By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Justice Department has omitted FBI interview notes and memos from its public release of Jeffrey Epstein files, including those pertaining to a woman who accused President Donald Trump of sexual abuse when she was a minor. These withheld documents represent over 50 pages of FBI interviews with this accuser, and also include materials related to another woman, known as “Jane,” who testified about being introduced to Trump by Epstein. Democrats have criticized this selective release as a potential cover-up and a violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, while the Justice Department asserts that all responsive documents have been produced, with any temporary removals due to necessary redactions.
Read the original article here
The revelation that missing Epstein files include interviews with an alleged accuser of Donald Trump has understandably ignited a significant amount of discussion and concern. It appears that an individual interviewed by the FBI in 2019 regarding her experiences with Jeffrey Epstein is also the same person who has accused Trump of forcing her into oral sex when she was a minor, approximately 35 years ago, and subsequently assaulting her. This specific allegation is reportedly detailed in a 2025 PowerPoint presentation that outlines the FBI’s investigations related to Epstein, as well as in a spreadsheet of unverified tips.
What’s particularly striking is the apparent discrepancy in the FBI’s documentation of this accuser’s interviews. While the FBI conducted at least four interviews with her in connection with the Epstein investigations, only one memo, and notably no handwritten notes, reflecting such an interview is currently available on the Department of Justice website. This selective omission, if accurate, raises serious questions about the completeness and transparency of the released documents.
Adding another layer to this developing story, an internal FBI email, circulated around the same time as the PowerPoint presentation and tip spreadsheet, indicated that “salacious information” concerning Trump, among others, was present within the “JE file.” This email explicitly mentioned that “one identified victim claimed abuse by Trump but ultimately refused to cooperate.” While it hasn’t been definitively confirmed that this “identified victim” is the same individual who is now at the center of the missing file discussions, the parallel is certainly cause for further investigation and concern.
The attempts to keep this information from becoming widely known are perceived by many as a clear indication that there is substantial weight to these allegations. The argument is that if these claims were baseless or easily disproven, there would be no need to suppress them so vehemently. The continued effort to obscure details, especially concerning serious accusations of abuse involving a former president, only serves to amplify suspicions and fuel the demand for full disclosure.
The context of this missing information is critical. It’s not just about an unverified tip; this is reportedly about an interview conducted by the FBI, a federal agency tasked with investigating such serious matters. The fact that the accuser has provided testimony over the years and was interviewed multiple times by the FBI suggests that her claims were considered credible enough to warrant significant attention, not just dismissed as a fleeting or unsubstantiated accusation.
The notion of “alleged” accuser also comes under scrutiny. While the legal definition of “alleged” pertains to claims not yet proven in court, the reality on the ground is that the accusation has been made, and the FBI has acknowledged its awareness of at least one person accusing Trump. The deliberate omission of key interview notes and documents, particularly when other, perhaps less substantive, information has been released, appears to be a deliberate act of suppression rather than accidental oversight.
Furthermore, the comparison is often drawn to other pieces of information that have been released from the Epstein files. Some critics point out that certain claims, even those deemed far-fetched by some, were made public, while these specific interviews related to Trump appear to be missing. This selective release strategy is seen as evidence of a coordinated effort to protect certain individuals from scrutiny.
The current situation, with missing files and potential cover-ups, underscores a broader frustration with the perceived lack of accountability for powerful individuals. The hope is that this revelation will compel greater transparency and ensure that all relevant information is brought to light, allowing for a more complete understanding of the events and the individuals involved. The focus remains on uncovering the truth and ensuring that justice, in whatever form it may take, is served.