crafting such a conspiracy), are behind it is, to put it mildly, outlandish. It’s the kind of narrative that thrives on conspiracy theories, where any and every action, no matter how improbable, is somehow a nefarious plot. If someone *was* to concoct such a wild story, it would be done to create a false narrative.
Let’s consider the alternative. Suppose the signature is, in fact, genuine. What does that say? It suggests a connection, a relationship, that, at the very least, warrants scrutiny. It’s not just about a signature; it’s about the context, the timing, the people involved. It’s about recognizing what’s politically useful to believe, a cornerstone of totalitarianism.
The accusations fly in both directions, with some alleging that Trump would deny the signature regardless, employing the familiar “deny and hit back” strategy. Others suggest he would deflect by simply blaming it on the Democrats. Such a tactic highlights the fluidity of truth in certain political circles, where the facts bend to fit the narrative. And if you can blame the Democrats for everything, like the “deep state” then anything is possible.
Then there is the book itself, the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell asked multiple people to write letters to Jeffrey Epstein for a birthday book. If someone *was* to forge a letter for this book, it would mean they’d have to somehow intercept and then substitute the pages. It would require a level of precision, coordination, and, again, foresight that seems improbable. This would have been quite the “long game,” indeed.
The core of the matter boils down to what’s likely, what’s reasonable, and what aligns with established patterns of behavior. And with the input at hand, it doesn’t seem particularly probable. Would someone forge a letter 22 years ago to frame a man who wasn’t even considering a run for office at the time? It’s a stretch, especially given that Trump was a Democrat at the time.
It seems to point in a singular direction: the signature is likely real. A lot of the commenters find it absurd, and that is probably the prevailing consensus.