Democrats on the House oversight committee disclosed three emails between the late pedophile, his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, and novelist Michael Wolff that included references to the president between 2011 and 2019.
The revelations appeared to be intended to cast doubt on Trump's acquaintance with Epstein and any knowledge he might have had of the financier's purported exploitation of minors.
Trump has repeatedly denied knowing about Epstein's alleged misdeeds, claimed to have severed their relationship years ago, and neither sent nor received any of the emails.
“Oversight Dems have received new emails from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate that raise serious questions about Donald Trump and his knowledge of Epstein’s horrific crimes,”
Democrats posted on Wednesday on social media.
“Read them for yourself. It’s time to end this cover-up and RELEASE THE FILES.”
In one email to Wolff dated 31 January 2019, Epstein apparently wrote:
“Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever... of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine [sic] to stop.”
In a different April 2011 email, Epstein told Maxwell that Trump had "spent hours" with an unnamed victim.
“i want you to realise that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump...[VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him...he has never once been mentioned,”
Epstein told Maxwell, according to the emails.
On December 15, 2015, the night before a Republican presidential primary debate, Wolff reportedly wrote to Epstein informing the disgraced financier that CNN was "planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you — either on air or in scrum afterwards."
The "selectively leaked emails" were used to "create a fake narrative," according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who also accused the Democrats of waging a "smear" campaign against Trump.
Additionally, she identified the late Virginia Giuffre as the deleted victim in the emails and referenced Giuffre's statement from her postmortem memoir that Trump "couldn't have been friendlier" with her.
“The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club decades ago for being a creep to his female employees, including Giuffre,”
Leavitt said.
“These stories are nothing more than bad-faith efforts to distract from President Trump’s historic accomplishments, and any American with common sense sees right through this hoax and clear distraction from the government opening back up again.”
Democrats on the committee received the emails after subpoenaing records and documents from Epstein's estate earlier this year.
Following the president's push to make the documents public last year, the Trump administration was plunged into a months-long crisis over the Epstein files during the summer.
The FBI and the Justice Department jointly issued a memo in July that essentially ruled on the issue and stated that no more records would be made public.
More than seven weeks after winning a special election in Arizona to take her late father's seat, Democrat Adelita Grijalva was scheduled to take the oath of office as its newest member on Wednesday.
What legal or political consequences could follow these revelations?
Egalitarians and political opponents are likely to use the information to challenge Trump’s credibility and character, shaping narratives in ongoing political juggernauts or legislative battles. This could erode public trust or influence namer stations.
There will be boosted demands from lawgivers, advocacy groups, and the media for the Justice Department and other agencies to release all Epstein- related investigative lines. This pressure could lead to wider exposures affecting multiple high- profile numbers. The White House and Trump abettors will probably continue framing the exposures as politically motivated leaks designed to damage Trump, which could consolidate prejudiced divisions and complicate bipartisan cooperation.
Indeed absent formal charges, the association with Epstein’s misconduct in emails can beget lasting reputational detriment affecting Trump’s political and business dealings. Overall, the consequences center more on political and reputational pitfalls with eventuality for expanded investigative and oversight conduct, rather than immediate legal charges.