'Makes no sense': Analyst reveals why Trump's defense over Epstein letter 'won't hold'

18 July

U.S. President Donald Trump holds a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 30, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

After a tumultuous 24 hours, one analyst is now observing that President Donald Trump must cling to one of three main defenses in response to the Wall Street Journal's recent bombshell report delving into his close friendship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

In the report, Trump is alleged to have written a racy birthday message to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003 (three years before his first conviction). The message alludes to the two having "certain things in common" and calls Epstein a "pal" with whom he may share "a wonderful secret." Trump responded to the story saying that he planned to sue the Journal, its parent company Newscorp and owner Rupert Murdoch.

The Bulwark editor Jonathan V. Last wrote Friday that none of Trump's go-to responses to the Epstein story hold water upon close inspection. He pointed out that Trump has "three possible defenses," which are "the letter doesn't exist," "the letter is a fake" and "the letter doesn't mean anything." In his analysis, Last debunked each argument one by one.

"Until yesterday, Trump had held to #1, insisting that he barely knew Epstein. The Journal story makes that inoperable, so he’s moved on to #2," Last wrote.

He went on to explain that because the Journal's report relies on "too many sources" and "too much evidence," Trump's claim that the Journal fabricated the letter "won't hold." In the article, the Journal reported that the letter Trump wrote to Epstein was part of a compilation of messages that Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell (who is currently serving a 20-year federal prison sentence) assembled as a birthday gift. Last observed that this means that either every letter sent to Epstein was forged, or that Trump's was the only faked message among many, before opining: "Dog won't hunt."

"Who is supposed to have done the forgery? Ghislaine Maxwell? Why? What was her motive?" Last wrote. "Or does Trump mean to suggest that Maxwell was duped by someone else who forged the fake letter and passed it off to her as genuine? Which would mean it was someone in Trump’s office—a trusted assistant or secretary—who claimed to have been delivering a Trump letter to Maxwell, but who instead had concocted a forgery? This also makes no sense."

Ultimately, Last concluded that the only remaining defense Trump has left is that the letter doesn't mean anything significant. And he acknowledged that while he's unsure whether this defense will succeed, he also noted that Trump altering his initial claim "rather than telling the whole truth is a problem." And he pointed one more inconvenience: "This story comes from a Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper."

Click here to read Last's full analysis in The Bulwark.

From Your Site Articles