By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Three memos detailing four FBI interviews from 2019 contain unsubstantiated claims of Donald Trump sexually abusing a woman when she was a minor, with the alleged assistance of Jeffrey Epstein. These crucial documents were not included in the millions of pages of Epstein-related files released by the Department of Justice, sparking outrage and congressional investigations. The Guardian obtained these “missing” FBI form 302 reports, which memorialize the interviews, but the woman’s allegations remain unverified and the FBI brought no charges. Administration officials have stated the withheld material was duplicative or privileged, while congressional Democrats are demanding a full accounting for the files’ omission.
Read the original article here
The recent unsealing of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein has brought to light an explicit, yet unsubstantiated, claim that Donald Trump sexually abused a minor. This allegation, contained within FBI interview notes, has generated significant discussion and scrutiny, particularly given the context of the Epstein files and past accusations against Trump.
The core of the matter lies in several FBI interview memos, specifically three that detail four interviews conducted in 2019. These memos reportedly contain explicit allegations from a woman who claims Trump abused her when she was a minor in the early 1980s, with Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged involvement.
A crucial point of contention is the absence of these specific interview records from the initial public release of the Epstein-related documents by the Department of Justice. This omission has fueled accusations of a cover-up and deliberate suppression of evidence, with some arguing that the “suppression of evidence should be considered the greatest of evidence.”
The claim itself is described as “explicit but unsubstantiated” by The Guardian, which reviewed the documents. However, the term “unsubstantiated” is being widely debated, with many suggesting it’s a mischaracterization given the alleged actions taken by the Department of Justice and the circumstances surrounding the release of the files.
Critics point to the fact that these specific FBI interview notes were not initially included in the publicly released batch of millions of pages of Epstein documents. The existence of these missing documents was first brought to light by independent journalist Roger Sollenberger and subsequently confirmed by NPR, leading to outrage and prompting an investigation by congressional Democrats.
The Guardian obtained the specific FBI Form 302 reports, which comprise 25 pages of agents’ notes from four interviews conducted in the summer and fall of 2019. The woman reportedly came forward after recognizing Epstein from a photo shared by a childhood friend. Notably, only the first interview session, where Trump was not named, was included in the initial public release.
The question of substantiation is central to the ongoing discussion. Many commenters express skepticism that the claim is truly unsubstantiated when the very evidence that might lead to substantiation appears to have been withheld or not fully investigated. The argument is made that “unsubstantiated because it’s never been investigated,” and that the DOJ’s actions, along with potential withholding of documents by figures like AG Pam Bondi, suggest a “guilty conscience.”
Some view the situation through the lens of past behavior and allegations against Donald Trump. His history, including accusations of sexual misconduct, being found civilly liable for sexual abuse, and his own public statements, leads many to believe such allegations against him are plausible. One sentiment is that “Trump is a sexual predator, criminal and traitor so why wouldn’t these allegations be true? They fit literally every single thing we know about him.”
The sheer volume of documents related to Epstein, with millions of pages yet to be released, also plays a role in the perception of an ongoing cover-up. The presence of “millions of black bars in the files” and the vast quantities of unreleased material are seen by some as indicative of deliberate concealment.
The initial claim described in the documents involves a woman who allegedly came forward to FBI agents. She reportedly recognized Epstein from a photograph and came to believe that he and Trump were involved in underage sex parties. One account within the files suggests the woman was enticed to travel across state lines to meet with Epstein and Trump for “special parties” where she was told she had to perform sexual acts on both men to further her modeling career.
The handling of the case by the Department of Justice and the withholding of these specific interview memos are central to the public reaction. Many feel that the “cover up by the DOJ is what substantiates the claim that Trump is a pedophile,” or at the very least, suggests a pattern of obstruction.
There’s a strong sentiment that the absence of a thorough investigation, coupled with the alleged suppression of evidence, is what renders the claim “unsubstantiated.” The comparison is drawn to other cases where allegations have surfaced, with a desire for transparency and accountability.
The potential implications of these documents and the allegations are significant, prompting calls for a full and impartial investigation. The idea that the DOJ could choose to “release the files and investigate what’s in them” but allegedly hasn’t, further fuels the narrative of a cover-up.
Ultimately, the “explicit but unsubstantiated” claim within the Epstein files regarding Donald Trump’s alleged abuse of a minor has ignited a debate about the nature of evidence, the role of institutions in releasing sensitive information, and the broader pattern of accusations against Donald Trump. The perceived lack of transparency and the alleged withholding of key documents have led many to believe that the claim, while not yet proven in a court of law, is far from being dismissed.