Trump’s Toddler Response to the Epstein Saga
In a surprising turn of events, President Donald Trump has given a reluctant endorsement to a bill in Congress that demands the release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious financier and convicted sex offender. This endorsement raises a critical question: if Trump supports the bill, why not simply release the files? As it stands, Trump has not provided a clear rationale for withholding the documents, leading his advisors to speculate on potential reasons. Some suggest that Trump’s reluctance stems from a desire to avoid appearing guilty, while others point to a more defiant attitude, suggesting that he resists being told what to do, especially by Democrats. This behavior has left many puzzled, particularly since Trump himself had previously indicated an intention to release the files before abruptly changing course earlier this year.
The situation escalated when reporters confronted Trump about his decision not to release the Epstein files. His responses were notably aggressive, with one exchange resulting in him dismissively telling a female reporter to “quiet, piggy.” This outburst reflects a troubling trend in Trump’s communication style, which has often included confrontational remarks towards the media. Instead of addressing the pressing questions about the Epstein files, Trump has opted for belligerent rhetoric, accusing journalists of insubordination and threatening repercussions against media outlets. His administration’s position remains unclear, especially after the Justice Department announced that their review of the Epstein files did not yield evidence warranting further investigation into uncharged parties.
Amidst the confusion, Trump has continued to stoke conspiracy theories surrounding Epstein, suggesting that there may be undisclosed connections between Epstein and prominent political figures. He has tasked former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi with investigating these ties, further complicating the narrative. The White House has also hinted at retaliatory actions against Democrats who push for the release of the files, indicating a willingness to escalate political tensions over this issue. As the situation unfolds, the Epstein investigation remains shrouded in uncertainty, with Trump simultaneously downplaying its significance while also suggesting it could have far-reaching implications for his political adversaries. This paradox leaves the public questioning not only the contents of the files but also the motivations behind their continued secrecy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQrAlwYP_J8
Sign up for
Trump’s Return
, a newsletter featuring coverage of the second Trump presidency.
A bill in
Congress demanding the release of the Epstein files now has the official, albeit reluctant, endorsement of the president himself. And so the question naturally arises: If Donald Trump supports the bill calling on the president (i.e., him) to release the files, why not simply … release them?
Trump reportedly hasn’t given his advisers or allies a rationale for why he won’t do so, leaving them to invent reasons of their own. The answer they’ve come up with is that Trump is innocent and is acting guilty for no reason whatsoever. “He looks like he has something to hide even if he doesn’t,”
asserts
the
Wall Street Journal
editorial page. “This is a self-inflicted wound,” complains Megyn Kelly.
But why has Trump chosen to inflict this wound upon himself? A Trump ally suggests to
Politico
that the president, like many young children, is expressing what some might call oppositional defiant disorder: “POTUS doesn’t like to be told what to do or give Dems a win, so he’s been fighting it.” This theory might make more sense if releasing the Epstein files hadn’t been
Trump’s own idea
before he abruptly reversed course earlier this year.
Trump’s own responses to this very question are even less reassuring.
Asked on Air Force One last Friday why he won’t just release the files, Trump
snapped
at a female reporter, “Quiet, piggy.” As a longtime married man, I have seen enough rom-coms to recognize the trope where Mr. Wrong, after having maintained a thin veneer of suitability for 90 percent of the movie while misbehaving just enough to make the audience root against him, suddenly rips off the mask and delivers a crass or entitled speech that makes the heroine snap out of her infatuation. A set piece in which the bad guy, under suspicion of misogynistic conduct and consorting with a trafficker of teenage girls, launches a sexist attack on an inquisitive female journalist would be too ham-handed even for the writers at the Hallmark Channel.
[
Isabel Fattal: Trump told a woman, ‘Quiet, piggy,’ when she asked him about Epstein
]
Trump apparently concluded that this scenery-chewing performance was too subtle and conciliatory. So when an ABC reporter
asked
the same question at the White House yesterday, he promptly assailed the reporter’s “attitude,” called the question “insubordinate and just a terrible question,” accused the journalist of being “a terrible person and a terrible reporter,” threatened to take away ABC’s broadcast license, and again did not answer the question.
Trump’s bellicose replies are so substantively vacant that it is difficult to discern the administration’s actual position. Having helped whip up paranoia that the “deep state” was burying the Jeffrey Epstein case to protect the elite, Trump pledged to release these files as president. But Trump seems to have forgotten these promises, and the Justice Department and the FBI announced over the summer that, after an “
exhaustive
review” of these files, “we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”
Perhaps the DOJ didn’t share its findings with Trump, given that he wrote on
Truth Social
last week, “I will be asking A.G. Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at the FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him.”
So maybe there
is
evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties? Apparently so, because Bondi immediately accepted the assignment,
explaining this morning
that new information had driven her decision, which only coincidentally came after Trump ordered her to look into various political enemies.
[
David A. Graham: Trump’s Epstein-files punt
]
In place of any explanation as to why Trump is withholding the files, his staff has taken to threatening retribution. “The Democrats are going to come to regret this,” a White House official
told
Politico
. “Let’s start with Stacey Plaskett. You think we’re not going to make a scene of this?”
Plaskett is a nonvoting Democratic delegate from the Virgin Islands who exchanged texts with Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing. If the revenge campaign is going to
start
with her, one wonders where it will end: A state legislative aide? An assistant sewage commissioner in Omaha?
I suspect that the threat of making Plaskett’s career collateral damage will not deter Democrats from continuing to demand the release of the files.
Trump is now left simultaneously insisting that Epstein is too tedious to merit discussion—“pretty boring stuff”—and also is the nuclear bomb that will destroy the entire Democratic Party, or at least an obscure elected official or two. In this way, the Epstein investigation exists in a state of uncertainty, both alive and dead, like Schrödinger’s cat—trapped in a box that, like the ones holding the Epstein files, cannot be opened.
