By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A newly released email from the Jeffrey Epstein files indicates the convicted sex offender claimed to be in Palm Beach with “all the trump boys” on Christmas Day 2016. This occurred a month after Donald Trump’s first election victory and suggests a social connection at a time Trump claims he had not spoken to Epstein in years. While the exact identities and the veracity of the meeting remain unconfirmed, the email raises questions about the timeline of Trump’s alleged estrangement from Epstein.
Read the original article here
The idea of Jeffrey Epstein, a figure now indelibly linked to serious crimes, reportedly spending time with “the Trump boys” after the 2016 election raises a host of unsettling questions. It paints a picture of elite circles, where questionable associations might have been commonplace, and highlights a perceived pattern of powerful individuals connected to Epstein.
This period, following a significant presidential election, appears to have been a time when Epstein felt comfortable enough to be seen in the company of those associated with the incoming administration. The phrase “hanging with,” used to describe these interactions, carries a certain casualness that contrasts sharply with the gravity of Epstein’s past. It suggests a social connection, a sense of belonging within certain influential circles, that he apparently enjoyed.
The timeline itself is noteworthy, as it places these reported gatherings after Epstein had already pleaded guilty to sex crimes. This context makes any association with him, especially by prominent public figures or their associates, particularly concerning and indicative of a potential disregard for the seriousness of his offenses.
The discussions around these alleged connections often veer into speculation about the true nature of Epstein’s relationships and his eventual demise. The persistent notion that he might not have died in the manner officially reported surfaces repeatedly, fueled by the uncomfortable coincidences and the sheer breadth of his alleged connections.
There’s a notable skepticism regarding official narratives when it comes to Epstein, leading to theories that he might have been moved to a safe location rather than having died. This belief is bolstered by the perceived ease with which he might have orchestrated his own disappearance, given his resources and connections.
Furthermore, the involvement of figures like Bill Barr and Rudy Giuliani, who had roles in Epstein’s past legal dealings, adds another layer of complexity to the narrative. Their past actions and current positions within political circles raise questions about potential cover-ups or preferential treatment that might have benefited Epstein and his associates.
The recurring mention of Thanksgiving gatherings between Trump and Epstein in 2017, as well as the broader assertion that “US is owned by pedophiles,” reflects a deep-seated distrust in the integrity of powerful institutions and the individuals who occupy them. This sentiment suggests a widespread belief that the wealthy and influential operate outside the bounds of the law, shielded by their status and connections.
The notion of a “circle jerk” among wealthy elites, who allegedly brag about their powerful connections and perceive themselves as above the law, captures a prevalent sentiment of cynicism. This perspective implies that such associations, like Epstein’s with the “Trump boys,” are not isolated incidents but rather symptomatic of a larger, interconnected web of privilege and power.
The frustration expressed about the lack of significant consequences for those implicated in Epstein’s circle, despite widespread knowledge of their alleged wrongdoings, highlights a sense of powerlessness. The sentiment that “EVERYONE KNOWS! NO ONE DOES ANYTHING!” underscores a profound disappointment with the justice system and the political establishment.
The specific mention of Epstein pleading guilty to “drastically reduced charges of sex crimes with the help of Acosta and Barr” and Bondi’s subsequent role, further fuels the narrative of a system that protected or enabled Epstein. This history suggests a pattern of leniency and complicity that allowed his alleged activities to continue for years.
The comparisons drawn between Epstein’s alleged associations and the reactions to other political scandals, like Hunter Biden’s laptop, suggest a perception of selective outrage and political maneuvering. The underlying implication is that some associations are deemed more problematic than others based on political affiliation, rather than the inherent severity of the allegations.
Ultimately, the reported interactions between Epstein and “the Trump boys” after the 2016 election, when viewed through the lens of the broader context provided by the input, paint a troubling picture of influence, complicity, and a pervasive sense of injustice. The continuing questions surrounding Epstein’s life and death, coupled with these alleged associations, contribute to a deeply unsettling commentary on power, privilege, and the perceived failures of accountability.