When President Trump first started ranting, really out of nowhere, about the so-called “Epstein files” being “made up” by his Democrat predecessors, as well as former F.B.I. Director James Comey, it was bizarre and suspiciously defensive. It’s now a lot less weird and a lot less suspicious.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday on a “leather-bound book” containing, among other things, a doodle of a naked woman’s body framing an odd “typewritten” note, both supposedly penned by Trump and addressed to convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. The Journal called the letter and illustration “bawdy” and described the signature as “a squiggly ‘Donald’ below [the drawing’s] waist, mimicking pubic hair.”
The typed text was reportedly written in the third person and as a cryptic dialogue between the president and Epstein:
Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything.
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.
Trump told the Journal that the note, included in a book allegedly compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday, was fraudulent. “I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,” he said. “It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”
I have no idea whether the note is legitimate. We know Trump did have at least some semblance of a relationship with Epstein that goes back to the early 1990s, but so did a lot of people, and Trump said in 2019 that he had not spoken with him for about 15 years prior to that.
We also know that this all sounds almost exactly like another story involving the F.B.I. and a newly discovered document that was damaging to Trump: the case of Paul Manafort and the “black ledger.”
Recall that in August 2016, just after Trump secured the Republican nomination for president, the New York Times broke the story about allegations of secret foreign payments “designated for” Manafort, Trump’s highly effective campaign adviser. The purpose was clearly to demonstrate a link between Russia and Trump, using Manafort’s business dealings in Ukraine. Manafort denied the thrust of the story, but more importantly, the details of how the Times obtained the information were preposterous.
According to the Times, an anti-corruption agency in Ukraine (an oxymoron if there ever was one) just so happened upon the “black ledger” after it was supposedly obtained “when protestors ransacked” an office in Kiev way back in 2014. Words and monetary figures in the compilation of records were all handwritten and purportedly included details of payments for Manafort. Coincidentally, the agency that said it found the book has what the Times called “an evidence-sharing agreement with the F.B.I.”
Around that same time, guess what the F.B.I. was doing. Ah, yes, it was lying on court warrant applications to spy on Trump’s campaign while also working alongside the Democrat nominee’s campaign to further associate Trump with Russia!
This is the same F.B.I. that has been handling the Epstein case. And so here we are. Another seedy book turns up out of nowhere to associate Trump with criminal conduct. What a coincidence.
Manafort was forced out of his role in the Trump campaign, and he ultimately went to prison. What followed were another three years of Democrat and media-driven Russia hysteria, all centered on the fabricated accusation that Trump was an asset of a foreign adversary.
The two events are almost comically identical. An office space in Ukraine was pillaged by political activists, but what luck! A little paper book was eventually recovered — oh, my! Inside is damaging information associated with Trump! In 2025, as Trump set about quickly restructuring the executive branch of the federal government and attempting to hold corrupt Democrats accountable, well, I’ll be — a leather-bound book that makes him look like the dear friend of a notorious pedophile.
By the way, the Ukrainian government itself admitted that the ledger was thin evidence against Manafort, with the anti-corruption bureau saying in a statement in 2016, “We emphasize that the presence of P. Manafort’s name in the list does not mean that he actually got the money.” And subsequent reporting by the Times acknowledged that the ledger may very well have been fraudulent, noting in 2022 that there was “the view within the Ukrainian government that a Trump presidency would be potentially ruinous, and the admission that the ledger had not been fully authenticated and did not prove actual payments made to Manafort.”
I think I understand what Trump was saying about the Epstein files being “made up” now.