On July 17, The Wall Street Journal published an article that was obviously intended to damage President Donald Trump, tie him to infamous alleged sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and ignite a scandal. It may have had the opposite effect, however, and could also turn out to be a critical self-inflicted wound for the newspaper. The article contained an excerpt from a letter supposedly sent by Trump to Epstein in 2003. It is the most bizarre note – almost surreal and not even remotely Trump-like. The president vociferously denied authoring the letter and vowed to sue The Wall Street Journal and its owner, media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
Additionally, President Trump has also instructed Pam Bondi to “produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,” referring to Epstein’s 2019 indictment. He was charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors.
Where is the evidence that the letter to Epstein – assuming it exists – was written by Trump? Jeffrey Epstein, a once-successful financial manager, was something of a playboy and jetsetter. He knew a great many wealthy and influential people. That he got to know Trump when the latter was a prominent New York real estate developer is hardly surprising.
In 2008, Trump banned Epstein from his exclusive Mar-a-Lago club for hitting on another member’s teenage daughter. By the time of Epstein’s death – a suicide, or so the official story goes – the two men had not spoken for some 15 years.
Why does it appear that the letter The Wall Street Journal claims Trump wrote to Epstein is a hoax? To begin, one must read the excerpt that the paper published. It was typed, not handwritten – which several people have observed is out of character for Trump. From The Wall Street Journal:
“It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared. Inside the outline of a naked woman was a typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person.
‘Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,’ the note began.
Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.
Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.
Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.
Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?
Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.
Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
What to make of that? A childish attempt to appear profound, perhaps? It’s clearly worded in a way that suggests the two men were linked by Epstein’s illicit sexual escapades. But could anyone who has read the president’s social media posts, heard him give a speech, or watched him being interviewed – even from decades ago – imagine him writing in such a manner?
The X social media platform AI chatbot, Grok, confirms:“[T]here is no evidence that Donald Trump has ever publicly used the word ‘enigma’ in his speeches, interviews, books, social media posts, or other statements. Comprehensive searches of databases cataloging his complete public record, including transcripts and quotes, yielded no results.”
The published excerpt definitely suggests that Trump and Epstein were at the time extremely close. It almost conveys intimacy – a bromance, as the kids today would say. Yet who types, rather than writes, such personal happy birthday wishes to such a very dear friend? And how convenient is it that the message is typed, rather than being quickly identifiable as Trump’s handwriting?
The Wall Street Journal couldn’t show Trump the original note when someone from the paper interviewed him about it. The newspaper is not in possession of the letter, as it turns out. Nor does the paper identify the means by which it came across this correspondence or who provided it.
Publishing an alleged letter that could destroy a person’s reputation while unwilling or unable to show that letter to the victim first? That in itself incinerates this newspaper’s integrity – or what was left of it – right away.
Liberty Nation depends on the support of our readers. Donate now!
The timing is also quite incredible. Why now, after all these years, does someone suddenly go to the media with this? DC’s most prominent paper, despite its unabashed and obvious bias against the president, published a Trump-Epstein story, ironically enough, right before The Wall Street Journal ran with its hit piece. It read, in part:
“But no credible allegation has emerged to connect Trump to any of Epstein’s crimes. If the full file is ever released, we are confident that no connection would be found.
“Rest assured – if Trump were prominently mentioned, it would have been leaked by now.”
That last line is surprisingly and brutally honest, coming from a newspaper that barely ever writes a single positive thing about Donald Trump.
Lastly, there’s the matter of an interesting backstory on one of the journalists who penned the Wall Street Journal article. Joe Palazzolo, who also reported extensively on the Stormy Daniels episode, previously wrote for the trade publication Main Justice, founded by Mary Jacoby. Jacoby is married to none other than Glenn Simpson, the founder of Washington-based strategic intelligence firm Fusion GPS.
Those who followed the unfolding of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax will remember Fusion GPS as the firm Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign turned to for opposition research on Trump. Fusion GPS contracted former British spy Christopher Steele, and a conspiracy theory was born – or, rather, created.
The unrest in the MAGA world over the Epstein files – or lack of them – inspired some in the left-wing media to breathlessly report the fracturing of Trump’s base. The Wall Street Journal may have torpedoed that dream with an article so seemingly outlandish that MAGA Nation has united to ridicule it.
So many media-promoted hoaxes and fictitious stories – many of them connected to President Trump – were ultimately exposed as inaccurate at best and utter nonsense at worst. One would think news outlets, by now, might have learned to take great care not to publish defamatory, potentially libelous, or just plain ridiculous “scoops,” most especially concerning Trump, without vetting their sources and attaining iron-clad verification of the supposed facts. Should the president follow through on his threatened lawsuit aimed at The Wall Street Journal, it seems he is almost certain to score another huge payday for his future presidential library.