By John Q. Hosedrinker 
After the release of the latest batch of Jeffrey Epstein files, Donald Trump claimed he was “absolved” of wrongdoing. Although the files mention him over a thousand times, they did not contain new allegations against him. Despite Trump’s earlier calls for complete file releases, he later dismissed them as a political “hoax.” The attorney general’s indication that this release concludes the government’s compliance with the law drew criticism for potential incompleteness.
Read the original article here
Epstein files ‘absolve me’, Trump claims: Right off the bat, it’s pretty clear that the claim “Epstein files ‘absolve me,’ Trump claims” is a bold one, bordering on outright fabrication. The very notion that these files, containing thousands of mentions of him and detailing the sordid activities of Jeffrey Epstein, somehow clear his name is, well, laughable. It’s almost as if he’s attempting to rewrite reality, a tactic we’ve become all too familiar with.
The files themselves, as we understand, don’t exactly scream exoneration. They contain names, details of parties, and, crucially, a lot of redactions. The fact that so much has been hidden speaks volumes. If there was nothing to hide, why the heavy censorship? It’s like saying, “I have nothing to hide,” while simultaneously covering your tracks. The fact that the files even mention Trump so many times is far from a positive indicator. In fact, it seems quite the opposite.
The claims of innocence also clash directly with the known facts. The Mueller report, for example, paints a picture of obstruction, interference, and a pattern of behavior that suggests a willingness to bend the rules, to say the least. Furthermore, consider that the very act of fighting so hard to prevent the release of these files casts a long shadow of suspicion. If the contents were truly harmless to Trump, wouldn’t he welcome their transparency?
The history here is important. Trump is known for his close relationship with Epstein. This isn’t disputed. This is a matter of record. The fallout from the friendship and its resulting lack of transparency surrounding the dealings between Trump and Epstein has led to the current claims of exoneration being difficult to believe. The claim that the files “absolve” him seems to go against the actual reality.
The sheer audacity of this claim is, perhaps, the most telling aspect. It’s a classic example of “saying it makes it so,” a tactic employed often enough that it’s nearly predictable. Trump often operates on the assumption that if he repeats something often enough, it will become accepted as truth. This time, however, the facts just don’t support the assertion. This approach does work for some. Roughly a quarter of the population may believe it. Maybe more, maybe less.
The silence from his allies in the Republican Party is also deafening. The lack of vocal support for his claim speaks volumes. You would expect a chorus of voices defending him if the files truly absolved him. The absence of such a response only underscores the absurdity of the assertion.
Let’s not forget the sheer volume of material. The files reportedly contain over a thousand mentions of Trump. The sheer number of times his name appears seems to contradict the idea of exoneration.
And yet, it works. The man has a loyal following who seem to accept whatever he says, regardless of the evidence. It’s a testament to his charisma or, perhaps, a deeper disconnect from reality. Either way, the claim that the Epstein files absolve him is a classic example of Trump’s playbook: make a bold assertion, ignore the facts, and trust that his supporters will follow.