By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A confidential source alleged to the FBI that Donald Trump visited Jeffrey Epstein shortly before announcing his presidential candidacy in 2015 and remained “very close” with the convicted sex offender after his election. The source claimed Trump visited Epstein’s property for lunch in the spring of 2015, contradicting Trump’s later statements about a significant falling out with Epstein. These allegations, part of a recent Justice Department release of Epstein files, emerged despite the White House labeling them as false and baseless. Epstein himself had reportedly described Trump as a long-time confidant in recorded conversations.
Read the original article here
The question of Donald Trump’s interactions with Jeffrey Epstein before his 2016 presidential run has resurfaced with new revelations from FBI source claims. Reports suggest that Trump may have visited Epstein’s home in the period leading up to his announcement to run for president, a detail that stands in stark contrast to his later public statements. In 2019, Trump asserted he hadn’t been in contact with Epstein for approximately 15 years, a claim that now faces renewed scrutiny.
The ongoing release of documents related to Epstein’s activities continues to bring new names and details to light, inevitably raising more questions. These disclosures have painted a disturbing picture of Epstein’s alleged abuses, with extensive descriptions of his actions and even accounts of him allegedly bragging about spying on minors. The revelations have led to discussions about the severity of these alleged crimes and the potential for accountability.
It’s been observed that while individuals in other parts of the world implicated in similar scandals have begun to face consequences, such as the loss of titles or pressure to resign, the United States has seen a different pattern. With Epstein himself deceased and unable to stand trial, attention has increasingly focused on the powerful individuals named in the released files.
One name that repeatedly appears in these documents is Donald Trump. The persistent mention of Trump in connection with Epstein has led to a growing sentiment that the focus should shift from the deceased Epstein to the living individuals allegedly involved, including Trump. This perspective suggests that the full extent of these connections needs to be thoroughly investigated and understood.
The sheer volume of information emerging, with Trump reportedly mentioned tens of thousands of times in the latest releases, has prompted reflection on how such information might be perceived by different groups. The idea that this extensive documentation, if it were to feature the name of someone more familiar to individuals or their acquaintances, might lead to a change in belief, is a point of discussion. The argument is made that the prominence of Trump’s name in these files is significant and damning.
The potential implications of these findings are substantial. The suggestion that a twice-impeached, multiple-indicted, and convicted former president might have been untruthful about his relationship with a convicted sex offender has been met with a degree of unsurprised resignation by some. The historical timeline of their association, reportedly beginning as early as 1985, further complicates the narrative.
Further complicating matters are alleged connections between Epstein and Russia. Reports indicate that Epstein discussed Russia with figures like Steve Bannon until shortly before his death. Combined with existing information about Bannon’s meetings with Russian officials and diplomats, and the findings of the Mueller report and investigations into Trump’s financial history and Russian ties, this paints a concerning picture of potential compromise at high levels of government.
The timing of certain events, such as Trump’s first visit to Moscow in 1987, shortly after which he reportedly questioned US membership in NATO, and the fact that Epstein was allegedly discussing Russia with Bannon during Trump’s presidency, has fueled speculation about broader geopolitical implications. The emergence of this information from the Epstein files, alongside existing concerns about Russian interference, has raised alarms for some about the integrity of governmental processes.
The notion that the entire Republican party has somehow been “Epsteined” has been put forth, suggesting a pervasive influence. Specific instances, like reports of Trump and Epstein spending Thanksgiving together in 2016, after Trump’s election, are highlighted. This raises questions about the expected societal standards regarding individuals linked to serious crimes and election interference, particularly when it comes to political power.
The question of whether Epstein could serve as a missing link in understanding certain connections, including those with Russia, is being explored. The lack of widespread public protests or sustained media focus on the details emerging from these files, particularly in comparison to other political controversies, has been noted.
Comparisons are drawn to the alleged actions and statements of other political figures, suggesting a double standard in how scrutiny is applied. The extensive redactions and the slow release of information have also been interpreted by some as evidence of an effort to protect certain individuals. The suggestion that Trump’s presidential run may have been influenced by these connections, perhaps to avoid prosecution, is also a viewpoint being expressed.
The idea of “obfuscation” as a sign of culpability is central to some arguments, suggesting that a person with nothing to hide would welcome transparency. The possibility that Epstein might have been seeking a pardon from Trump if he were elected is also raised. This echoes themes of a perceived “club” of influential individuals, where participation in illicit activities might be a prerequisite for advancement, a concept also applied to other scandals in different industries.
The notion that Epstein was not necessarily the mastermind but a facilitator in a larger network is also presented. The idea of Trump needing to seek approval from a “cabal” before running for president is part of this speculative framework. The alleged strategy of overwhelming investigators with too much evidence is another theory being discussed.
The purported exchange between Trump and Epstein, where Epstein might have promised to help Trump if he became president in exchange for his own protection, is a striking hypothetical. The implication is that Trump’s presidency could have been influenced by these dynamics. The close relationship between Epstein and Vladimir Putin, and the subsequent arrival of Putin’s representatives as the first visitors to President Trump in 2016, is presented as a significant and concerning development, reinforcing the view that Trump has consistently been a Russian asset.
The alleged advice and intelligence that Bannon received from Epstein during Trump’s first term further strengthens the perceived closeness between these figures. The assertion that “nothing will move the needle” for many, given the established patterns of behavior and belief, underscores a sense of entrenched polarization.
The idea that Trump’s actions, including alleged involvement with Epstein, are inextricably linked to his political career, and that the “Trump/Epstein files” are two sides of the same coin, is a strong statement. The question of whether Trump may have visited Epstein’s home specifically to purge evidence before his presidential run is also being considered. The desire for a clear count of mentions for each individual within the released documents highlights the ongoing effort to analyze and understand the full scope of these revelations.